From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 00:39:45 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain)
Subject: Booklet 3

~Koot Hoomi Unveiled~ or ~Tibetan "Buddhists" versus The
Buddhists of Tibet~ by Arthur Lillie is now available from the
Theosophical Research Group (Bristol, UK).

Theos list subscribers please contact me by e-mail for speediest
response.

R.A.Gilber, in the Preface, writes:

"At the time of its publication [1883] ~Koot Hoomi Unveiled~ was
attacked with vitriolic abuse, but with precious little reason,
and Lillie's strictures have remained largely unanswered."

This booklet contains the famous "Kiddle Letter," and Mr.
Gilbert goes on to remind us that there is no religion higher
than truth - a prime motivation behind the work of the TS
Research Group itself.

AB

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 00:39:45 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain)
Subject: Booklet 3

~Koot Hoomi Unveiled~ or ~Tibetan "Buddhists" versus The
Buddhists of Tibet~ by Arthur Lillie is now available from the
Theosophical Research Group (Bristol, UK).

Theos list subscribers please contact me by e-mail for speediest
response.

R.A.Gilber, in the Preface, writes:

"At the time of its publication [1883] ~Koot Hoomi Unveiled~ was
attacked with vitriolic abuse, but with precious little reason,
and Lillie's strictures have remained largely unanswered."

This booklet contains the famous "Kiddle Letter," and Mr.
Gilbert goes on to remind us that there is no religion higher
than truth - a prime motivation behind the work of the TS
Research Group itself.

AB
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 01:00:43 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain)
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

Higher-manas-mail.

Alan

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 03:44:04 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Daniel's crusade (fwd)

According to K. Paul Johnson:

> Subject: Daniel's crusade
> Date: 01 Nov 1995 03:45:23 GMT
> From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
> Subject: Email from Daniel
>
> Paul Johnson
>
> Thanks for your posting "Ignoring 95%". I recieved several e-mail
> messages from people commenting on your posting. One said you were "a
> psychological basket case." Another said he was sick of your "pissing and
> moaning." Someone else said she thought you were motivated by fear since
> you were not dealing with the historical issues raised. Personally I find all
> of this somewhat boring since none of what you said in "Ignoring 95%" or what
> they said in their e-mails deal directly with the issues and criticisms raised
> by Dr. Algeo or raised by me in my various Parts.
>
> Part IV has now been posted on theos-roots. I believe that I have shown that
> you use a double standard when it comes to assessing evidence. You demand that
> your critics must use a higher standard; but you use a much lower standard
> when assessing evidence in your own books.
>
> By your own words 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", you have given the standard by which
> we in turn can judge the accounts by Olcott ACCEPTED by you as evidence that
> he met real Adepts and Masters. I believe the intelligent, interested reader
> of my Part IV will see this double standard as illustrated in *your very own
> words*!
>
> I have sent copies of Part IV to David Lane, John Cooper, Geoffrey Farthing,
> and others. It will be interesting to see their replies and comments.
>
> Part V will deal with your latest SUNY book and will deal with your attempts
> to dismiss various testimonies of meeting t
> he Masters KH and M. This analysis
> should be interesting in light of my conclusions reached in Part IV.
>
> Hopefully within 3 to 6 months, I can complete an article as well as a
> pamphlet on this same subject.
>
> Once again thank you for writing your three books. They certainly contain
> much food for thought. I have learned a great deal from my study of them.
>
> DAniel Caldwell
>
> P.S. It is unfortunate that you deal not answer publicly Jerry HE's
> criticism that you relied on secondary sources and Besant-Olcott sources
> when you wrote about the Judge Case. I hope Jerry is not under the impression
> that all librarians do not know the distinction betweeen primary and
> secondary sources. Did you read Judge's various replies to Besant and Olcott?
>
> [correction: in the first line of my p.s. it should read: "It is unfortunate
> that you *do* not answer...."]
>
> Without doing extensive research into the primary sources of the Judge Case,
> a *scholarly* approach would be to outline the controversy giving both sides
> of the controversy but not attemtping to decide who was right and who was
> wrong. But if the researcher decides to give an opinion as to whom was
> in the right or wrong {Judge was guilty; Besant was deceived, etc.) then
> the researcher has an obligation to read and study the all the relevant
> primary sources.
>
> I have just finished rereading THE THEOSOPHICAL ENLIGHTENMENT by Godwin.
> I really like the book even though I may disagree with some of Godwin's
> statements. Comparing his book to your three, I see that you are prone to
> this excessive speculation whereas Godwin keeps his speculation reined in to
> a minimum.
>

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 04:11:01 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Empty Boats

Last night I talked to my old college friend Larry, who has
studied Buddhism for many years. After a long discussion of my
next writing project, I asked him if he had any insight or
advice on dealing with the repeated demands for my attention
from someone who was obsessed with the shortcomings of my
work. He thought a minute, and said that there was a teaching
attributed to the Buddha that might help. If you are in a boat
on the river and another boat collides with yours, and there is
a person in the other boat, you get mad. You blame that person
for getting in your way. But if the boat is empty, you don't
get mad, you just attribute the collision to the wind and the
current, forces that are not consciously controlled by anyone.
Larry said that it would be helpful to see one's antagonist as
an empty boat. That is, instead of thinking that there is a
conscious entity in charge who is deliberately setting out to
interfere with our progress down the river of life, we should
realize that he, and we, are only concatenations of skandhas.
The person who is colliding with you is not doing so
deliberately out of malice; he or she seeks only to find
happiness and avoid suffering. Because of a series of causes
going back eternally-- hereditary, environmental, past-life,
etc.-- that person is behaving in a particular way. Probably
he is perceiving you as having deliberately and maliciously
interfered with his progress down the same river. But in fact,
the currents in the river are beyond your control and determine
the collision.

Well, that does help. The Theosophical movement is a river
with strong currents and deep holes. Boats can crash on rocks
or be sucked into whirlpools. The natal chart of the TS shows
just how much turbulence there is. The particular aspect that
describes what is going on with my boat is the opposition of
Saturn and Mars in the eighth house to Uranus in the second.
Saturn is tradition and authority, Mars is aggression and
initiative, and the eighth house rules the unconscious,
inheritance, collective values. Uranus is independence,
discovery, enlightenment, the clash of ideas; the second house
rules personal values. This aspect means that in the
Theosophical movement there will be a regular succession of
individualistic nonconformists who come up with new ways of
understanding that seem revolutionary. And they will be
regularly attacked by the aggression of those who value the
collectively accepted tradition and want to stamp out any
challenges to it. That's the nature of this particular river.
Rather than piss and moan about the battering received by my
boat, it makes more sense to simply take it out of the river.
And strive to refrain from reciprocating all the personal blame
messages received, understanding that the blame more properly
goes to a collective pattern that is being unconsciously
reproduced.

On an unrelated matter (sorta) please be advised that any
unfriendly and unsoliticed email from listmembers will
henceforth be forwarded to the list.

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 07:57:32 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker)
Subject: Re: obsolete words

Rich:

>(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.

Yes. We should have an original-text computerized edition of each
classic 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.

This can be done via software. We can eventually have books where the
mode in which we're reading them determines how they are displayed.
A "Key to Theosophy" could have updated words appear (a) as regular
words, (b) as words highlighted or in another color, with the original
word showing up if it is double-clicked, (c) as editorial additions in
square brackets, and (d) in their original form with the suggested
words hidden. The user could select the desired "flavor" of the book
and the scholar does not have to worry about the past being "lost".

For the printed book, wich is preferable for extended periods of
study and reflection, we'd need either multiple printings of the
different flavors or another manner of notation that would easily
show the updated words but not interfere with the flow of reading.
Perhaps updated words could appear in the text and the original
terms would be in a special form of footnotes. [Also added would
be useful annotation from later theosophical works, like HPB's
comments on "Esoteric Buddhism" could be added to the pages that
they commented on, also possible as footnotes or body text
specially set apart by some typographical technique.]

>(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.

Yes. Some digested background materials would be helpful. Not just
a compilation of HPB's writings on a specific topic, nor Richard
Robb's Secret Doctrine Reference series, but new introductory
materials. Perhaps with your background you would be suitable to
write such a work?

-- Eldon

From theos-l@vnet.net Thu Aug 31 11:08:02 1995
 (5.67b/IDA-1.5); Thu, 31 Aug 1995 10:54:39 -0500
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 11:44:25 GMT
From: Coherence@aol.com
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

Your post has been extremely moving and sad for me. First I have to say that
I was not around for all the commentary on your books and have not read them
although I would like to at some point.

Let's talk about generalities for a moment. Are you or are you not a
Theosophist? YOU make that determination by your actions and not by ANY
membership or affiliation. "Theosophist is who Theosophy does" HPB would
say, probably quickly followed by her other favorite line, "A tree is known
by its fruit." So the test for you (and no one else) is "Am I in the service
of Humanity and doing my DUTY by all?" Are you worthy of respect as a
Theosophist? I would follow this immediately by "Who are those from whom the
respect should come?"

Next, why are you so concerned by the karmic effects of your book(s)? You
are attached to results which implies self-interest or selfishness.
 Selflessness or at least "not selfish" is the litmus test to be applied.
 (See Bhagavad Gita) Closely related to this, the question must be asked,
"What was my motive or intent in the publication of my material?" If you are
to be considered a true Theosophist, then your motive should have been in the
service of Humanity. (See para. above) If your motive was altruistic, then
you have nothing to fear. If it was selfish and looking for reward of some
sort, you still have nothing to fear. The Karma will come, which you created
and therefore can endure, and if your eyes are open, you will learn.

After 17 years of "service" in Theosophy, you should know by now that all
Theosophical organizations, whether formal organizations or not, are sorry
affairs, poor erring vehicles of the true ideas, run by fallible humans.
 Above all, Theosophy is a movement of ideas, and it is your personal
relationship to the ideas and their embodiment in your life which must be
most important at all times. Your membership in any organization is
irrelevant. Better to be a student of Theosophy than a Theosophist conferred
only by a signature on paper.

Finally, it seems appropriate to re-quote a passage from the Key to Theosophy
which was recently included in another post on this board. You should take
these words to heart. This is from HPB's wonderful discussion of practical
Theosophy and specifically on the topic of Duty:

Enq. And what may be the duty of a Theosophist to himself.?

Theo. To control and conquer, through the Higher, the lower self. 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
censures are not in your power, and consequently should not be any part of
your concern."

So, lighten your burden, and Good Luck.

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 13:33:40 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Channelling

Eldon:<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?>

HPB was consciously aware of where the ideas and
thoughts were coming from. We all receive such messages,
but most of us think that an idea "just came to me" and
are not aware of receiving thoughts from Adepts, embodied
or disembodied.

Jerry S.

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 08:10:35 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Not Escaping the World Zen style

Jerry S:

>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."

They emphasize a practice where the eyes are kept half-open
and the attention is on the koan on the meditative practice
and any psychical or other-plane experiences are dismissed
as counterproductive.

>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.

No not to escape the necessity of incarnation. Rather to
develop and flower the Buddha nature in the world to develop
active bodhichita or compassion in action.

>It is my understanding that all of the Mahayana
>schools teach that we should become a bodhisattva and
>deliberately return to physical existence.

I was giving the Zen example to show that there were practices
where the psychical was put aside. This does not discount the
fact that as a highly-developed individual psychical abilities
will flower of their own accord. And there is always the fact
that we do eventually move onto other worlds. The human lifewave
won't be on Globe D forever and we can become Fifth Rounders
through extended periods of incarnation I'd say on the other
Globes. But for the aspirant the new person on the Path Zen
shows us an example of a Mahayana practice that does not seek
escape from this world as its goal which is what the Hinayana
path seeks.

>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?

For them the path may be to become karmaless to seek creating
causes that bring us back into existence on worlds of causes
and instead to persist in a high form of devachan bordering on
nirvana for vast periods of time. They eventually have to
find rebirth when the human lifewave catches up with them but
that may not be for several Rounds.

>And if you were to ask any Buddhist about rebirth on other
>Globes they might think you were pulling their leg.

But they would be seeking rebirth in the higher lokas in
what the Tibetans call "dewachen" the realm of pure bliss.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 14:02:18 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: obsolete words

Rich:
>Those who DID know that did not realize that we have dated Jesus' birth
wrongly
>though all Biblical scholars now date Jesus' birth between 07 and 02 BCE. Of
>course we know HPB puts Jesus' death at around 76 BCE but that is another
>topic.

Any guess as to what month day and time as well?

>Something NEEDS to be done
>or only scholars will be able to read and appreciate our Founders' works.

>1 NO MATTER WHAT we should keep track of original manuscripts . . .

>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 . . .

>3 We should begin preparing sophisticated introductory courses that will
>take people from the street as it were assuming NO BACKGROUND >KNOWLEDGE. .
.

These are worthy points. My only question is who is "we"? Who are the "we"
that are going to do all the work and where is the money coming from to do it?

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 15:22:31 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Sin

Alan

I don't understand what you mean by "the law of things". I agree with
you that you can't judge another person's motives & that the concept
of "sin" is relative but I also think that psychology is a science.
I can tell some of Chouchou's intentions by
the way she moves. I also know certain ways from Serge KIng to tap in to my
unconscious because it works according to certain laws on general
principle.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 15:50:58 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Tantric Theosophy

I need to put in my 02 cents worth about this self-sacrifice bit
because I believe it's overdone in Christianity and we were all
brought up in that culture. I take self-sacrifice to mean
that your main purpose in life is to serve other
people. But I don't think that it means that you need to turn
into a masochist & continually deprive yourself. It's much easier & comes off
better if you give of yourself because you enjoy it
rather than because you think "look at what I'm all sacrificing to help this
person!" The reasons I can think of for Also the more you yourself grow
spiritually & other ways the more effectively are you able to help others.
Some of that learning comes as a result of trying to help. Watching yourself
grow spiritually & watching yourself being able to increasingly
help other people is a great pleasure. To me meditating is a pleasure.
There's a basic law that says that human beings move towards pleasure &
away from pain. animals do too. One uses this fact to train them.
So that's the way we learn... by moving towards pleasure & away from
pain. One can sometimes tolerate pain if one
expects that from it will come a pleasureable end result
Finally the Buddha has an Enjoyment Body. That puzzled me for a very
long time because I was under the impression that meditating &
evolving spiritually was serious business. I've come to the
conclusion that it's supposed to be a pleasure. Spirit knows nothing
untoward. When you meditate you can sometimes get a "high"
try to tell that to some kids who think they need to shoot up.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 16:06:52 GMT
From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

Liesel ...
Well that was one of the more remarkable posts I've read in a
good long time ... would that it were published in the AT and other
publications for consideration by Theosophical memberships.
I arrived at the conclusion some years ago that much as I would
have liked the TS to be a genuine spiritual family that in fact the
official organizations are often about as viscious as any "spiritual"
organization currently working on the planet. I have come to believe that
organized Theosophy is a place where people are *introduced* to
Theosophy but if actual growth begins happening if the urge to serve
begins rising out of the core of the person that is if a person
actually *becomes* a Theosophist the organization often begins rejecting
them and the person themself often just leaves completely - as the
*living* of Theosophy is not modelled in nor supported by Theosophical
organizations.
The study of "source" literature and the understanding of the
immense cosmic model briefly sketched in things like the ML & SD is all
well and good but can be every bit as selfish as the study of anything
else is. The desire for intellectual stimulation is really no better or
worse than the desires of the emotions or the desires of the flesh. And
if the ML are any guide it seems the approach to chelaship has to do
with disciplining the personality levels ... but more than anything else
*filling oneself totally with the urge to serve*. The most "Theosophical"
people I know have never studied "occult" doctrines ... but have so fully
internalized the urge to serve that it is automatic and virtually
unconscious ... any situation they are placed in finds them asking the
question "what can I *do* for the people here; what do they need?" Very
few people need to know what damn planetary chain we are on. And these
people if they entered a Theosophical lodge in the middle of a study
session on the SD would certainly listen ... but would also notice
instantly if another member was deeply hurting with a soundless pain ...
and their minds would wander off the subject of the SD and dwell on what
they could do to *aid the person* considering philosophy always
secondary to service.
I am not saying the study of the "ancient wisdom" has no merit
.. only that it has a *purpose* and the purpose is not to spend endless
energy mulling it over but to take it as truths that can be used to more
effectively serve. Sometimes I think the Masters decided to experiment
with the TS - to release the barest corner of a body of knowledge and
see what people would *do* with it. Well mostly they have just sat on
it enjoyed the pleasure of studying it but done little else. The
Masters were clearly shooting for something universal and instead would
now see the original current shrunk into tiny little pinpoints keeping
"alive" a few books that clearly appeal to an absolutely miniscule
percentage of the population as though the Masters need *us* to keep
anything alive fer Christ's sake fully convinced that the small
numbers *.002%* of the US population ... that is *not* a nucleus - it
isn't even a single gene are due the unelevated nature of society the
fact that so few are exalted enough to be "ready" for Theosophy that the
lowly peasents just want cheap thrills and aren't ready for "real"
spiritual work. What utterly condescending garbage.
There's growing numbers of people all over this planet who *are*
pouring their hearts out in service daily and a lot of them wouldn't
have anything to *do* with Theosophy - which is perceived by many to be
if not dead then simply full of hyper-intellectualized discussions that
long ago ceased to do a *thing* for humanity as a whole.
Sitting in Theosophical ideas are the seeds of for instance the
thoughts ethics and practical mechanisms from which could arise IMO
unique and creative solutions to the ethnic and religious strife that
increasingly tears our race apart - strife that arises because population
has grown incredibly large very quickly and modern communications have
further shrunk distances so that many ideologies that never came into
contact with one another now perceive themselves to be rubbing up against
one another - even in *competition* with one another - is it just
possible that perhaps the Masters saw this eventuality coming and
attempted to introduce a set of ideas that could provide the harmonizing
tools ... the idea of the common roots of all religions & etc. - but that
whether this worked or not was dependent upon whether people took those
seed ideas and *worked them into practical applications*?
The study and discussion of theoretical occult doctrines has
become IMO the primary Theosophical activity - and the prominent
theosophists are those who have studied the tiniest details of the stuff
and now parade "humbly" as "teachers" ... argue endlessly over what we
"should" teach to *whom*? the two people out of every 10000 that are
vaugely interested in understanding multi-billion year cosmic creation
models? ... missing the rather larger point that *it no longer makes a
damn bit of difference *what* is taught: The SD and ML could *go out of
print* and the major crises our race faces the growth and spiritual
development of of humanity as a whole and the amelioration of the
enormous suffering of our own and other kingdoms WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED
ONE IOTA*. The tiny number of people in the next generation for whom the
study of such things might be pleasurable would miss the opportunity but
of all the possibilities inherent in the Theosophical literature almost
none have been tapped. The study of intellectual occultism has become a
massive "attractor" that drains almost all Theosophical activity into
itself ... it is a comfort zone ... but to continue happily arguing over
minor points of doctrine all the while oblivious to the fact that what
started as a revolutionary set of ideas that could ... if worked into
application have changed the world and very possibly was intended by
the Masters to do just that - and could even now be providing
powerful insights into some of our race's deepest and most painful
problems - has turned in barely more than one century into a frozen
little clique arguing loudly over issues whose resolution one way or the
other wouldn't have the slightest effect on humanity ... modern Theosophy
is little more than a quiet little fiddling as Rome burns.
In the Bible is the parable of the talents coins - coins were
given to three men ... one spent his and wasted it one took risks
invested it and caused it to grow and the third kept it "safe": Looking
at the ideas that launched the TS as a "coin" and looking at our present
world the 05 billion actual living humans and their societies and the
ideas that rip them apart *which of the three men in the parable does
modern Theosophy resemble*?
Who's on the road to becoming a chela? Not one who can quote HPB
chapter and verse but one who has taken but a single paragraph and
served a whole community by unfolding the wisdom within it. Were any of
us to be called to the Himalayian heights would we be asked how well we
*understand* "occult" doctrines ... or what we've *done* with the little we
do understand? Who would be admitted? The one who said "After long and
careful study I grasp everything you've allowed to be written so far
and I now feel ready for the "inner" knowledge" ... or the one that said
"I'm sorry I only had a chance to read one of HPB's books and I didn't
even understand that very well but I got too busy raising my children
well and once they were raised became so compelled to try to resolve
race relations in my community that I scarcely had time to read
anything and could only find time to meditate once a month".
There's been large amounts of talk about "what" to "teach" ...
and in fact "teaching" is now considered to be the principle if not
virtually the only actual "service" modern Theosophy does. [Say to
Theosophy "you aren't serving humanity at all" ... and it will likely say
back "we are teaching the Secret Doctrine and expend much energy and
consider it our solemn responsibility to keep the teaching pure"]. How
much of this however is really sublimated *selfishness* ... the study
done because the person is one of the few who enjoys studying this sort
of stuff and the "teaching" done because of the pleasure of showing
others that it is known ... and of "helping" others who similarly enjoy
this particular form of the "mysteries". In fact anyone who studies
*anything* for very long will find an almost irresistable
*personality-based* urge to talk about it to "teach" it ... but this is
*not* true teaching not true service:
To teach is to be "other-focussed" ... to take fully into account
the nature of the energy-system of the person involved the life they are
placed within ... to encourage the growth of the person - *as the person
wants to grow* ... not as we believe the person "should" grow. To serve is
not to provide what it gives *us* pleasure to provide but to provide
*what the person or situation needs* - and this may be *way* outside of
our comfort zone. To teach and serve is not to impose our own models of
what spiritual "growth" is on others but to determine what paradigm the
person themself exists within and to nourish and encourage growth *as
the person understands it and speaking in the terms of the person's
world*. In the long indeed almost endless discussions in modern
Theosophy about what we "should" teach and the list discussion is just a
brief incarnation of a several-decades-long ongoing argument I have yet
to hear the topic of *WHO* is being *taught* even broached ... save for
the periodically condescending suggestions that there are so few "ready"
to learn what Theosophy has to "teach".
Can you imagine any school system worth its salt going through a
nearly three month long intense curriculum discussion and not once
even mentioning let alone engaging in a thorough analysis of the actual
*students*? Such a faculty might be teachers in their own imaginations
but they sure wouldn't be in fact ... and the curriculum produced would
be almost certainly doomed to disaster - to fail to reach anything but a
tiny number of students.
Well enough of this for now Liesel I got kinda carried away
-: ... but take heart! In the late 19th century one means of
approaching chelaship was to join a Theosophical Lodge - but it is quite
possible that in the late 20th century one qualifies oneself by getting
kicked *out* of one -:.
Chuckles JRC
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 16:07:51 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Tantric Theosophy

Coherence:<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>

First you accuse Eldon of being condescending. Well I for
one find your long lists of scriptural quotes to be equally so. I can read
HPB too you know. Are you trying to show off or just practicing your
typing skills?

Second "living the life" is a lot more than a "perceived
difficulty" - it is hard as hell. Few can do it effectively. But I agree
that we should all try. But you don't just tell a new member to go live
the life. Go be a good girl scout and help old people cross streets
and then in your next life continue this way and seven lifetimes
on down the road you will be a Chela and have wisdom and etc.
This kind of stuff doesn't work on most people. It doesn't work on
me either. I reject the notion that I have to wait 07 lifetimes or even
one. I also reject the notion that if I am good I will obtain gnosis
or enlightenment or whatever you want to call it. Christianity
tells me that if I am good I will go to heaven. Theosophy tells
me that if I am good I will have a better life next time around.
I fail to see much difference in these two views and reject both.
Tantra on the other hand says that we can become an Adept
during this life. It then tells us what we have to *do* to obtain
our desired goal.

Third what Eldon is trying to say is that membership
is dwindling because new members perceive *there is nothing to do*
in theosophy. I had this perception myself. All I ever got in the way of
advice was to avoid yoga and magic because it was too dangerous.
Dion Fortune once wrote that theosophy was the theory and magic
was the practice. I happen to agree with her. HPB provides us with
excellent theoretical material. But if you want to *do* something
with it you have to go somewhere outside of any TS.

Fourth you do not need to join a TS or study HPB to practice
DUTY CHARITY and SELFLESSNESS. These are well understood
concepts and many good people practice them all over the world -
people who perhaps have never even heard of theosophy and others
who heard of it and didn't like it. In short these are nice qualities but
hardly worth joining an organization for. What Eldon and I have been
saying for awhile on theos-l is that theosophy needs some definition.
What is unique about it to separate it from everything else? So far
we on theos-l can't agree on what theosophy is or what it teaches
or what we are supposed to be standing for or very much else.
In a sense this is good. But it sure makes it hard to say just what
theosophy is. I would really like to think that theosophy is more than
a organized group of do-gooders. Jerry-HE suggests that theosophy
has a body of teachings or doctrines. Eldon and I both agree. We are
now trying to iron out what these teachings could be and how we do
this without them becoming dogmatic. Maybe you can help?

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 16:07:57 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Monads and Theosophical Writers

Coherence:
<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". >

This is pretty much my own understanding. But it is not Eldon's.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 16:08:17 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Ignoring 95%

Daniel:< 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.>

Not. certainly no more merit than Paul's books have

Daniel:<I do have a degree in psychology but I will not attempt to
analyze Johnson's psyche. In-stead I will continue to review various
ideas hypotheses and issues in Johnson's books about the
Theosophical Masters.>

If you really do have a degree in psychology Dan
then you really should know what the word obsession means.
Please think about this.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 16:08:21 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Cayce

Liesel:
<I'm not familiar with Jane Roberts. It sounds to me like maybe there
all sorts of intermediate shadings of ESP. >

There are indeed.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 16:08:30 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Empty Boats

Paul
The "empty boat" metaphor is great. I love it. Thanks.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 16:08:36 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

Eldon:< 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.>

I think you hit the nail on its head here. There
simply is no real theosophical path to tread other than that
of karma yoga of doing good deeds like some kind of boy/girl
scout for many lifetimes - which requires more faith than
Christianity when it says to do this and you will gain heaven.
Most people don't have that kind of faith. Tell them that
their actions in this life will be rewarded in the next and they
see you as one more religion. While we can also practice
a kind of jnana yoga via the Secret Doctrine few if any
have done this successfully.
Tibetan Buddhism on the other
hand teaches us that we can become Adepts in this very life.
It is hard. It is accomplished only by the few and brave of
heart. But it can be done. Once we start treading the path
and living the life to gain this objective many kindle the
spiritual light within them not really attaining Adepthood
but something just as significant in their lives. They will
also build the faith that is needed to wait for future lives.
I see the TSs as too conservative and this turns many
away. However it is my understanding that the TSs have
already accepted low memberships and have rationalized
this in terms of quality over quantity which has some truth
to it. So I don't think they care much.

Eldon:< 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.>

The problem with this approach is that it smacks
of becoming "halls of magic." First of all what is "genuine
training" and who amonst theosophists would know it if
they saw it? Raja yoga is probably the best vehicle but
even this is tricky. I use and like kundalini yoga but
can't recommend it to others because of the dangers involved.
I agree with you in principle. Maybe you can come up with
some feasible methodologies?

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 16:08:42 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Cat evolution

Liesel:< 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?>

Right. But the reason that they generally chose a cat
over a dog say is because cats are very psychic. Also witches
tended to be independent like cats.

Liesel:<Jerry I've finished copying off the reincarnation material for you
as well>

Thanks Liesel.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 16:08:47 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Creators - a synchronicity

Liesel:<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?>

I am confused a bit by your post. My point and the gist
of the quotes was that mind IS the creator of everything rather than
some god like Brahma or Jehovah. Cosmic Mind exists in Mahat
just like our minds exist within us.

HPB's Secret Doctrine and other of her works suggests
that external god-like beings called Cosmocrators Builders Manus
Pitris and so built all of the globes of our planetary chain for us to
live on. Mahayana Buddhism rejects this idea and says that the
external worlds are all mind-created from the collective karma of
humanity. I am not saying that HPB is right or wrong here only
trying to show that she differs from Mayahana Buddhism on this
point.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 16:23:37 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

To Paul & everyone else on this list

I'd like to know who else around here feels or has felt at one time
that they've been excluded by Theosophists. I've now conversed with 03
of you & I'm a 4th. Between the '80ies when I quit being President
of a Lodge and now that I'm part of theos-l & am also being better
accepted in Wheaton for some reason I felt terribly excluded.
It was a time in my life when I was trying to cope with everything
that went cockeyed. And everything went cockeyed that could possibly
have. I could have used some brotherly moral support - like we're with you.
I remember getting a sympathetic card from Shirley Nicholson to
the effect that "My God is all that happening to you? I'm sorry."
That was at least something.
And sometimes when they weren't too busy I could communicate with
Lakshmi Narayan or Marie Minor in the Olcott Library. To all other Theosophists
I seem to have been a non-person. It was my good fortune to have come
across one Theosophist named Harry Van Gelder at that time.
When I first got to him he told me "I don't know where to start".
That's how bad I was... on all fronts. Well he did start & continue
& I learned to follow his advice which was very theosophical
& little by little I began to prosper. & thank goodness for
Harry & Marie because nobody else seemed to care a fig about me. I
had Harry to heal me & teach me & Marie to talk to.
To other Theosophists it seems I was an outsider. To me I was a
Theosophist & to be rejected on all sides by fellow Theosophists hurt ...
a lot.

Paul let me tell you I know exactly how you feel. I decided to
stick to my theosophical books that time & forget about the people.
I don't blame you for going over to the ARE if you feel more comfortable there.
It's something that just occurred to me this morning. Wheaton has got
to be more member friendly.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 18:51:15 GMT
From: Richtay@aol.com
Subject: Re: Daniel's crusade et al.

In my opinion this kind of PERSONAL exchange is damaging to Theos-L and
promotes hard feelings seeking to galvanize "support" over and against an
"enemy."

Especially considering that historical discussions should take place on
Theos-roots this virulent cycle of posts should certainly not be posted to
Theos-L and I resent being subjected to an apparently personal battle.

If we are going to discuss the BOOKS written by Mr. Johnson and the IDEAS
and ASSERTIONS contained therein let us do so on Theos-roots. If we are
going to be treated to a series of "here's what so and so did to me lately" I
must strongly PROTEST over this abuse of public space.

> On an unrelated matter sorta please be advised that any
> unfriendly and unsoliticed email from listmembers will
> henceforth be forwarded to the list.
I would like to suggest that posting private e-mail to a public list is quite
questionable morally particularly if the motive is to embarass. I am
offended and believe that permission should always be sought and granted
before anything personal is given to others.

Rich
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 18:51:26 GMT
From: Richtay@aol.com
Subject: Re: RE: obsolete words

Ann

Scholars today put Jesus' birth in the spring or summer judging by various
things he says about sowing and reaping etc. It is a guess. What seems
sure is that Jesus could NOT have been born in Dec because if you've
ever been to Israel it is butt-ugly cold there that time of year and Luke
has shepherds watching their flocks at night. Maybe but not in DECEMBER.
Rather the Christians took as bad a guess at the date of birth as anyone
else and assimilated it to traditional Pagan dates for the births of their
savior gods Mithras etc. All savior gods in the middle east are born just
between the winter solstice usually Dec 21st and the actual New Year
Jan 4th.

I also made a mistake HPB puts Jesus' death at 86 B.C. not 76 as I
erroneously stated because the Jews record a Yeshua Rabbi being put to death
under Alexander Janneus whose reign was something like 103 to 83 BC or
something. The actual Herod under whom Jesus was supposed to be born never
put to death babies as the Bible says.

However Alexander Janneus was well-known to have killed thousands of
"innocents" which was the old name for Initiaties of the Mysteries because
they were "as babes new-born." Initiates threatened his despotic reign.

> >Something NEEDS to be done
> >or only scholars will be able to read and appreciate our Founders' works.
>
> >1 NO MATTER WHAT we should keep track of original manuscripts . . .
>
> >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 . . .
>
> >3 We should begin preparing sophisticated introductory courses that
will
> >take people from the street as it were assuming NO BACKGROUND
>KNOWLEDGE. .
> .
>
> These are worthy points. My only question is who is "we"? Who are the
"we"
> that are going to do all the work and where is the money coming from to do
it?

"We" are all of the Theosophists interested in such a project and if there
were political will and ULT Pasadena and Adyar combined forces and $$$ it
would be a snap. I for one am willing to put my time energy and money where
my mouth is. But I have no delusions as to my own competence it would take
a board of 08 or 10 people at least ! to pull off such a revisionist
project. I wonder if we could drop the sectarianism long enough to actually
WORK TOGETHER for a sustained period rather than just exchange niceities ...
?

Rich
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 18:51:31 GMT
From: Richtay@aol.com
Subject: Re: Creators - a synchronicity

Jerry S.:

> HPB's Secret Doctrine and other of her works suggests
> that external god-like beings called Cosmocrators Builders Manus
> Pitris and so built all of the globes of our planetary chain for us to
> live on. Mahayana Buddhism rejects this idea and says that the
> external worlds are all mind-created from the collective karma of
> humanity. I am not saying that HPB is right or wrong here only
> trying to show that she differs from Mayahana Buddhism on this
> point.
Jerry I hate to harp on this Mahayana deal but in fact what does it mean
that the worlds are "mind-created" because of Karma? Whose are the minds
that built this cosmos? Certainly not my mind as I presently know it.

Yet if in fact we are all emanations from high spiritual forces then
COLLECTIVELY we and much higher mind-beings cooperate through karma to
produce spiritual mental and astral energies that eventually condense into
the world-stuff. She does not protray them as "external." How are we
different from the Manasaputras? We are simply more embodied and more
deluded than they but the same mind-stuff in principle.

I see absolutely no difference between what you stated re: HPB and re:
Mahayana. HPB simply gives the names of the mind-beings who are primarily
responsible and this different classes. Esoteric Buddhism Vajrayana does
the same.

The Brahma-jala Sutra describes this universe as created by the first
mind-being to be born in the Abhassara realm after descending from a
luminous non-manifest form. He is the first mind-being in the MANIFESTED
universe and so goes abot creating. Other beings soon appear and the world
condenses gradually do to their actions and desires.

The same story is repeated with more info in the Aganna-Sutra. Both of
these are THERAVADA works which the Mahayanists accept and expand upon.

Rich
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 23:06:40 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

Jerry S:

>>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.

>The problem with this approach is that it smacks
>of becoming "halls of magic."

It depends upon what is being taught. It doesn't have to
be an academy for the occult arts.

>First of all what is "genuine training" and who amonst
>theosophists would know it if they saw it?

Genuine is what has been proven to work in the past with
other spiritual groups. Less genuine but still useful is
what seems promicing but has not been tried before.

>Raja yoga is probably the best vehicle but even this is tricky.
>I use and like kundalini yoga but can't recommend it to
>others because of the dangers involved.

There are many possible paths that could be formulated.
Some are more gradual and some are more direct intense
and for the strong of heart. I'd favor those that deal with
the mind and spiritual nature and avoid practices that
involve the psychical and out-of-the-body experiences. On
the other hand several theosophical schools could be
formulated each of possible benefit or detriment if not
done right to those it appeals to. There might be certain
formulations that appealed to the natural-born psychic.

>I agree with you in principle. Maybe you can come up with
>some feasible methodologies?

This is a big task and involves an overhaul to our way
of thinking as members of theosophical groups. It could
take centuries to do. But it's highly valuable I think
and it would certainly make an important topic for 'theos-l'.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 01 Nov 1995 23:25:52 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Tantric Theosophy

Jerry S:

[I'm still getting to a reply to Coherence but wanted to add
a brief comment to something you've written.]

>"living the life" is a lot more than a "perceived
>difficulty" - it is hard as hell. Few can do it effectively.
>But I agree that we should all try.

The experience of "hard as hell" to living the light is when
the higher inspiration has left us for a moment and we're
carrying on in the personality feeling a sense of pain from
our effort. But when we reconnect with our direct perception
of life we return to the sense of eternal delight and we
are living a life out of the pure love joy and inexpressible
creativity it brings. The personality may still have a sense
of pain but that is completely overshadowed by a higher
feeling or perception. The technique here is to dwell in the
highest within and the other will naturally readjust itself.
That readjustment may have "growth pains" but *there is no
suffering*. The experience of suffering arises in the
perception of a separate self and when we transcend it
and dwell in buddhi-manas it ceases to exist.

>But you don't just tell a new member to go live the life.
>Go be a good girl scout and help old people cross streets
>and then in your next life continue this way and seven lifetimes
>on down the road you will be a Chela and have wisdom and etc.
>This kind of stuff doesn't work on most people.

Here we're dealing with the two paths: the gradual path and
the sudden path. From one standpoint we can attain enlightenment
immediately if only we'd wake up to the fact of our ever-present
divine nature. From another standpoint we exist as a creature in
the world and are subject to time. We must in this standpoint
go through a process of growth over time and gradually come to
flower spiritually.

I'd say that both paths are true but describe the experience
of the process from the standpoint of different parts of our
nature or different modes of consciousness from which we can
perceive the world. We must travel both paths. This means that
we *sieze the spiritual* with the same intensity as a man with
held held under water longs for air. And we *effortlessly grow
and flower* over vast eternities without looking at our watches
every five minutes to see if the times up yet or not!

There are two approaches to the timeless: right now! and over
vast eternities without regard to the passage of time. Both
are real but we're usually taught only one as an approach to
the spiritual and taught to discount the other.

Coherence seems to be talking about the approach of being
good and not thinking about oneself and letting the spiritual
flower in its own time. You're discussion addresses the sudden
approach. I'd suggest both are useful and need to be
incorporated into a theosophical practice.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 00:13:39 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist reply to JRC

JRC:

It's interesting to read your fiery indictment of theosophical
organizations in your reply to Liesel. I won't try to quote
anything because that could carry on for too many pages.

You're basically making an impassioned statement for karma
yoga the path where immediate service to others is the highest
good. In terms of this approach you define chelaship as
measured in terms of what good deeds that the chela has done
in the world. And you suggest that it is wrong to occupy
ourselves with any practice that ignored the major crises
that face humanity at this time.

While I'll accept karma yoga as one possible path I won't
give it supreme status and discount the rest. Someone sitting
zazen is as useful as someone lobbying for a piece of
legislature to protect the environment. It's a maya to say
that a flower eagerly growing in the field is less useful
than a doctor helping the poor for free or a blazing star in
the night sky. Each of us is responsible to determine the
proper way to give personal expression to the divine and
your path of karma yoga is only one such way. *You* cannot
pass judgement on others for not following *your* path yet
you seem to be reacting to being treated this way yourself
by theosophical groups.

Anything that we do can be done purely skillfully with
selfless or unstained awareness or it can be done with
petty personal motives. That includes both the reading and
study of deep philosophy as well as talking care of a
sickly 100-year-old lady down the street needing help
cooking her lunch while her grandchildren are at work
during the day.

I'd agree that the existing theosophical groups need a
dramatic overhaul. But I won't accept your definition of
usefulness nor your rush to judgement as "utterly
condescending garbage" any discussion of a spiritual
path with clearly-define steps going beyond where we
are at this time. Do you also reject the Buddha dharma
as elisist because a series of steps are outlined with
sufficently clarity that it's possible to be on a step
that everyone else isn't on?

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 04:17:32 GMT
From: Aprioripa@aol.com
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 ...

Eldon:
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?

Patrick:
The truth of the matter is that when a person goes in to an altered state
they can via personal psychometry receive accurate information and even
possessors can give accurate information - but this is all part of the
deception. The main issue is that such practices are not always accurate and
are not supported by the Mahatmas or any Initiate for the reason that the
rendering of the system into such a state actually takes the person away from
the radiance in consciousness of their own soul and thereby retards their own
evolution toward full spiritual consciousness. A Mahatma works in
cooperation with and through the Higher Self.

Eldon:
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.

Patrick:
The personality relationship that is established in such is devitalizing and
focuses below the level of spiritual awareness. The right goal is for each
of us to be able to know truth in our own full consciousness and dependence
on any personality entity works against this. One test for proof would be to
stop channelling for three years the time for healing and see if the entity
throws temper tantrums - they usually do. There is never any coercion
cajoling etc. among those who work with and for the Mahatmas.

Patrick:
The Masters may use the personality of a chela but this occurs
in full waking consciousness and the chela is completely aware ...

Eldon:
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?

Patrick:
As far as I have ever known or seen only an Initiate is able to do so.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 06:34:30 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: defining theosophy

Jerry S. writes:

>So far we on theos-l can't agree on what theosophy is or what
>it teaches or what we are supposed to be standing for or very
>much else. In a sense this is good. But it sure makes it hard
>to say just what theosophy is. I would really like to think
>that theosophy is more than a organized group of do-gooders.
>Jerry-HE suggests that theosophy has a body of teachings or
>doctrines. Eldon and I both agree. We are now trying to iron
>out what these teachings could be and how we do this without
>them becoming dogmatic.

This might be an opportune point to repeat some of my
observations on this subject. Perhaps it was bad timing and thus
went unheard:

I found two basic problems with defining the word
"theosophy." The first problem is that none of the Theosophical
Organizations have an offical definition for the membership to
memorize and parrot. IMO this was a wise choice since parroted
definitions soon loose meaning. The second problem is an excuse
the expression historical one. We have dictionary definitions
written before the foundation of the TS; we have definitions used
in philosophy; and we have dictionary definitions written after
the foundation of the TS. To say it in another way definitions
of theosophy fall within these three areas of definitions:

1. Intercourse with higher intelligences--or wisdom gained from
the gods. Pre TS

2. An approach to the formation of a philosophy. philosophical

3. A collection of doctrines that draw upon Eastern and Western
religion and philosophy.

The above definitions are paraphrases and not quotes but
you get the idea.

My experience with theos-l is that those who use the third
area of definitions will often disagree upon the content of those
doctrines. This seems to be the gist of the discussion between
Eldon and Jerry S. Those who use the first area of definitions
are very guarded about theosophy becoming a dogma. As for the
second area of definitions I seem to be the sole person on
theos-l to use it. However I recommend that others investigate
it because ot neutralizes the conflict between the second and
third.

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: 02 Nov 1995 07:57:36 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: obsolete words

Bill Parrette writes:

BP
>As a member of the TS for the past five years I certainly
>have had the inclination to write such material myself.
>However in that five year period I have been struggling to
>learn the basics from those poorly written educational materials
>that use all of those undefined obsolete words all over the
>place with very little success. Even if I had the time these
>days which unfortunately I don't I have no where to turn
>to no one to turn to except this list -- which at times can
>be very useful to get me started on such a project which I
>agree is sorely needed.

JHE
Not only are most of them poorly written but they are full
of errors of fact mis-quotes incorrectly attributed quotes
confused explanations of teachings incorrect explanations of
teachings and terms incorrectly used. With the above in mind
I'm surprised that you even noticed an obsolete word. Speaking
of obsolete words I'm still waiting for a list of those words
from Eldon and Rich and from you if you have one.

BP
>Jerry mentioned in a reply to one of my previous posts that he
>had an introductory course available. Is the one mentioned
>here another one? What ever the case I eagerly look forward
>to looking over the course as well and will always be on the
>lookout for other "course material" on Theosophy that we can
>use in our little Study Group here in Cincinnati.

JHE
The introductory course I mentioned has been available since
1990 through Quest Books in Wheaton Theosophical University
Press in Pasadena or through us. It is a 72 minute video with a
146 page study guide. The cost is $24.95 through us:

Nautilus Books
P.O. Box 2803
Turlock CA 95380

We also have another course under development and will make
general announcements when it is ready.

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: 02 Nov 1995 08:32:27 GMT
From: William Parrette <wap@one.net>
Subject: Re: obsolete words

Hi all

Rich recently replied to the list:

> ...
> 03 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 hope everyone will excuse the Christian reference here but
... AMEN!

I know some of you remember me ranting on this topic six or so
months ago but I still believe it and agree totally with Rich. I
have been involved with training albiet computer/Unix training
for over eleven years. The stuff that I've seen pass for educa-
tional material in the TS is poor at its best. I've written a
number of courses/textbooks myself over the past eleven years and
I've been to a number of confrences/programs related to adult ed-
ucation and this experience tells me that something more is need-
ed.

As a member of the TS for the past five years I certainly
have had the inclination to write such material myself. However
in that five year period I have been struggling to learn the ba-
sics from those poorly written educational materials that use all
of those undefined obsolete words all over the place with very
little success. Even if I had the time these days which unfor-
tunately I don't I have no where to turn to no one to turn to
except this list -- which at times can be very useful to get
me started on such a project which I agree is sorely needed.

> ... I
> believe this is exactly the kind of course Jerry and Apr 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.

Jerry mentioned in a reply to one of my previous posts that he
had an introductory course available. Is the one mentioned here
another one? What ever the case I eagerly look forward to look-
ing over the course as well and will always be on the lookout for
other "course material" on Theosophy that we can use in our lit-
tle Study Group here in Cincinnati.

Thanks for listening. I just felt a need to throw in my
$0.02. May you always grok in fullness ...

Bill--
...who believes pro is to con as progress is to Congress.
--
+--------------------------+----------------------------+---- _ ___/ /\| -+
|William A. Bill Parrette|7177 Heritage Drive | ;` 42 ~ |
|wap@one.net |Westchester OH 45069-4012 | // //---'--; |
| ** All opinions expressed or implied are my own ** | ' \ | ^ |
+------------------- 513-779-0780 ----------------------+----- ^ -- ^ -----+
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 08:46:01 GMT
From: William Parrette <wap@one.net>
Subject: Re: Hi again and a few questions

Hi all

I just wanted to take a minute of your time and send a big
thank you to Jerry S. Liesel Jerry H-E Rich and Coher-
ence@aol.com. Your thoughts and comments on my "Hi again and a
few questions" post are all sincerely appreciated.

I will print out the thread of conversation and give copies
out to the members of our little Study Center and we'll see what
we can make of it all. If any other questions come up I'll post
them to the list and hope that you all will be as kind and re-
sponsive as you have been here.

Thanks again and may you always grok in fullness ...

Bill--
...who knows that a hammer sometimes misses its mark -- a bouquet never.
+--------------------------+----------------------------+--- \\ // 42? -+
|William A. Bill Parrette|7177 Heritage Drive | \'o.o'/ / |
|wap@one.net |Westchester OH 45069-4012 | = = |
| ** All opinions expressed or implied are my own ** | / U \ |
+------------------- 513-779-0780 ----------------------+------------------+
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 09:04:07 GMT
From: Richtay@aol.com
Subject: Re: obsolete words

Bill wrote:

> I know some of you remember me ranting on this topic six or so
> months ago but I still believe it and agree totally with Rich. I
> have been involved with training albiet computer/Unix training
> for over eleven years. The stuff that I've seen pass for educa-
> tional material in the TS is poor at its best.

Well Bill and any other interested parties we are NOT helpless on this
front. It seems to me that the most valuable contribution would be to form a
team with as much participatio from DIFFERENT Theosophical groups as
possible and AS A GROUP work out some educational materials.

Yes there will be disagreements but I think nothing could bring our various
"denominations" together as well as a group project -- of pretty massive
importance education -- which involves passion and effort from everyone.
Hammering out the basics in CLEAR BASIC English cold be useful with great
quotes embedded from the original teachings and constant references to the
original books where more "light" can be found. I for one would be VERY
happy to be part of such a team but I don't think any one person should be
in charge of this so that a it doesn't suffer from one necessarily
limited personality b it doesn't suffer from just ONE approach ULT
ADYAR PASADENA PT LOMA c no one person probably knows all that there is
to know or has all the writing editing and teaching skills that might be
needed.

It would be a grand noble project probably over several years. Any takers?
Any ideas on whether the "big denominations" would provide funding or are we
solo? How to request input from members of the "denominations" outside of
this board?

Rich
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 10:35:25 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

According to Liesel F. Deutsch:
>
> To Paul & everyone else on this list
>
> I'd like to know who else around here feels or has felt at one time
> that they've been excluded by Theosophists. I've now conversed with 03

This reminds me of a revealing story. My first contact with
the TS was at a summer school. The first morning I went to a
discussion group that was seated in a circle. I was the last
one to arrive and there was only a chair outside the circle.
I sat down totally ignored by the whole group. After hanging
around for 10 minutes with no one making eye contact or the
slightest move to let me in the circle I walked off. No one
looked then either. It was as if I'd been invisible.
That said I should add that since then I've met scores of
wonderful Theosophists and never seen anything quite like that
first impression. But imagine how many people would simply
have never come back after such an experience!

> I remember getting a sympathetic card from Shirley Nicholson to
> the effect that "My God is all that happening to you? I'm sorry."
> That was at least something.
> And sometimes when they weren't too busy I could communicate with
> Lakshmi Narayan or Marie Minor in the Olcott Library. To all other
> Theosophists I seem to have been a non-person. It was my good fortune
> to have come

While we're praising folks I'll add a word of admiration for
Shirley and Lakshmi who both went out of their way to make me
feel welcome on my first trip to Olcott.
>
> Paul let me tell you I know exactly how you feel. I decided to
> stick to my theosophical books that time & forget about the people.
> I don't blame you for going over to the ARE if you feel more comfortable
> there. It's something that just occurred to me this morning. Wheaton
> has got to be more member friendly.
>
Well *I* like you! And also feel that you are one of the more
welcoming presences here on theos-l despite our past
disagreements to newcomers. Maybe that feeling of being
excluded makes one more sensitive to such things when
opportunities arise.

Namaste.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 13:01:34 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Praxis and Pluralism

On one hand it is impossible not to agree with Eldon and Jerry
S.'s suggestion that lack of a specific spiritual practice is a
weakness in Theosophical groups. On the other hand it is
equally impossible not to see that imposing such specifics
would be fatal to the pluralism that they are mandated well
Adyar at least to sustain.

Perhaps a happy medium is suggested by the Miami lodge which
has many different simultaneous activities including various
practices but also events where people study theosophy per
se. Ideally theosophical groups would be like a UN of
spirituality where people have different paths but nourish one
another.

Is Sy reading? Could you comment on the balance between
practical and theoretical emphases in your lodge and how they
sustain each other?
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 14:14:06 GMT
From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: Hi again and a few questions

Liesel mentions William Doss McDavid's INTRODUCTION TO ESOTERIC PRINCIPLES.
This is an excellent work on source Theosophy. I recommend it very highly.

Daniel Caldwell
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 14:31:09 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

According to Coherence@aol.com:
>
> Let's talk about generalities for a moment. Are you or are you not a
> Theosophist? YOU make that determination by your actions and not by ANY
> membership or affiliation. "Theosophist is who Theosophy does" HPB would
> say probably quickly followed by her other favorite line "A tree is known
> by its fruit." So the test for you and no one else is "Am I in the service
> of Humanity and doing my DUTY by all?"

By that test being a faithful adherent/practitioner of the
Cayce philosophy is equivalent to being a Theosophist.

Are you worthy of respect as a
> Theosophist? I would follow this immediately by "Who are those from whom the
> respect should come?"

OK-- some practical issues. I'm a writer and my sole interest
is in spirituality sole authorial interest that is. Would
any Theosophical publisher welcome my work either in article
or book form? If not and the answer seems pretty definitely
not then I'm not respected as a Theosophist where it counts
as a writer. Certainly most of the individual Theosophists I've
come to know DO show that respect but they don't run things.

For me the ultimate question that led to resignation from both
Adyar and Pasadena TS's was "if asked by a friend would I
recommend joining a Theosophical organization?" Although there
are many local groups I would encourage people to attend I
really couldn't in good conscience encourage a friend to join
any of the national/international societies. And at another
level "are HPB and her teachers and successors at the center
of my spiritual reality now?" No; they're very much present in
it but no longer central.
>
> Next why are you so concerned by the karmic effects of your books? You
> are attached to results which implies self-interest or selfishness.
> Selflessness or at least "not selfish" is the litmus test to be applied.
> See Bhagavad Gita Closely related to this the question must be asked
> "What was my motive or intent in the publication of my material?" If you are
> to be considered a true Theosophist then your motive should have been in the
> service of Humanity. See para. above If your motive was altruistic then
> you have nothing to fear. If it was selfish and looking for reward of some
> sort you still have nothing to fear. The Karma will come which you created
> and therefore can endure and if your eyes are open you will learn.

Gurdjieff teaches about the "Law of Otherwise"-- things always
turn out otherwise than expected. I never dreamed that the
non-Theosophical world would reward my work as it has with
sales and reviews and friendships. But I also never dreamed
that the Theosophical world would punish it as severely as it
has. Yeah I'm attached to results in terms of having lots of
consternation about them good and bad and getting fixated on
it. The motive however was frankly not service of Humanity
OR personal reward but service to the Theosophical movement.
Proving the reality of the Masters and thus getting HPB and
Theosophy some long-overdue respect. Karma came all right.
John Algeo actually told me in advance that his two reviews
would hurt me that I wouldn't like them to be exact AND that
they were being written BECAUSE of the good ones I had gotten
elsewhere. I'm still processing this turn of events trying to
keep eyes open and learn as much as possible from it.

snip
> 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
> censures are not in your power and consequently should not be any part of
> your concern."
>
> So lighten your burden and Good Luck.
>
Good quote; thanks.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 15:56:18 GMT
From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

On 02 199511 Jerry Schueler wrote:
>
> While what you say here has a lot of merit I question your
> definition of "theosophical people." While this could be true for
> theosophists and it depends on your definition it is not true for
> Adepts. I personally favor Tibetan Buddhism and generally tend to
> interpret theosophical writers and teachings in line with this
> rightly or wrongly. Anyway Tibetan Buddhism teaches that means
> i.e. doing good and caring about others only takes us so far.
> Wisdom is also needed. And wisdom alone is also not enough.
> The two together wisdom and means are required to progress
> on the Path. Sometimes these two are personified as a male and
> female in sexual union gasp! but the idea is that the two must
> always go together. Later in your essay you do talk about the
> need to express any wisdom learned in service to others and I
> certainly agree with you .

I fully agree both are needed. "Retreat within advance without" says the
Voice - my overemphasis on the service aspect of things in the post comes
from looking at modern Theosophy. It is utterly unnecessary to emphasize
the study/meditation forms of activity as they completely and totally
dominate. The imbalance is so immense that I believe it threatens to kill
Theosophy. It has "retreated" almost totally inward and the only time it
even seems to notice the "without" let alone "advancing" into it it
often adopts a condescending attitude.
-JRC
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 16:00:33 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Creators - a synchronicity

Thanks Rich for that explanation. What you say finally means
something to me.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 16:22:41 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Hi again and a few questions

Dear William

Instead of Simons did your group ever look at Doss McDavid's "Introduction to
Esoteric Principles"? It's newer.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 17:16:26 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

Dear John

I read the crux of your message as "Theosophy isn't any good unless
you can use it & can work with it." and really now who gives a hoot
about rounds & chains & globes? I agree 100%.

I have found lots of things in Theosophy to live by but I've had
starting right from the beginning 03 top notch Theosophists as
teachers. I guess that was my good luck.

Just for instance tomorrow I'm going to try to explain to my cleaning
lady who's a Soc. student that she might get better results with her
11 year old daughter if instead of being antagonistic - working
against her she would try to go with the flow. Help nature & work
on with her. I'm also going to tell her that stretching takes some
of the anger out of the muscles. Maybe it'll help.

Namaste

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 17:39:36 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Tantric Theosophy

Liesel:<. That puzzled me for a very
long time because I was under the impression that meditating &
evolving spiritually was serious business. I've come to the
conclusion that it's supposed to be a pleasure.>

I agree. Its only serious business while going
through the Dark Night of the Soul until Gnosis of
some kind is obtained and then one sees the Cosmic Joke
of it all.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 17:39:40 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Not Escaping the World Zen style

Eldon:<I was giving the Zen example to show that there were practices
where the psychical was put aside. >

Ah! OK. Thanks.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 17:39:42 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

Liesel:
<I'd like to know who else around here feels or has felt at one time
<that they've been excluded by Theosophists.

Count me in. I have been on the edge of resignation
more than once.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 17:39:46 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

JRC:< The most "Theosophical"
people I know have never studied "occult" doctrines ... but have so fully
internalized the urge to serve that it is automatic and virtually
unconscious ... any situation they are placed in finds them asking the
question "what can I *do* for the people here; what do they need?" Very
few people need to know what damn planetary chain we are on. And these
people if they entered a Theosophical lodge in the middle of a study
session on the SD would certainly listen ... but would also notice
instantly if another member was deeply hurting with a soundless pain ...
and their minds would wander off the subject of the SD and dwell on what
they could do to *aid the person* considering philosophy always
secondary to service. >

While what you say here has a lot of merit I question your
definition of "theosophical people." While this could be true for
theosophists and it depends on your definition it is not true for
Adepts. I personally favor Tibetan Buddhism and generally tend to
interpret theosophical writers and teachings in line with this
rightly or wrongly. Anyway Tibetan Buddhism teaches that means
i.e. doing good and caring about others only takes us so far.
Wisdom is also needed. And wisdom alone is also not enough.
The two together wisdom and means are required to progress
on the Path. Sometimes these two are personified as a male and
female in sexual union gasp! but the idea is that the two must
always go together. Later in your essay you do talk about the
need to express any wisdom learned in service to others and I
certainly agree with you .

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 17:39:50 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

Jerry S.
>First of all what is "genuine training" and who amonst
>theosophists would know it if they saw it?
Eldon:
<Genuine is what has been proven to work in the past with
<other spiritual groups.

Here too we have problems nothing seems to be easy;
have you noticed that?. What worked well in the past or in other
cultures is not necessarily going to work in our culture today. I
am reminded here of James Long who once told me that yoga
as taught in the East is not suitable to our "western constitution."
I had to agree with him. But it can be adopted or changed to
fit in our society or to a particular indivudal. This basically is what
I did for myself. What I am stressing here is the need for
flexibility in any kind of training or advocation of techniques.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 17:39:53 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Tantric Theosophy

Eldon:<The experience of "hard as hell" to living the light is when
the higher inspiration has left us for a moment and we're
carrying on in the personality feeling a sense of pain from
our effort. >

Eldon I think I must have misled you here. I agree
to all that you say. I was referring to how one gets the inner
light lit in the first place. We were talking about new members
and I said that simply telling someone to go and live the life
was asking too much of them. We need to help them kindle
the fire of spirit within them first and then living the life is
spontaneous and joyful. Thanks. I enjoyed your post anyway.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 17:40:04 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
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 ...
>
>Eldon:
>Here's a point where we can find agreement.
Here's a point in which I can disagree. Never say never. Almost
nothing is *always* right or wrong.

>Patrick:
>The truth of the matter is that when a person goes in to an altered state
>they can via personal psychometry receive accurate information and even
>possessors can give accurate information - but this is all part of the
>deception.
You sound paranoid here Patrick. Look at what
you are saying please. You say "truth itself is part of the lie" which
is like the story about the Devil who says "Everything I say is a lie."
Lets please be reasonable here. I know that you and lots of other
theosophists are paranoid about psychism and its terrors but
let's try to demonstrate some rational thought in our arguments.
I suspect that what you meant to say is that even psychism
produces some truth enough perhaps to convince people that
all of it is true. If that is what you meant then I can agree with you.
But your wording implies a *Deception* ala conspiracy theories
and so on which I can't buy.

Patrick:
<The main issue is that such practices are not always accurate and
>are not supported by the Mahatmas or any Initiate for the reason that the
>rendering of the system into such a state actually takes the person away from
>the radiance in consciousness of their own soul and thereby retards their own
>evolution toward full spiritual consciousness. A Mahatma works in
>cooperation with and through the Higher Self.

Eldon posted some quotes awhile back about zazen in which
Zen teaches that *everything* that comes to you during meditation is
mayavic - even buddhi-manas. This idea comes from the teaching that
everything below the Abyss is maya an illusion. In this technical sense
there is as much illusion and deception in buddhi-manas as there is
in kama-manas and as I have already said many times the most
deceptive of all possible states is our waking state in the physical world.
Some say that everything has maya in it some more and some less.
Since I follow this idea I can't help but view your fear of kama-manas
as a bit overdone and in this you are in the company of most
theosophists unfortunately.

Bee here:
<Excuse me for butting in. Why have the Mahatmas stopped using other persons
<as mini messengers these days? Or have they?
As I understand the teachings they have not stopped. The
Masters send out thoughts into the world and anyone who is receptive
can tune in on them.

>Patrick:
>The personality relationship that is established in such is devitalizing and
>focuses below the level of spiritual awareness.
I hate to say this Patrick but buddhi-manas is also "below
the level of spiritual awareness." Spiritual awareness begins with Atma.
I have no idea what "devitalizing" means but I assume that you picked this
up in the theosophical literature somewhere and are continuing its use.
Exercise for example is also devitalizing for awhile but its said to be
good for you to do.

Bee:
<Many have connected with their higher selves and many
<think they have. I guess the trick is to distinguish which is which. Maybe
<that is the lesson of our times.
Agreed.

Comment: I am not trying to pick on Patrick here. I *am* trying to pick
on an idea that Judge promoted to the effect that ALL psychism is
evil bad and rotten to the core. Thats just plain silly and to me smacks
of paranoia. I think that Judge did this because during his time too
many people were getting burned and the theosophical teachings
were not well known. I agree with JRC that we have advanced almost
100 years from then and times have changed. Unfortunately those
theosophists who parrot the "source teachings" still keep on bantering
this stuff without any first-hand experience. Nothing at all personal
to Patrick in this. In fact I want to thank patrick for bringing this up.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 17:59:11 GMT
From: Coherence@aol.com
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

If all of you will bear with me while I list some quotes I am attempting to
set the general tone and drift of thought. In messages dated 95-11-01
17:49:46 EST multiple participants have contributed the following:

>People leave theosophical groups after finding
>nothing there that is spiritual nourishing to them

>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.

>There is no well-defined theosophical practice
>for Westerners to give their whole being to

>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.

>I need to put in my 02 cents worth about this self-sacrifice bit
>because I believe it's overdone in Christianity...I take self-sacrifice to
mean
>that your main purpose in life is to serve other
>people. But I don't think that it means that you need to turn
>into a masochist & continually deprive yourself.

>So that's the way we learn... by moving towards pleasure & away from
>pain.

>Go be a good girl scout and help old people cross streets
>and then in your next life continue this way and seven lifetimes
>on down the road you will be a Chela and have wisdom and etc.
>This kind of stuff doesn't work on most people. It doesn't work on
>me either. I reject the notion that I have to wait 07 lifetimes or even
>one. I also reject the notion that if I am good I will obtain gnosis
>or enlightenment or whatever you want to call it. Christianity
>tells me that if I am good I will go to heaven. Theosophy tells
>me that if I am good I will have a better life next time around.
>I fail to see much difference in these two views and reject both

>There
>simply is no real theosophical path to tread other than that
>of karma yoga of doing good deeds like some kind of boy/girl
>scout for many lifetimes - which requires more faith than
>Christianity when it says to do this and you will gain heaven.

Needless to say I had a rude awakening this morning as I opened my mail. I
read the various posts containing the above in utter disbelief. Being a
relative newcomer to this list I have thoroughly enjoyed the intelligent
discussion of the teachings of Theosophy with participants clearly
knowledgable and thoughtful on such matters even if I personally disagree
with certain approaches ideas and conclusions. But I had never seen such a
concentrated display of thought from people who seem to have completely
missed the essence of Theosophy.

The purpose of "showing off" and "practicing my typing skills" such bitchy
comments by one wanting to be an Adept in a day by posting a lengthy list of
quotes from the Key to Theosophy was to point out that HPB was showing us the
way. Now I see most people rejecting this Path even though it is pure
occultism. "Man know thyself" is reiterated constantly and what greater
power over occult force could there be than from the "knowing" the ability
to "conquer" our lower natures and make then serve us for the benefit of all?
If there was a hint of understanding of the meaning of true Brotherhood you
would see the powerful and occult forces that come into play in Duty Charity
and Selflessness leading to true Self-Consciousness. Isn't this the what the
Masters epitomize? They have their powers because of the above virtues not
the other way around.

I guess I will continually be amazed at my naivete in these matters i.e.
what being a Theosophist means to many people. But if you will permit there
is a another relevant portion of the Key I would like to quote here:

"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 creeds and dogmas of social and caste prejudices; it will break
down racial and national antipathies and barriers and will open the way to
the practical realisation of the Brotherhood of all men. Through its
teaching through the philosophy which it has rendered accessible and
intelligible to the modern mind the West will learn to understand and
appreciate the East at its true value. Further the development of the
psychic powers and faculties the premonitory symptoms of which are already
visible in America will proceed healthily and normally. Mankind will be
saved from the terrible dangers both mental and bodily which are inevitable
when that unfolding takes place as it threatens to do in a hot-bed of
selfishness and all evil passions. Man's mental and psychic growth will
proceed in harmony with his moral improvement while his material
surroundings will reflect the peace and fraternal good-will which will reign
in his mind instead of the discord and strife which is everywhere apparent
around us to-day." p.306

All I can say now is Thank You for the insight. I have learned a great deal.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 18:49:57 GMT
From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com>
Subject: To be a Theosophist

I would like to respond to the quotation below. I am not sure who said it-

The purpose of "showing off" and "practicing my typing skills" such bitchy
comments by one wanting to be an Adept in a day by posting a lengthy list of
quotes from the Key to Theosophy was to point out that HPB was showing us the
way. Now I see most people rejecting this Path even though it is pure
occultism. "Man know thyself" is reiterated constantly and what greater
power over occult force could there be than from the "knowing" the ability
to "conquer" our lower natures and make then serve us for the benefit of all?
If there was a hint of understanding of the meaning of true Brotherhood you
would see the powerful and occult forces that come into play in Duty Charity
and Selflessness leading to true Self-Consciousness. Isn't this the what the
Masters epitomize? They have their powers because of the above virtues not
the other way around.

Keith:

I have been thinking about the whole topic of the Masters and what it means to
be spiritual and a theosophist.
I would like to comment on our expectation of what it means to be "spiritual" or
a Master. I am trying to get at the notion that our intuition of buddhic nature
must have an intuitive of superconscious link with one who we deem as
"spiritual". Unfortunately many of my ideas of a spiritual person come much from
the popular culture and childhood that is from school and movies like
"King of Kings" etc.

However one accepts another as a spiritual Master not on authority in the
esoteric traditioin but because of a intimate meeting of consciousness with the
Master on the buddhic or spritiual-intuitive plane. Thus one accepts another
not as Master because letters are "percipitated" or announced as "authentic"
but because one can respond and resonate with an uplifiting force present in the
Master's whole being and communicated on all levels- physical emotional
mental and intuitive etc.

However often people are mislead by the often false charisma of a Jim Jones
David Koresh and a host of gurus out for a buck Rajneesh Moon etc.. Bakti
yoga seems a dangerous thing!

I would like to propose that one has certain inate archetypal expectations or
intuitions about a "spiritual" person or Master.

I would suggest two small lists:

Possible False Expectations of Masters

!. speaks in a lofty distant otherworldy tone
2. wears robes in the modern era
3. smiles like a stupid baby
4. perfoms magic tricks
5. drives more than one luxury car
6. has a band of devoted followers who smile stupidly in his or her presence
7. indulges in gossip and underhanded politics

Possible True Expectations of Masters

1. practices virtues and receives power from them as in above quotation
2. humble
3. says much on own authority without need of an outside organization
4. helps others more than oneself

It would seem that if one connects to a Master's words one needs little
controversial speculation over magic tricks organizational pronouncements or
historical research.

Namaste

Keith Price
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 19:12:44 GMT
From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com>
Subject: More Forgiving the Body

Thanks Eldon and Jerry for your comments on the nature of the body mind and
spirit as it encounters karma.
I keep thinking about the word "automatic". Perhaps the bodies ability to heal
itself is that it responds to karma and "automatically" repairs without our
thinking. Its center of consciousness may be elsewhere as Eldon suggests. The
body is connected to some intelligent source as many healers would suggest.

This may be a little off the subject but the thought occured to me as people
where talking about the "automatic" nature of the body and our total nature that
has learned lessons in previous incarnations etc. that we may have a certain
expectation of what it is to be spiritual or even a "Master". This relates to
the the discussion of tantra and zen too in that part of our quest is to "raise"
out consciousness - to be above the desire nature - to shed the body and lower
vehicles.- and another tradition is that of the bodhisattva and nirmankaya that
takes on a special body to aid all sentient beings.

In other words there is an overwhelming feeling of love and devotion directed
toward the Master but hopefully the mental nature will help descriminate
between the real and the false in these issues.

Back to the original point one gets the idea of humanity moving away from the
material to a type of conscious spirituality based on a long round of lessons.
The "automatic" spirituality is yet very conscious I suppose.

I think also of the supposed angelic kingdom as being really subhuman according
to some in that they cannot choose to be anything but good. The are not
individual but a collective lower expression of the will of God according to my
reading of Hodgson and others.

For me the core of theosophy is that we are on a long journey as fragments from
unconscious or preconscious "goodness" to conscious choice between good and evil
and finally to a conscious identity and reunion with the original totality
beyond good and evil.

Perhaps part of my motivation is to take a short cut to nirvana the pratekaya
buddha sort of thing. But isn't it enough to accept and work with the long
process? After my accident I am reminded of Milton's "On HIs Blindness": "they
also serve who only stand and wait."

Namaste

Keith Price
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 20:03:55 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 ...
>
>Eldon:
>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?
>
>Patrick:
>The truth of the matter is that when a person goes in to an altered state
>they can via personal psychometry receive accurate information and even
>possessors can give accurate information - but this is all part of the
>deception. The main issue is that such practices are not always accurate and
>are not supported by the Mahatmas or any Initiate for the reason that the
>rendering of the system into such a state actually takes the person away from
>the radiance in consciousness of their own soul and thereby retards their own
>evolution toward full spiritual consciousness. A Mahatma works in
>cooperation with and through the Higher Self.

Bee here
Excuse me for butting in. Why have the Mahatmas stopped using other persons
as mini messengers these days? Or have they. There actually is some
excellent channeled material around that could have come straight from
Theosophy. As I understand it real channeling is done on the soul level and
has the full co-operation of the channelers soul to pass on to others what
may of importance at the particular time. It is my personality that steps
aside to allow a better flow of energy.
>
>Eldon:
>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.
>
>Patrick:
>The personality relationship that is established in such is devitalizing and
>focuses below the level of spiritual awareness. The right goal is for each
>of us to be able to know truth in our own full consciousness and dependence
>on any personality entity works against this. One test for proof would be to
>stop channelling for three years the time for healing and see if the entity
>throws temper tantrums - they usually do. There is never any coercion
>cajoling etc. among those who work with and for the Mahatmas.

Are those remarks from personal experience? That is not how it is for me.
Now that I know the hows and wherefores I only channel on odd occassions if
I get an internal urge to do so and then I can chose to decline without any
feeling of lack of love from the asker. I enjoyed channeling as I found the
energy envigorationg but that does not mean that I am going to do it for
that reason only. I am a sensible woman and always have been and I don't
jump into things so channeling was treated with much caution when it first
occurred. I don't actually think that I channel a Mahatma but I understand
that it is a teaching energy from the Ashram of a Mahatma. I have no problem
with that.
>
>Patrick:
>The Masters may use the personality of a chela but this occurs
>in full waking consciousness and the chela is completely aware ...
>
>Eldon:
>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?

Even lesser energies than a Master can be told apart by the type of energy
felt by the listeners. I do not expect to channel another SD or anything of
that nature but that is not the only influence the Masters spread around.
They don't do it themselves but they cause perhaps their chelas to cause
certain effects by channeling to another soul in the appropriate place. It
does not have to be words that are passed on but energy itself can move
mountains. I have been involved in some powerful energy transfers that are
meant to lighten the general atmosphere at particular points.
I channel 02 different energies now and have done for the past year but again
not very often at the moment. I know which is which by the energy they give
out and so did the group of people involved when it was a group thing.
>
>Patrick:
>As far as I have ever known or seen only an Initiate is able to do so.
>
>I don't consider myself any other than a soul on her path and I believe
that we are all becoming more sensitive to the vibrations around us and our
materialness is lightening. This is what makes it possible for more souls to
bring the energy from that level into the material level and maybe be more
in touch with teachers on higher planes who can then touch more closed souls
through the ones who can channel or pass on what intuitions come to them
from their higher selves. The New Agers are flying all over the place with
all sorts of other worldly ideas and strange information and again I believe
that is the same reason because the intuition is getting higher plane
information but the interpretation leaves a bit to be desired. The teachings
of the middle way are to give balance to this lightening of the earthly
bodies so that we can think rightly about what we are dealing with and not
rush about with way out theories and get egotistical over the conection with
the higher planes. Many have connected with their higher selves and many
think they have. I guess the trick is to distinguish which is which. Maybe
that is the lesson of our times.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 23:17:59 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: Sin

> Alan
>
> I don't understand what you mean by "the law of things". I agree with
> you that you can't judge another person's motives & that the concept
> of "sin" is relative but I also think that psychology is a science.
> I can tell some of Chouchou's intentions by
> the way she moves. I also know certain ways from Serge KIng to tap in to my
> unconscious because it works according to certain laws on general
> principle.
>
> Liesel

Excuse original typo - should read "the laws of things" or
perhaps to put it another way the law within things where
"things" is not necessarily material substance but states of
being etc. - hence psychology as a science would recognise the
laws which operate within the psyche soul. This was one of Jung's
main contributions to psychology IMO. In other words we seem
to agree :-

Alan
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 02 Nov 1995 23:57:57 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

Dear JRC:

WELL SAID!

Alan
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 00:25:32 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Vajrayana Practice & Theosophy

Following is a description of the 14 root downfalls. Someone
undergoing the Vajrayana practice should be attempting to live up
to these committments. They are listed in order of importance
with the most important coming first. The quote is from "The Gem
Ornament of Manifold Oral Instructions" by His Eminence Kalu
Rinpoche pages 119-126. If our work with Theosophy were a
practice this would be things that we might consider as we
attempted to live it.

In the following lines I will be quoting the Rinpoche then
drawing a theosophical analogy to the practice.

----

> The first root downfall is to contradict our guru.

The most important committment in a spiritual practice is to our
teacher which we are expected to be dedicated to. For us as
Theosophists this may be Blavatsky or Purucker or whichever
theosophical figure -- living or dead -- that acts in that role
for us.

> Until such time as we have received empowerment and teching from
> someone as our vajra guru it is perfectly appropriate to examine
> that person and indulge in critical analysis of that person to
> determine if that teacher is an authentic teacher an a proper one
> for us.

While searching for a teacher we may be highly critical because
we need to determine that the teacher is authentic truly someone
in the theosophical dharma.

> However once we have established that connection and accepted
> that person as our Vajrayana teacher the only attitude that is
> appropriate is one of complete confidence in that teacher.

When we accept someone as our theosophical teacher we should give
that teacher our complete confidence.

> Whether that teacher is enlightened or not we shold consider
> that teacher as an enlightened Buddha. ...

Having accepted and given our complete confidence to our
theosophical teacher we should treat that teacher as a Mahatma
granting the teacher our highest respect.

> ... In Vajrayana practice then once one has established a
> connection with an authentic guru it does not matter so much
> whether that guru is in fact completely enlightened or not so
> much as whether the student considers that guru to be completely
> enlightened.

We should not concern ourselves with worrying how high a chela or
what initiation our theosophical teacher has passed. The actual
status of our teacher if authentic is not important.

> With this confidence the student can receive the same benefits
> as though he or she were in the presence of a completely
> enlightened Buddha.

Our benefit from the utmost confidence and obedience to our
teacher will be as great as if that teacher where a Mahatma or
even higher a Buddha.

----

> The second root downfall ... is to contradict or refute the
> teachings of Buddha

Having given our confidence to our teacher we are now expected to
believe in and follow the teachings of the Buddha of the Masters
in both doctrine and practice in our lives.

> or the personal teachings that we receive from our guru.

And we should further give our loyalty to the teachings from our
personal theosophical teacher.

> What this implies is that we should do what our guru tells us to
> do or at least the best we can.

We don't just accept the philosophy but we endeavor to live the
life to the best of our ability.

----

> The third root downfall ... concerns our relationship with our
> vajra brothers and sisters all those men and women with whom we
> are connected through having received empowerments from the same
> teachers or in the same mandala.

Now that we've addressed our relationship with the theosophical
teachings and our specific teacher we've come to how we deal with
our fellow students.

> The only relationship that is appropriate within the context of
> samaya is a harmonious and mutually helpful relationship between
> ourselves and our vajra brothers and sisters.

We are expected to be harmonious and mutually helpful to our
fellow Theosophists.

> Quarreling spite competitiveness malevolent attitudes towards
> each other bickering and discord between ourselves and these
> people are completely out of the question from the point of view
> of samaya.

We should cut out all the negative stuff towards our fellow
theosophical students.

> We must repsect the very important bond that we have with these
> people through our commitment to Vajrayana. ...

We share an very important bond with our fellow Theosophists with
others committed to the theosophical Path.

----

> The fourth root downfall is the breaking of our bodhisattva vow.

Now that we're committed to the philosophy to our teacher and in
harmony with our fellow students we begin our practice in the
world. We honor our bodhisattva vow.

> To develop an injurious or negative attitude towards any being
> no matter how insignificant; to harm to avoid protecting or to
> avoid benefitting any being if we can not only violates our
> bodhisattva vow on a very fundamental level but from the point
> of view of tantric practice violates the fourth root downfall.

We protect and benefit others and seek to avoid causing harm.
This is compassion in action.

> ... these first four precepts are the most critical ...

This makes up the critical precepts to honor the Philosophy the
Teacher the fellow students and the law of compassion.

----

> The fifth root downfall ... concerns the impairment of two
> forces in our bodies ... intimately connected with the sexual
> processes ... there is an emphasis on ... preservation ...
> there is a recommendation that the tantric practitioner avoid
> damaging or impairing these forces through sexual activity.

Now that we're in the practice we are discouraged from sexual
activity. We're encouraged to conserve our life energies. The
Mahatmas speak of not using phenomenal means to accomplish their
ends but conserve their energy for times when it's really needed.
And they speak of remaining cool and dispassionate rather than
exhausing their life energies in unnecessary passion. The same
principle likely applies to sexual activity as well. This is of
course quite another possible lengthy topic of discussion!

----

> The sixth ... it is a root downfall to denigrate or abuse any
> spiritual system regardless of whether it is Buddhist or
> non-Buddhist.

If we can do all of the above we're well on our way to keeping a
solid theosophical practice. The next step is to respect the
spiritual systems of others.

> ... a tantric practitioner is not only to avoid disparaging any
> tradition of Buddhadharma but also Hinduism Judaism
> Christianity Islam and other spiritual systems.

This includes every religion and spiritual system and not only
other theosophical systems.

----

> The seventh vow concerns the revealing of secret teachings to
> those who are not fit to receive them

And now we come to the well-know principle of keeping our lips
sealed to what we learn from the Mysteries. [Note that this is well
down the list and is considered less important than respect for
the guru compassion in action and dispassion in one's nature.]

> which means discussing very profound and secret concepts of
> Vajrayana practice with those who are not prepared to accept
> them

We avoid talking about the deeper theosophical teachings with
those not prepared to accept them. This is easy to judge in a
discussion group when you can sound out the other people in
person but does not work well in an open email list where people
of all backgrounds are participants.

> who openly reject them

We also watch what we say when around people that reject the
Esoteric Philosophy.

> or who are not prepared to involve themselves with the tantric
> process in any way.

And even with people that are willing to listen and don't reject
the theosophical philosophy we must take care in what we say with
people not ready to *live* the theosophical life.

----

> The eighth root downfall is to regard our physical bodies or the
> skandhas or aggergates of our psycho-physical makeup as impure
> and base.

We respect other religious systems and respect the limitations of
others that we'd discuss the deep secrets with and now come to
respecting our physical bodies and our psycho-physical makeup as
well.

> ... Vajrayana sees everything as sacred. All appearance is a
> form of divinity all sound is the sound of mantra and all
> thought and awareness is the divine play of transcending
> awareness the Mahamudra experience.

Even our physical body and the external world is sacred and we
are seeking to see the divine everywhere even in the most
material and physical things.

----

> The ninth root downfall ... is to entertain doubts or
> hesitations about our own involvement in tantric practice.

First we have a practice and live compassion. Then we are
respectful to everything about us. And now we're dealing with an
unwavering consciousness a stable firm dynamic practice that
does not harbor doubts or hesitate for a heartbeat!

> We should have complete confidence ideally in what we are doing
> in tantra and not think "Well perhaps this is beneficial but
> then again I'm not sure. ... This ambivalent attitude toward
> our practice is a basic contradiction to the path.

An ambivalent attitude to our theosophical practice is
contradictory to the Path.

----

> The tenth root downfall ... [concerns] certain situations if
> there are beings who are behaving in extremely evil ways and
> committing extremely negative karma which inevitable will send
> them to a lower state of rebirth and cause infinite harm to other
> beings it is possible for an advanced tantric practitioner in a
> state of supreme compassion to terminate that being's existence
> and liberate them from their state of very negative existence.

Here we have the notion of intervention in the life of another.
Someone is out of control and destructive to themselves and others
and we must in extreme cases intervene for the good of all.

> It must be done totally selflessly from absolute compassion
> understanding and control of the situation; hence it would not
> seem to apply in our case.

Something extreme like killing another being does not apply except
in extremely rare exceptional cases. We might for instance kill
someone with his finger on the launch button to a nuclear missle
but we wouldn't kill someone for cutting us off in traffic!

> However from the point of view of tantric practice if one has
> the ability to take this action and refuses to bring a halt to
> terrible harm when one could alter it in a very beneficial way
> then one is committing the tenth root downfall.

We *must* intervene in a situation if the circumstances warrant
it.

----

> The eleventh root downfall ... concerns extremes in our outlook
> or view. There are two extremes to avoid.

Next comes the vow to maintain balance in our lives to live the
middle way.

> We can either be a naive realist and assume that everything that
> we experience is absolutely real with no possiblility of any
> other ultimate reality;

One extreme of outlook is to take our personal experiences of the
senses as absolute reality and accept nothing else as possibly
real. This can be our physical plane experiences or those we have
out-of-the-body.

> or we can take the description of shunyata to be a negation of
> everything and believe that nothing exists nothing is true and
> karma is completely false.

The other extreme is to take everything as emptiness and discount
our experiences of life denying karma and the external world.

> To fall into either of these extremes naive realism or naive
> nihilism is not following the correct view for tantric practice
> and therefore constitutes the eleventh root downfall.

The middle way is found between a realization of the emptiness of
external experiences and the respect for their valuable nature.
The divine is both found *within* the experiences and *beyond*
them. We need to see it in *both* places.

----

> The twelfth root downfall is to refuse to teach a sincere and
> interested individual who comes to us in the context of receiving
> teaching with faith. If we are able to teach that person and if
> we renege and do not teach we are committing this twelfth root
> downfall.

Note that we're nearing the bottom of the list and only here do
we first hear about teaching those that are eager to learn. This
is something important to do; it is part of our theosophical
practice. Teaching the philosophy though comes *after* we have
an established practice proper respect for others and a balanced
experience of life.

----

> The thirteenth root downfall concerns our attitude and approach
> to tantric practice and tantric ritual. If we are participating
> in a ... feast where the ritual use of meat and alcohol is
> made and we abstain ... on the grounds that it is impure or
> that it is contrary to our convictions and principles then we
> have failed to appreciate the view of tantra

Our theosophical practice is not based upon the pious observation
of predefined rules. We have our convictions and principles and
they guide us in life. But we think through and perceive the right
action freshly with each situation and don't act a specific way
according to a rigid formula. The importance of this practice is
to overcome the rigidity of mind and heart that holds us to a
specific pattern of action -- be that action good or not -- and to
always be responsive to what is right in the specific situation
before us.

> which attempts to transcend purity and impurity attempts to
> transcend dualistic thinking and we have failed to appreciate
> and take part in the spirit of that tantric transformation
> process.

The notion of purity comes from a form of dualistic thinking. This
does not mean that purity does not exist. When we take our
personal experiences as absolute reality we might find eating
meat even in a ritual setting as impure and objectionable. When
we take our personal experiences as mayavic and find solace in
emptiness we perceive the meat as insignificant and the ritual
proceeds without inner conflict.

There's really a balancing act inside us a balancing act between
our standards of living arising out of the experience of the
external world as real and based upon karma that binds us and our
experience of the essential nature of life.

----

> The fourteenth root downfall is to disparage women either by a
> mental attitude of considering women to be lower than men or by
> verbalizing these opinions.

Need I say anything about this one?

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 00:46:40 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Channelling Why no psychic?

Jerry S:

>I *am* trying to pick
>on an idea that Judge promoted to the effect that ALL psychism is
>evil bad and rotten to the core. Thats just plain silly and to me smacks
>of paranoia. I think that Judge did this because during his time too
>many people were getting burned and the theosophical teachings
>were not well known. ... times have changed. Unfortunately those
>theosophists who parrot the "source teachings" still keep on bantering
>this stuff without any first-hand experience.

It depends upon the particular practice that you undertake or that I
undertake. The practice that Purucker teaches is similar to Zen in that
the psychical is seen as unwanted and a distraction from one's inner work.
I'd admit that when one advances to certain point the prohibition against
psychicism does not make sense as various faculties start opening up on
their own. In line *with this particular practice* though we can say
"no psychic stuff!" This does not preclude *other practices* even within
the broader theosophical community where other approaches are taught.
It's not a matter of fear of paranoia nor ignorance arising out of a
lack of experience. Rather it's part of one specific spiritual practice
one theosophical tantra where this prohibition is to be found.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 04:00:30 GMT
From: Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com
Subject: Greetings

Greetings to all of you who engage enthusiastically in this electronic
conversation. I've seen your correspondence only since yesterday and find it
interesting even overwhelming as when I got in this morning there were
probably 25 messages all containing thought-provoking comments and
conversations on topics that have current impact in my own life and spiritual
path. Your insights and feelings are wonderful. Plenty of this is well over
my head but I plan to do a lot of observing and learning so bear with me if I
sound like a newcomer I am as I get to know each of you. Actually I'm new
to the entire internet world and can only hope I don't waste a lot of time
stumbling around.

I am first drawn to your conversations on gurus or Masters. Particularly
enjoyed the list "Possible False Expectations of Masters" and "Possible True
Expectations of Masters". I never thought to apply a list to that subject.
Has any of you heard of Sathya Sai Baba? Any thoughts or feelings out there?
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 04:10:53 GMT
From: Aprioripa@aol.com
Subject: Re: Channelling

Spirituality actually begins in higher manas or in terms of planes on
the higher mental plane. The assessment as to the devitalizing and harmful
effect of channeling below this level is not based on paranoia or fear but
simply a recognition of what moves forward into freedom and what moves
backward and toward stagnation/slavery.

The goal of the lower channelers is to establish a kama-manas rapport so
as to take prana and they will happily sound "theosophical" or any other way
and say accurate things to do so. This is what is meant when it is said that
truth can be part of the deception. All lower channeling results in a type
of dependency below the level of buddhi-atma and thus works against the
spiritual development of those involved.

In higher channeling from any ashramic source there is no kama-lower
manas involved in the rapport but in order to be able to channel this way
the chela must first have overcome all of the personal limitations of
kama-manas and be Initiate. One does not need to enter an altered or
different state to higher channel - one already has a presence of the higher
qualities and simply aligns with these in complete personal integrity and
spiritual fusion.

An Initiate is consciously immortal and can see clearly the level of
quality of any approaching entity as regards the entire realm of kama-manas.
There is no question as to the source as this can always be verified
directly and an Initiate can be in intuitive rapport with a Mahatma whenever
there is need. There is all the information that is needed already written
on the physical plane to help any of us to be Initiate.

Chela's can and do communicate telepathically but this is done in full
awareness and knowledge of the quality and accuracy of what is being
transmitted. Although it is generally easier today just to write a letter
or send email.

Peace & Light
Patrick
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 04:29:10 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Ambivalence about Creativity

Looking again at the TS natal chart for 11/17/75 I see
something that never dawned on me before. That Mars/Saturn
opposition to Uranus I was talking about is one arm of a Grand
Cross the other arm being the opposition of Pluto in Taurus in
the 11th to the in Scorpio in the 5th. End of astrological
jargon.

What this says to me is that the Theosophical Society's
fundamental purpose is to provide a field of creative
expression for individuals interested in the mysteries of life
and death esotericism etc. Scorpio in addition to ruling
the occult is associated with sex-- which is creativity on the
physical plane. The fifth house rules creativity and children
so this underscores the same emphasis. But the the basic
life urge of the group is opposed by Pluto which is the
surest sign of power struggles. Especially since it is in the
11th house which rules collective progressive endeavors.
To quote Robert Pelletier on this aspect:

..shows that you are defensive when challenged by others. In
competition you may resort to extreme measures to guarantee
winning. You generally assume that your opponent has more
power than you and that your own position is insecure. If it
becomes obvious that you cannot win you may turn your back on
the threat and pretend it doesn't exist. Nothing bothers you
as much as being unsure of a situation...The most persistent
challenge you face is to recognize the right of others to
assert themselves. Unless you allow this you will be
constantly harassed by people who will refuse to support
you...If you tolerate others rather than resent them for
threatening you you will realize that you have the authority
to accomplish your objectives independently.

This rings a certain bell with me. But the main point is that
the Theosophical movement-- not just the TS-- is extremely
ambivalent about creativity in its members. On one hand it
regularly attracts people with creative gifts in a variety of
fields. Then it fosters their creativity encourages them
nurtures them. Then all too often it spews them out when
their creativity becomes a threat to somebody's power. William
Butler Yeats was run out of the TS by some nonentity
complaining about him I think-- JHE is the expert here. The
list is so long from Anna Kingsford to Krishnamurti of people
for whom the come-on was "we welcome you we want you your new
ideas your energy" and the good-bye was "you don't belong we
have no room for you here go away." The Sun-Pluto
opposition seems very symbolic of this.

My own experience has certainly been that the TS fostered and
encouraged my creativity. Grace Knoche was the first person to
suggest that I write about Theosophy 14 years ago. Virtually
every one of the 30 or so periodical pieces I've published was
in a Theosophical journal. And now... Pluto cannot tolerate my
Sun any more. But how can one be resentful when the very
creativity that gets one rejected would never have blossomed
without the support initially given? My own creativity is
mainly in the realm of new ideas rather than research or
writing. It's really weird to have people sputtering now about new
ideas I had in 1989 when I've had 3600 since then! Feels like
a time warp.

This leads back to the empty boats idea or the message
from a good friend that THEY HAVE NO CHOICE but to react this
way. I asked "Why me Lord?" and the Lord answered "It's not
you doofus it's that railroad track you keep standing on!"
The train can't go any other way-- you can.

To close there's a wonderful quote in the Cayce material I'm
working with right now that speaks to all of us who have been
hurt in the Theosophical movement:

Conditions that are disappointments continue to hurt continue
to make for sorrow. Yet if there is held fast to that which
has been given as to the purposes for the consciousnesses and
the awarenesses the entity will know that these are ways
means manners in which the soul the entity may find its way
to its Creator; and are to be looked upon are to be used as
stepping-stones-- not wept over or sorrowed about. But weep
with those who weep and rejoice with those who do rejoice in
the Lord! These will make for the non-effect of the
disappointments the little hurts the little influences that
have become rather as a pall or a shadow and made the entity
in its experience and its use of those become as one doubting
somewhat in self as to the abilities to keep or to hold fast to
that ideal that purpose that desire.

"Weep with those who weep" means to me personally that whatever
hurt I have experienced as a result of my creative endeavors
and Theosophical rejection is THE SAME hurt felt by many many
others who have passed through the same vortex of Sun-Pluto
opposition. And "rejoice with those who rejoice" is the
recognition that for many who passed before this experience
has been a stepping stone rather than a stumbling block as it
can be for me and others who pass through the same portal in the
future.

Namaste.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 04:34:04 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Re: Praxis and Pluralism

>
>On one hand it is impossible not to agree with Eldon and Jerry
>S.'s suggestion that lack of a specific spiritual practice is a
>weakness in Theosophical groups. On the other hand it is
>equally impossible not to see that imposing such specifics
>would be fatal to the pluralism that they are mandated well
>Adyar at least to sustain.
>
>Perhaps a happy medium is suggested by the Miami lodge which
>has many different simultaneous activities including various
>practices but also events where people study theosophy per
>se. Ideally theosophical groups would be like a UN of
>spirituality where people have different paths but nourish one
>another.
>
>Is Sy reading? Could you comment on the balance between
>practical and theoretical emphases in your lodge and how they
>sustain each other?
>
>If Sy is reading many thanks for the newsletter arrived snail-mail. I now
have 02 younger vice-presidents so a bit of brainstorming might be useful. We
hope to be in our new premises to begin 1996 in style.
Regards Bee

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 04:58:39 GMT
From: Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com
Subject: (none)

To Bee:

You've answered my questions about what it is to be a theosophist. I picked so
many conversations in the middle felt kind of lost and this a nice nut shell"
version. Any "easier" theosophical" books you might recommend to a person who
has labored through Isis?

Donna
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 05:33:34 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Vajrayana Practice & Theosophy

Paul:

>Few things are as dangerous as a false analogy and some of
>yours cause my alarm bells to ring very loudly. So for what
>it's worth--

That's all I'm doing presenting materials for what it's worth.
I'm drawing a comparison but not attempting to define the way
that all theosophical work should be handled in our organizations.
That is much too big for a single individual to do. It will take
several generations of dedicated Theosophists to give this a
decent start.

My attempt is to open up some discussion in the area of
comparing Eastern religions with the theosophical modus operandi
not to present the final word on how it should be.

>> > The first root downfall is to contradict our guru.

>The Rinpoche is speaking exclusively of a living guru with whom
>we have a personal relationship. To apply such a principle to
>a dead person whom we only know through his/her books is
>extremely hazardous IMO.

True. It won't work most of the time. I wouldn't completely rule
it out though and would say that it may be possible for some
people to use this approach.

>A living guru who knows you can
>prescribe for you based on personal observation. To take stuff
>from books in such a way is like practicing do-it-yourself
>surgery from reading medical books. You MIGHT do OK and you
>might screw yourself up royally.

Granted that we may get in trouble when we do it ourselves. And
that is exactly what we're left up to until we make further
progress in carrying through with the intent of Theosophy forming
the cornerstone of future Western religions. Without established
practices to follow we're in the position of looking elsewhere
*or in helping formulate the one-or-many future theosophical
religions*.

It is this reason that you give pointing to the danger of
screwing oneself up that the occult arts are given a strong
deemphasis if not outright ban in theosophical groups since
that is the area of life in which the potential damage can be
found. Any approach that keeps its focus solely on the spiritual
or intellectual/spiritual does not run this risk for anything
that you do can only be beneficial. There *are* valid approaches
that include visualizations etc. in their training but these
aren't safe without I think an external Guru with substantial
training in the respective tradition.

>> When we accept someone as our theosophical teacher we should give
>> that teacher our complete confidence.

>If you have a personal connection with living teacher you can
>see in this light more power to you. But complete confidence
>in ANY books is not the dharma. standard disclaimer--IMHO

Not in any books *by themselves* but they can form part of a
self-devised practice. The confidence is in the Way in the
Teachings not the mere words on the printed page and the Teacher
if or when we have one. Perhaps we're left with two out of three
of these but if we really ready ourselves a Teacher will show up
in our lives. It may be possible many times that the "Teacher"
appears in the form of karmic circumstances where the responses
of life to our inner flowering become our teacher and an individual
personal guru is not needed in a particular lifetime. I'd agree
with you that in the long run a personal Guru is essential.

>> the theosophical philosophy we must take care in what we say with
>> people not ready to *live* the theosophical life.

>Perhaps we should take more care about allowing ourselves to
>pass judgment on others in this way.

The Vajayana approach lists this as part of a practice. It is
low on the list and I'd agree that it is difficult to do. As
with all of the practices though it has been pointed out to
us by the Buddha-dharma as something important *to try to do*
even if we're not always able to live up to it.

>Most of your parallels are fine and your choice of Purucker is
>one that seems reasonable. As a living teacher he was perhaps
>the most productive in Theosophical history since HPB never
>stayed in one place long enough to develop the long-term
>relationships with students that GdeP did.

In a certain way I'd felt sad that I wasn't able to be at
Point Loma when he lived and personally benefit from him as
a Teacher. But I'm glad to be alive in this generation and
enjoy the opportunities for creative expression afforded in
this age.

We're ultimately left on our own up to our own devices to
achieve the goal. This includes the responsibililty to find
validate and give our dedication to a Teacher the first and
utmost Vajrayana practice soming even higher than the
Bodhisattva vow and the brotherliness to our fellow aspirants.
When no guru shows up we either aren't looking in the right
place e.g. the "guru" is present in the karmic circumstances
about us in life even at this momemt or we're not *really*
looking.

>But before deciding that you can
>translate that past teaching into a living reality analogous to
>what the Rinpoche is describing I'd ask several questions:

>1 What would the Rinpoche say about this?

My view? Do it! Don't sit on your but waiting for some
Mahatma to materialize in your living room and tell you
to do something. If having a book and a theosophical
tradition works for you *use it* and tred the Path!

Become aware of the gnawing hunger that
leads to the search for the Spiritual and find avenues
in life that satisify it. Give up any preconceptions or
expectations about the form that the Teacher will appear
in your life and simply *become the spiritual*. Stop
the functioning of the mind that acts as the "great slayer
of the real" and awaken to "eternal delight". Dive into
the pools of deep wisdom open to your eager mind and
be nourished. ...

>2 What would Purucker's surviving students e.g. Grace K. or
>Emmett S. advise?

Having knowing Purucker personally I don't think that
they would be able to objectively consider such an approach.
The path is essentially self-devised and incorporates the
materials from Purucker as some of the content. It is not
something for most people. Our theosophical groups I think
will be vastly more useful to the Western world when they've
specialized more into specific theosophical religious sects
with authentic approachs to the Path when whey literally
become Mystery Schools rather than fraternal metaphysical
book clubs.

>Personally I'm developing a connection with Cayce that's
>similar to what you are talking about with Theosophical
>sources. But his emphasis is always: test through application
>and accept only WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU.

Agreed. Without an *external* Teacher we're left up to
an *internal* one and must follow his dictates.

>Like a physician he prescribed FOR INDIVIDUALS. And any
>individual CAN and MUST "contradict the guru" when advice
>given to somebody else just doesn't fit or work for oneself.

Yes. A living guru customizes the dharma for the particular
student or chela. Apart from an external Teacher we must
look within and use our best judgement in doing our own
personal customization.

>Good luck.

And good luck again to you.

For the theosophical organizations though I hope that they're
not out of luck. They need a revitalization an impetus given to
restore what they teach to a real living Religious Philosophy
something worthy of being called the Wisdom Religon. There's a
genuine raw enthusiasm for the spiritual Path that goes far beyond
the *content* of our study and I see too little of it at times.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 07:53:04 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: Re: to be a theosophist

The following are some of my own responses to Paul's
responses to Coherence.

PJ
OK-- some practical issues. I'm a writer and my sole interest
is in spirituality sole authorial interest that is. Would
any Theosophical publisher welcome my work either in article
or book form? If not and the answer seems pretty definitely
not then I'm not respected as a Theosophist where it counts
as a writer.

JHE
You are right. Spirituality per se doesn't sell. Nor does
ethics. The general public isn't interested in subject areas
that would require critical self examination and hard work.
Apr and I have been working for some years on putting together
HPB's ethical teachings. If the project was ever published
which it would not unless it was done out of our own pockets
we figure that we might sell two copies--to Apr's mother and
father. As for respecting people as a theosophist I go by their
values and integrity whether they know how to write or not. Why
is it important for you to be recognized as a theosophist by your
writings? IMO a lot of "theosophists" who became recognized as
such through their writings produced a lot of crap anyway.
Personally I would respect Damodar over most others--not because
of his writings which were not very many but because of the
type of person he was.

PJ
For me the ultimate question that led to resignation from both
Adyar and Pasadena TS's was "if asked by a friend would I
recommend joining a Theosophical organization?" Although there
are many local groups I would encourage people to attend I
really couldn't in good conscience encourage a friend to join
any of the national/international societies.

JHE
I came to this same conclusion many years ago about the
Adyar TS but took Smythe's lead and decided that I would be a
greater service to the Adyar TS as an agitator and critic then if
I left it. When a member of an Organization sees an injustice
and leaves because of it they are just giving that Organization
more freedom to continue their ways. By staying and fighting
one can sometimes bring about positive change.

PJ
The motive however was frankly not service of Humanity
OR personal reward but service to the Theosophical movement.
Proving the reality of the Masters and thus getting HPB and
Theosophy some long-overdue respect.

JHE
You lost me here. Part of your premise As I read it--and
as everyone else I know who has read the book reads it is that
HPB created an elaborate fraud concerning the existence of the
Masters in order to cover the identity of some politically active
people. How does this gain public respect for HPB and the
Masters? But as Godwin says in the introduction to your own
book you were only offering a theory and nothing more. If your
theory turns out to be fact then you have indeed exposed more
than one myth and you *will* be deeply respected at least by
me for it and as far as I'm concerned you will have done a
great service to the TM. On the other hand if it turns out not
to be true then you have created a new myth that makes the
Masters as represented in the Mahatma letters to be fabrications;
Olcott to be a fool; and HPB to be a fraud. With this second
scenario how did you ever expect for even a moment that the
Theosophical Organizations which owe their existence to your so
called myth created by HPB would ever welcome your book?

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: 03 Nov 1995 07:53:57 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: re: Hi again and a few Questions

>Dear William
>
>Instead of Simons did your group ever look at Doss McDavid's
>"Introduction to Esoteric Principles"? It's newer.
>
>Liesel

JHE

Yes. A good choice. Doss knows what he is talking about.
I've used this for classes in the past.

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: 03 Nov 1995 07:57:06 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: Re re: to be a theosophist

<<Liesel:
<<I'd like to know who else around here feels or has felt at one
<<time that they've been excluded by Theosophists.

> Count me in. I have been on the edge of resignation
>more than once.
>
> Jerry S.

Me too though I never considered resigning. It is those
who don't exclude me whom I find to be worth while friends and
those who do who are worth while teachers.

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: 03 Nov 1995 07:58:05 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: tantric theosophy

Jerry S> We were talking about new members
and I said that simply telling someone to go and live the life
was asking too much of them. We need to help them kindle
the fire of spirit within them first and then living the life is
spontaneous and joyful.

That's the key.

Jerry HE
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 08:04:15 GMT
From: Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com
Subject: Re: Greetings Take 02

<Hi Donna

Welcome to theos-l. I hope your stay with us will be profitable & long. I'm
particularly glad to have another woman aboard. We can use a few more of us.

Liesel>

Thanks for the warm howdy-doo. I'm happy to even out the balance of nature in
this group for as long a stay as I can manage. While I won't profess to have
the intellectual prowess of some of you I am rather opinionated and always
willing to share. It's a Leo thing I guess. Regardless already I've
learned a lot from your correspondence and look forward to more. By the way
I'm in San Francisco. Where are you guys? Anyone in the mood to share? How
about some of you quieter gentlemen?

Donna
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 08:07:47 GMT
From: Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com
Subject: Re: Definitely High Brow Chat

Hello again and thanks to Bee for the input. Duh guess I should've just put
this on the other message. Told you I was new at this. Well what I said to
Leisel I mean to you too and all you guys. Have a nice weekend.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 08:12:51 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: Vajrayana Practice & Theosophy

According to Eldon B. Tucker:
>
> In the following lines I will be quoting the Rinpoche then
> drawing a theosophical analogy to the practice.
>
Few things are as dangerous as a false analogy and some of
yours cause my alarm bells to ring very loudly. So for what
it's worth--
> ----
>
> > The first root downfall is to contradict our guru.
>
> The most important committment in a spiritual practice is to our
> teacher which we are expected to be dedicated to. For us as
> Theosophists this may be Blavatsky or Purucker or whichever
> theosophical figure -- living or dead -- that acts in that role
> for us.
The Rinpoche is speaking exclusively of a living guru with whom
we have a personal relationship. To apply such a principle to
a dead person whom we only know through his/her books is
extremely hazardous IMO. A living guru who knows you can
prescribe for you based on personal observation. To take stuff
from books in such a way is like practicing do-it-yourself
surgery from reading medical books. You MIGHT do OK and you
might screw yourself up royally.
>
> When we accept someone as our theosophical teacher we should give
> that teacher our complete confidence.
If you have a personal connection with living teacher you can
see in this light more power to you. But complete confidence
in ANY books is not the dharma. standard disclaimer--IMHO
> the theosophical philosophy we must take care in what we say with
> people not ready to *live* the theosophical life.
Perhaps we should take more care about allowing ourselves to
pass judgment on others in this way.

Most of your parallels are fine and your choice of Purucker is
one that seems reasonable. As a living teacher he was perhaps
the most productive in Theosophical history since HPB never stayed in one
place long enough to develop the long-term relationships with
students that GdeP did. But before deciding that you can
translate that past teaching into a living reality analogous to
what the Rinpoche is describing I'd ask several questions:
1 What would the Rinpoche say about this?
2 What would Purucker's surviving students e.g. Grace K. or
Emmett S. advise?

Personally I'm developing a connection with Cayce that's
similar to what you are talking about with Theosophical
sources. But his emphasis is always: test through application
and accept only WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU. Like a physician he
prescribed FOR INDIVIDUALS. And any individual CAN and MUST
"contradict the guru" when advice given to somebody else just
doesn't fit or work for oneself.

Good luck.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 08:40:36 GMT
From: Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

<Dear Bee
Agreed that we all have our own ways & opinions our own Paths. That's as it
should be. But you indicate that you're a member of a group. You mention that
some
of your group isn't in agreement with you channeling. From that statement one
gathers that you've been able to talk to them about it. I didn't even have
anyone to bounce my ideas off of to tell what I was just then studying my
newest esoteric discoveries. Most people around me aren't esoterically minded
.. aren't interested in Theosophcical ideas. So I felt completely isolated. I
felt like an outcast. That kind of a cold shoulder from the organization which
is nearest & dearest to you is pretty hard to take especially if you just
happen to be as I was then at a particularly difficult period in your life.>

You know I've come across this on more than one ocassion. As much as we wish
to be trusting of our groups and our like minded associations too many times
it is proven that such groups and associations and I think I read this in your
correspondence over the last couple of days are being treated as competitive
grounds for power and influence by the people we would like to think are
friends. Status who knows more about what than whom blah blah blah ... you
name it it exists in many places and I find it so dismal. To me the purpose
of such exchanges is to somehow contribute to one another's growth either
spiritually or however you wish to say it. And a true contribution is done
with the right intentions. I find that our paths often cross for that reason
if we are aware of it or not. It's about control and for many people control
is a very important component to life. So perhaps our challenge is to
identify those people as they aren't exactly healthy albeit they may have
some yet unseen purpose or hold an unlearned lesson to identify those who are
truly our friends. To know where we can go when we need support or guidance
.. where it is safe. Finding a safe place can many times be the greatest
challenge of all in this crazy convoluted world.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 10:26:53 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: High Brow chat

Hi Bee

What a chuckle that poem is.
I'm pasing it on. You know I live in a building with 80 other
Grannies & Great-grannies.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 10:39:22 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Daniel's crusade fwd

Paul:<On the positive side the Cayce material is providing exactly
the grounding in practice that I desperately need after years
of intellectualism.>

You got it right Paul. If you want in-the-trenches practice
you have to go outside the TSs which only provide theory albeit
pretty good theory!.

Paul:<BTW I told Don about Guy the publisher we met at Hector's.
Don de Gracia had a book about OOBEs and science that Wheaton
rejected and I thought maybe Guy would be interested. Was his
last name McDonald? Do you remember the name of the publishing
company? Twelvetrees comes to mind but that's not quite it.>

My memory is the second thing to go Paul and I
can't recall what the first one was. Sorry. But he did say that
he would be joining us here in theos-l. Actually he may be
here lurking or something ?.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 10:53:00 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: More Forgiving the Body

>From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com>
>Subject: More Forgiving the Body

Keith
Thanks Eldon and Jerry for your comments on the nature of the body mind and
spirit as it encounters karma.

I keep thinking about the word "automatic". Perhaps the bodies ability to heal
itself is that it responds to karma and "automatically" repairs without our
thinking. Its center of consciousness may be elsewhere as Eldon suggests. The
body is connected to some intelligent source as many healers would suggest.

Liesel
I'm not so sure that the body heals because it's connected to some
intelligent source I think it has its own healing power within it.
Sometimes all you have to give is a little nudge & it heals. That
isn't quite the whole picture because everything is connected to
everything else & the body may heal because of its relationships
with other entities but I do think it has a capability of healing
withint itself.

Keith
to be above the desire nature - to shed the body and lower
vehicles.- and another tradition is that of the bodhisattva and nirmankaya that
takes on a special body to aid all sentient beings.

I believe that you shed your body when you die. At other times I
think the same body just changes.

Keith
I think also of the supposed angelic kingdom as being really subhuman according
to some in that they cannot choose to be anything but good. The are not
individual but a collective lower expression of the will of God according to my
reading of Hodgson and others.

Liesel
I never got the impression from the literature that angels were
necessarily subhuman... just different.

Glad you're feeling better Keith.
Liesel

.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 11:10:47 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

>From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

Liesel:
<I'd like to know who else around here feels or has felt at one time
<that they've been excluded by Theosophists.

Count me in. I have been on the edge of resignation
more than once.

Jerry S.

You too Jerry? I'm amazed.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 11:17:39 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

I'd like to say for emphasis that I think the flexibility in training
people spiritually which Jerry S. speaks about should be so flexible
as to include people's individual differences. I meditate lying down
& it works fine.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 11:27:42 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

>From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com>
>Subject: To be a Theosophist

Keith
Possible True Expectations of Masters

1. practices virtues and receives power from them as in above quotation
2. humble
3. says much on own authority without need of an outside organization
4. helps others more than oneself

It would seem that if one connects to a Master's words one needs little
controversial speculation over magic tricks organizational pronouncements or
historical research.

Namaste

Keith Price

Right on Keith

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 11:30:25 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: Vajrayana Practice & Theosophy

According to Eldon B. Tucker:
>
> Granted that we may get in trouble when we do it ourselves. And

It isn't exploring the path by oneself that worries me; after
all that *is* what we must do. But rather accepting any dead
teacher as an authority not to be contradicted. If we're in a
personal relationship there is the possibility of feedback
about potential misunderstandings. But in the absence of a
guru we need some kind of feedback from our associates or our
own judgment that can override what we get out of books.

> that is exactly what we're left up to until we make further
> progress in carrying through with the intent of Theosophy forming
> the cornerstone of future Western religions. Without established
> practices to follow we're in the position of looking elsewhere
> *or in helping formulate the one-or-many future theosophical
> religions*.

"Cornerstone of the future religions of humanity" does not to
me necessarily mean not-yet-born religions. Theosophy
has been the cornerstone of a global approach to spirituality
which will continue to reverberate in Buddhism Hinduism
Christianity etc. Even if the TS were to become extinct
tomorrow and HPB's books all go out of print and her name be
forgotten the changes already wrought will continue to help
shape the future of religion.
>
> found. Any approach that keeps its focus solely on the spiritual
> or intellectual/spiritual does not run this risk for anything
> that you do can only be beneficial. There *are* valid approaches

Here I disagree most sharply. There are plenty of approaches
that focus solely on the spiritual or intellectual/spiritual that are not
beneficial but rather the reverse IMO. Won't name them but
I think on reflection you'll grant the possibility. After all
remember what KH said about 2/3 of the evils that afflict
humanity. It was religion not psychism to which he
attributed them.
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 11:30:56 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Channelling Why no psychic?

Eldon:< The practice that Purucker teaches is similar to Zen in that
the psychical is seen as unwanted and a distraction from one's inner work.>

I have no quarrel with Purucker on this. And I respect
your position. By accepting this position up front as it were you
are perfectly within your right to consider these as distractions.
That is exactly what Zen would say too. It is however not my
position.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 11:31:09 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Channelling

Patrick:< Spirituality actually begins in higher manas or in terms
of planes on the higher mental plane.>

Since when??? As far as I know spirituality
begins at the fifth plane upward the Atmic which lies just
above the Abyss about which theosophist are in relative
ignorance. The upper mental is relatively formless
like a coma or dreamless sleep but is not spiritual we
usually define mental and spiritual as two separate things
Patrick.

Patrick:< The assessment as to the devitalizing and harmful
effect of channeling below this level is not based on paranoia
or fear but simply a recognition of what moves forward into
freedom and what moves backward and toward stagnation/slavery.>

This statement is not from anyone's personal experience.
It stems from too much book-learning and parroting of someone
else. You seem to see the whole planetary chain in terms of
blacks and whites. I see it all as shades of grey. I think this
is where our biggest differences lie.

Patrick:< The goal of the lower channelers is to establish a
kama-manas rapport so as to take prana and they will happily
sound "theosophical" or any other way and say accurate things
to do so. >

This is very very demeaning as well as very
condescending. Did you read the minds of these "lower
channelers" in order arrive at this remarkable conclusion?
Do you have any idea at all what "to take prana" means?
It doesn't sound like it. Let me get this straight: Lower
channelers deliberately say accurate things in order
to sound theosophical. Is this right .*.*.*...pardon me
for laughing.

In retrospect my own response above sounds demeaning
and condescending as well. Well I mean it to be toward
the subject matter but certainly not to Patrick who is only
quoting from theosophical literature as he understands
it.

Patrick:< All lower channeling results in a type
of dependency below the level of buddhi-atma and
thus works against the spiritual development of those involved.>

Where in earth did you get this idea. I find it
positively revolting disgusting crude cruel and downright
wrong. If you want we can flip it around the other way and
say that all buddhi-manas channeling is a type of
dependency and works against spiritual development
because it stiffles samadhi as the quotes Eldon gave us
in a past posting on zazen shows. All life is dependent
Patrick. You can deny it all you want but I read fear and
paranoia between all of your lines.

Patrick:< One does not need to enter an altered or
different state to higher channel - one already has a presence
of the higher qualities and simply aligns with these in complete
personal integrity and spiritual fusion.>

Here again the idea expressed is plain wrong. This
is beyond my opinion and someone else's opinion here. Every
Adept at whatever grade must raise consciousness into higher
planes in order to channel and this is by definition an altered
state of consciousness. I don't know where Patrick's information
is coming from but it is clearly from someone with little
understanding of what is going on and who is very fearful of
"lower channeling." I absolutely defy anyone to quote from
the MLs or from HPB to substantiate this posting of Patricks.
Its no wonder that people like JRC and Bee have such a
hard time in theosophical circles.

Patrick:< An Initiate is consciously immortal and can see
clearly the level of quality of any approaching entity as regards
the entire realm of kama-manas.>

I haven't a clue as to what "consciously immortal" means.
But as to the rest I agree. An initiate is one who is treading the
Path a Chela either formally or informally. In a real sense we are
all initiates on theos-l. I would like to think that we would all be able
to recognize a pleasant dream from a nightmare.

Patrick:< There is no question as to the source as this can always
be verified directly and an Initiate can be in intuitive rapport with a
Mahatma whenever there is need. >

Excuse my French but this is pure bullshit. There is
ALWAYS some question as to the source. Just how would you
set about to make such a verification -- call the Adept up on the
Adepthood hotline?

Patrick:< There is all the information that is needed already written
on the physical plane to help any of us to be Initiate.>

Every single written word is exoteric and thus distorted
and flawed. You can become an Initiate by reading and studying
yes. But you cannot become an Adept that way. The esoteric
is understood through direct experience not through reading
or study.

Sorry to come down so hard on this. And I want to thank Patrick
for posting this "theosophical" teaching on channeling because
it gives me an opportunity to rebut it. The insightful reader may
detect a tad of emotional envolvement that I have with this subject.
Thats because it is near and dear to my heart. I feel that Judge
has done us all a terrible injustice by his continual hammering
of the rightness of "higher" and the wrongness of "lower" when
it is obvious that only an Adept or high Initiate would ever be able
to tell the difference anyway. HPB throws out a few warnings in
passing and this is right and proper. But those reading Judge
come away with a warped outlook. I have to think that this was
because he was in opposition to the AB/CWL outpouring at that
time because otherwise I like and respect Judge very much.
Oh well I am leaving my soapbox and going back to my quite
room for rest.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 13:06:29 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

Liesel:<I'd like to say for emphasis that I think the flexibility in training
people spiritually which Jerry S. speaks about should be so flexible
as to include people's individual differences. I meditate lying down
& it works fine.>

I am glad you said this Liesel. A long time ago I started
working under a Teacher of sorts who told me that I must always
meditate upright. Now it just so happens that I do my very best
meditational work in bed right before falling asleep and thus I am
prone rather than upright. I have discovered that if I meditate at
a certain time each day I also have a lot of trouble. I just can't do it.
So I am rather a free spirit I guess. I meditate whenever and
wherever it suits me to do so and this works well for me. I
think that this is one area that James Long had in mind when
he told me that the Western constitution wasn't suitable to Eastern
practices. We have to find ways to adopt/change them around
so that they are suitable.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 13:06:31 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: To be a Theosophist

<That is about it from me not very theosophically explained but I am sure
<you all know what I mean in your own way.
<Regards Bee

I thought your post was very theosophical. Thank you I enjoyed it.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 13:06:34 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Vajrayana Practice & Theosophy

Eldon:<. Our theosophical groups I think
will be vastly more useful to the Western world when they've
specialized more into specific theosophical religious sects
with authentic approachs to the Path when whey literally
become Mystery Schools rather than fraternal metaphysical
book clubs.>

Well said. I agree.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 13:06:36 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

< Count me in. I have been on the edge of resignation
<more than once.
<
< Jerry S.
<
<You too Jerry? I'm amazed.
<
<Liesel

As a matter of fact Paul and I have discussed this
and so I wasn't real surprised when he announced his
resignations. I am still hanging in there for now but I often
feel like I am up against a very thick brick wall. My stand on
magic and ethics for examples don't make me real popular.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 13:21:06 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings

Hi Donna

Welcome to theos-l. I hope your stay with us will be profitable &
long. I'm particularly glad to have another woman aboard. We can use a
few more of us.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 13:50:26 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

Dear Bee

Agreed that we all have our own ways & opinions our own Paths. That's
as it should be. But you indicate that you're a member of a group. You
mention that some of your group isn't in agreement with you 
channeling.  From that statement one gathers that you've been able to 
talk to them about it.

I didn't even have anyone to bounce my ideas off of to tell what I
was just then studying my newest esoteric discoveries.

Most people around me aren't esoterically minded ... aren't interested in
Theosophcical ideas. So I felt completely isolated. I felt like an
outcast. That kind of a cold shoulder from the organization
which is nearest & dearest to you is pretty hard to take especially
if you just happen to be as I was then at a particularly difficult
period in your life.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 14:17:38 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Vajrayana Practice & Theosophy

Dear Eldon

Very interesting post. Got a few comments but only up to item #8.
It's a little long for me.

1. I wouldn't give complete confidence to any guru unless I'd
tested him/her very thoroughly first.

2. The more enlightened the guru is the more he can teach the
pupil. Even so if the guru hasn't gotten all that far yet chances
are he still can teach more than the pupil is able to absorb.

3. I agree

4. I've never made a Bodhisattva or any othe vow. I do like the
Bodhisattva ideal. I have certain inclinations which developed
further through reading living etc.
I feel that if I'm true to myself I don't need any vows.

5. I'm not going to talk for or against sexual activity except to
say that I don't believe in forced abstinence.

6. Agree

7. You talk about divulging secrets to those who are not fit to
receive them. Well who is going to judge their fitness? I think you
can only guess at that. Besides there's an axiom that people will
just pass over whatever they don't understand.

8. Agree & that's as far as I got.

Hi to Brenda

Liesel

Interesting post
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 17:09:17 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

> Liesel:
> <I'd like to know who else around here feels or has felt at one time
> <that they've been excluded by Theosophists.
>
> Count me in. I have been on the edge of resignation
> more than once.
>
> Jerry S.

And me.

Alan
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 18:18:33 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: High Brow chat

A N Z poem from Granny Bee to Granny Leisel.

Modern Grannies.

I have a little Granny who's really very old
But also unconventional in a most unusual mould
She doesn't wear spectacles perched upon her nose
She wears contact lenses and varnishes her toes.
Unlike some other Grannies who are home before its dark
She's dressed up in a track suit and marches in the park.
And when I wish she'd sometimes stay and tuck me up in bed
Gran's off to study yoga and standing on her head.
Some Grannies sit in rocking chairs and crochet shawls indoors
But my Granny joined a marching team and marches in the moors.
Gran goes on day trips with her "Over sixties Club"
They racket round the countryside and end up in the pub.
And on the homeward journey like a flock of singing birds
They harmonise old favourites with very naughty words.
I love my little Granny I think she's really great
If that's what growing old is like well I simply cannot wait!

Grannies are Great!
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 19:24:50 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Re: Channelling

> Spirituality actually begins in higher manas or in terms of planes on
>the higher mental plane. The assessment as to the devitalizing and harmful
>effect of channeling below this level is not based on paranoia or fear but
>simply a recognition of what moves forward into freedom and what moves
>backward and toward stagnation/slavery.
>
> The goal of the lower channelers is to establish a kama-manas rapport so
>as to take prana and they will happily sound "theosophical" or any other way
>and say accurate things to do so. This is what is meant when it is said that
>truth can be part of the deception. All lower channeling results in a type
>of dependency below the level of buddhi-atma and thus works against the
>spiritual development of those involved.
>
> In higher channeling from any ashramic source there is no kama-lower
>manas involved in the rapport but in order to be able to channel this way
>the chela must first have overcome all of the personal limitations of
>kama-manas and be Initiate. One does not need to enter an altered or
>different state to higher channel - one already has a presence of the higher
>qualities and simply aligns with these in complete personal integrity and
>spiritual fusion.
>
> An Initiate is consciously immortal and can see clearly the level of
>quality of any approaching entity as regards the entire realm of kama-manas.
> There is no question as to the source as this can always be verified
>directly and an Initiate can be in intuitive rapport with a Mahatma whenever
>there is need. There is all the information that is needed already written
>on the physical plane to help any of us to be Initiate.
>
> Chela's can and do communicate telepathically but this is done in full
>awareness and knowledge of the quality and accuracy of what is being
>transmitted. Although it is generally easier today just to write a letter
>or send email.
>
>Peace & Light
>Patrick
>
Thankyou very interesting. I understand what you say but have no comment as
I do
not want to appear to align myself with any of the suggested states of being.
Kind regards Bee
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 20:24:48 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: To be a Theosophist

I have been reading the post on this subject and see that it is not so
simple to be a Theosophist.
I travelled a path many years before joining Theosophy and found the
framework I needed to make sense of the multitude of different books and
ideas I had encountered over the years. I don't expect the members of
Theosophy to be my emotional support system because there are so many
divergent ideas that disagreements are bound to arise and so I could get too
personally involved in what is after all the maya of words. I value my
theosophical friends for their independant views and their willingness to
share them even if it causes an animated discussion. We are still emotional
egos learning to be eventual masters so naturally we can get upset but IMO
this serves to remind me that others have different interpretations of the
teachings than mine and they are just as valid if that is where they are
coming from at the moment. We have a very dedicated member who tried hard to
understand SD in our study group but became quite upset that she could not
come to grips with it. She left the group and nearly left the Lodge as well.
She is now vice-president but still has no grip on SD and feels a bit
lacking because of this. She is as much a theosophist as the ones in the
study group and hopefully she will come to realise this. She reads the
easier theosophical books and gets much out of them. It saddens me that she
has come to such a conclusion and I hope it doesn't continue to be felt in
that way. I realise that the more SD one absorbs the harder it becomes to
talk about theosophy to members who have not the same interest or perhaps
intellectual capacity for it. As Liesel has said who cares about rounds and
things yet some do and find it interesting . Theosophy becomes a personal
way of relating to life and when our personal interests are questioned it
can be seen as an inference of our very life maybe. I have learned to live
and let live in my dealings with theosophy and respect my friend's
differences even if perhaps I do not agree with them. I know they don't
agree with some of by viewschanneling? I do not feel the need to argue
about my right to my views I just have them and carry on with my duties as
a member of Theosophy.
In the end each person will spiritualise themselves in the best way for
them be it via formal Theosophy Buddhism New Age or any of the many ways
around. I understand that this 5th root-race is to develop mind and that the
previous one was emotional so I guess mind is in various stages of
usefulness. Some are here to lead the way while others have a struggle to
control emotional issues so it strikes me that misunderstandings are a par
for the course. It is with someone on the same mental plane that discussion
and complete understanding may be possible. I am sure Theosophy has its
diversity of people on various rungs towards mind and so misunderstandings
are bound to happen. Maybe I too will move to another doctrinal system one
day who knows what the future holds. My mind may fasten on to something
else it needs for it's expansion.
That is about it from me not very theosophically explained but I am sure
you all know what I mean in your own way.
Regards Bee
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 23:23:11 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Re:

>To Bee:
>
>You've answered my questions about what it is to be a theosophist. I
picked so
>many conversations in the middle felt kind of lost and this a nice nut
shell"
>version. Any "easier" theosophical" books you might recommend to a person who
>has labored through Isis?
>
>Donna
>
Glad to be of help. I have lately found Guy de Purucker and think he is
mighty. I can understand what he says and often he repeats things in
different words so if I missed it the first time I often get it the next
time. I also enjoyed An Abridgement of the Secret Doctrine by Preston &
Humphreys I also read Rohit Mehta who puts things nicely. There are many
books that suit different interests. I believe that if we are really
interested in a certain idea we will read with much more enthusiasm than if
trying to read something we think we ought to read. I have also just munched
my way through Isis. I loved the vast historical scale of it even if I
missed the point many times.
Welcome to the list. Some of us who are not so intellectually inclined use
High brow Chat as the subject listing for just that a chat about some topic
we like.
Regards Bee.>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 03 Nov 1995 23:46:02 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Channelling

thanks Jerry S for your entertaining reply to Patrick. I had a good chuckle
and feel vindicated 8-
Regards Bee
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 03:21:41 GMT
From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist and know a Master when ya see one

On 04 199511 Jerry Schueler wrote:

> Keith:<Possible False Expectations of Masters>
> <clip>
> Ann:<Sounds just like Elvis as he pontificated from Memphis and the grand
> stages of
> Las Vegas from which he smiled on his followers like a stupid baby as they
> smiled back. His robes were truly regal and he owned a lot of expensive cars.
> As for magic tricks what could be more magical than making dumb movies and
> getting everyone to pay to see them? His tones were certainly otherworldy
> especially since he was probably flying on drugs a lot. Not just a pop icon
> but a false Master to boot!>
>
> This demonstrates that you don't have to be an occultist to
> practice magic. What is charisma if not the magical power of enchantment?
>
> Jerry S.

Jerry ...
Yes! It occured to me years ago when I was reading E. Levi on
Talismans that Madison Avenue *was* practicing pure Talismanic magic -
and quite often a very low form of it. What is the creation of a brand or
product logo other than a delibrate attempt to tie a symbol to a specific
chain of subconscious associations ... that with an intense advertising
campaign will cause that chain of associations to be evoked in consumers
whenever they see the logo?
A particular beer for instance will create its brand name and
logo which are very simple words and pictures meant to make deep
impressions quickly and will then launch a series of TV commercials in
which the beer is linked to a group of carefree 20 year olds with perfect
bodies often linked to expensive cars and other such things ... in
short will create a series of distinct desirable emotional states by
showing others in those states and link it to the beer and the logo. The
beer and its logo then comes to actually represent a particular
*identity* and when those who have had that commercial played at them
for months on end go into a store and look at a shelf full of beer the
associations are evoked upon the mere sight of the logo and people wind
up choosing to buy the beer partially because they want beer but
partially because they are buying that *identity* that is subconsciously
linked to the beer.
This really is Talismanic magic - pursued very successfully and
with the intent of accomplishing exceedingly low motives. To paraphrase
Pogo "We have met the Dugpas and they is us! -:.
-JRC
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 04:53:19 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: To be a Theosophist and know a Master when ya see one

K Price:
>I would like to propose that one has certain inate archetypal expectations or
>intuitions about a "spiritual" person or Master.

>I would suggest two small lists:

>Possible False Expectations of Masters

>!. speaks in a lofty distant otherworldy tone
>2. wears robes in the modern era
>3. smiles like a stupid baby
>4. perfoms magic tricks
>5. drives more than one luxury car
>6. has a band of devoted followers who smile stupidly in his or her presence
>7. indulges in gossip and underhanded politics

Sounds just like Elvis as he pontificated from Memphis and the grand stages of
Las Vegas from which he smiled on his followers like a stupid baby as they
smiled back. His robes were truly regal and he owned a lot of expensive cars.
As for magic tricks what could be more magical than making dumb movies and
getting everyone to pay to see them? His tones were certainly otherworldy
especially since he was probably flying on drugs a lot. Not just a pop icon
but a false Master to boot!

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 04:53:34 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE:Channeling

Jerry S:
> Excuse my French but this is pure bullshit. There is
>ALWAYS some question as to the source. Just how would you
>set about to make such a verification -- call the Adept up on the
>Adepthood hotline?

Who knows if an Adept looking and sounding very sheeplike and woolly is really
an astral entity with pointy teeth and a wolf-like tail.

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 05:00:09 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

>Dear Bee
>
>Agreed that we all have our own ways & opinions our own Paths. That's as
it should
>be. But you indicate that you're a member of a group. You mention that some
>of your group isn't in agreement with you channeling. From that
>statement one gathers that you've been able to talk to them about it.
> I didn't even have anyone to bounce my ideas off of to tell what I
>was just then studying my newest esoteric discoveries.
> Most people around me aren't esoterically minded ... aren't interested in
>Theosophcical ideas. So I felt completely isolated. I felt like an
>outcast. That kind of a cold shoulder from the organization
>which is nearest & dearest to you is pretty hard to take especially
>if you just happen to be as I was then at a particularly difficult
>period in your life.
>
I quite understand and I have been involved in the Wanganui Lodge for 05
years only. I find that I have a group of friends outside of Theo to whom I
can turn for support who are not interested in theo but respect my
involvement. I do not share my channelling with my lodge as I know how they
feel so I have other groups who do that sort of thing. I look to theo for
the knowledge that I can gain and enjoy the friendship of like minded people
in that particular area. I guess I spread myself around a bit when viewed in
that light. There does come a time when it is possible to feel esoterically
isolated but I wonder if that is not a feature of the esoteric learning
which becomes hard to share with any one once a certain level has been
reached. My recent interest in elemental essence would be boring to others
in the Lodge who knew nothing about it nor were particularly interested in
it. So silly me will run a workshop or something similar and see if I can
find any takers with whom I might share what I have found. If not it will
be another personal interest along with the others I have. I learned the
hard way a few years ago not to bore people to death with ideas that I
found too fascinating for words. I failed to see why others were not equally
fascinated. I still have to monitor myself as I get quite excited by new
discoveries e.g. de Purucker. Ain't life fun. 8-
Grannies Unite.
Love and light Bee >
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 06:16:39 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Re to be a theosophist

Jerry HE to Paul:<JHE
>< You lost me here. Part of your premise As I read it--and
><as everyone else I know who has read the book reads it is that
><HPB created an elaborate fraud concerning the existence of the
><Masters in order to cover the identity of some politically
active
><people.

JS
I must be an aberration because I didn't read it
that way at all. I thought that those "politically active
people" WERE the Adepts when they raised their consciousness to
higher planes which is what they say in the MLs. In other
words I saw Paul's premise as being that the Adepts were real
living people who in addition to occultism were also interested
in politics especially freedom for their homeland. Did I miss
something?

JHE
No you are pretty close to what I was trying to say but
with one difference which I will explain below. Yes I also
read it that those political active people were HPB's Masters
according to Paul's premise. The elaborate fraud concerned the
creation of M KH DK etc. and a mythology about them to cover
the identity of the real political figures. What actual occult
powers or spiritual consciousness that Paul's "Masters" were
capable of is something that I don't think he went into at all.
As he explained many times on theos-l he intentionally did not
go into that kind of thing. My reading of TMR was that these
people were HPB's "teachers" but to what extent and in what way
was not explored in any specifics. The difference in our
readings is that I don't recall anywhere in TMR where Paul wrote
that these historical people "WERE the Adepts when they raised
their consciousness to higher planes." Would you kindly point
this out for me? Also are you using the word "Adept" as
synonymous to "Master?"

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: 04 Nov 1995 06:18:11 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Re: Animal monad revisited

Bee quoting GdeP

"Not one of these kingdoms ever passes through evolution or
development or unfolding into the next higher kingdom never
because these kingdoms refer to the rupas which shelter the
monads. For instance the animal kingdom never becomes a human
kingdom. the mineral never the plant and so on.

JHE
One of GdeP more important statements and a wonderful
clarification of HPB's teachings concerning monads. As you get
to know HPB's writings better I recommend that you take some
time to compare this statement back to HPB's. One reason that I
find GdeP's statement so important here is because he is clearly
making a distinction he between this and the neo-theosophical
teachings concerning the "descending and ascending monads" that
you will find outlined in CWL's and Hodson's writings. See for
instance ~Kingdom of the Gods.~

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: 04 Nov 1995 06:49:02 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: to be a theosophist

Jerry HE to Paul:<JHE
< You lost me here. Part of your premise As I read it--and
<as everyone else I know who has read the book reads it is that
<HPB created an elaborate fraud concerning the existence of the
<Masters in order to cover the identity of some politically active
<people.

I must be an aberration because I didn't read it
that way at all. I thought that those "politically active people"
WERE the Adepts when they raised their consciousness to higher
planes which is what they say in the MLs. In other words I saw
Paul's premise as being that the Adepts were real living people
who in addition to occultism were also interested in politics
especially freedom for their homeland. Did I miss something?

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 06:49:05 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Vajrayana Practice & Theosophy

Liesel:
<4. I've never made a Bodhisattva or any othe vow. I do like the
<Bodhisattva ideal. I have certain inclinations which developed
<further through reading living etc.
<I feel that if I'm true to myself I don't need any vows.

There is nothing mysterious or dangerous in taking a vow.
If not sincere then a vow is only words. If it is sincere
then you have already taken it within your heart before
saying the words aloud. Tibetan Yoga teaches the
importance of having resolve. In order to recall our dreams
in the morning we usually must resolve to do so at night
before going to bed. Taking the Bodhisattva vow is simply
a conscious attempt to TRY to be compassionate toward
others. This is a necessary step on the Path but doesn't
have to be a formal thing. If you are already trying to be
more compassionate then you have probably already
taken the vow in your heart if not in your mind. There
are other vows too that we must take formally or informally
as we progress.

Liesel:
<5. I'm not going to talk for or against sexual activity except to
<say that I don't believe in forced abstinence.

Some schools suggest abstinence while others
suggest that sexual activity is a Path itself. Perhaps the truth
lies somewhere between these two extremes?

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 06:49:08 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Animal Monad revisited.

Bee:<So the monad is not the same as the kingdom it is inhabiting. I can't
<actually explain what I understand about where the animal monad fits in.
<
<Help somebody

Think of it this way: There is one Divine Monad which is
a spark from the flame of divinity. Every single geometrical point
in space-time is one of these Monads yes there are a heck of a lot
of them. Now these send "rays" or self-expressions down into the
cosmic planes of manifestation. When such a Divine Monad is
expressing itself as an animal in the animal kingdon it is called for
convenience only an animal monad. When expressing itself as a
human in the human kingdom it is called a human monad and so on.
This is pretty much the way that I see it. Does this help? If so then
you will be ready for more advanced stuff because G de P then starts
getting into some complicated technical issues. Eldon can help
out there.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 06:49:11 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: To be a Theosophist and know a Master when ya see one

Keith:<Possible False Expectations of Masters>
<clip>
Ann:<Sounds just like Elvis as he pontificated from Memphis and the grand
stages of
Las Vegas from which he smiled on his followers like a stupid baby as they
smiled back. His robes were truly regal and he owned a lot of expensive cars.
As for magic tricks what could be more magical than making dumb movies and
getting everyone to pay to see them? His tones were certainly otherworldy
especially since he was probably flying on drugs a lot. Not just a pop icon
but a false Master to boot!>

This demonstrates that you don't have to be an occultist to
practice magic. What is charisma if not the magical power of enchantment?

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 06:56:05 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Animal Monad revisited.

Eureka I found it.
I have just got to the bit in de Purucker's book on monads and I will bore
you with the quote from it. first he talks of the 10 kingdoms e.g elemental
mineral vege etc.
"Not one of these kingdoms ever passes through evolution or development or
unfolding into the next higher kingdom never because these kingdoms refer
to the rupas which shelter the monads. For instance the animal kingdom
never becomes a human kingdom. the mineral never the plant and so on.
What happens? It is the monads as individuals which evolve each one in its
own kingdom until it learns all that kingdom can teach it. when as an
individual monad it has become animalized or humanized or dhyan-chohanized
to the next higher then at its next incarnation or imbodiment it enters
into the very lowest realm of the next higher kingdom as an individual
monad. But the kingdoms never as kingdoms become higher kingdoms.
Every kingdom below the human is striving to become - no pardon me every
monad in every kingdom below the human kingdom is striving upwards towards
the human kingdom. The human kingdom is its objective or goal their
objective their goal; just as our goal as humans is to strive to become a
member of the lowest of the three dhyan-chohanic kingdoms just above the
human. But the human kingdom as such never BECOMES that lowest
dhyan-chohanic kingdom. Why? Because Nature needs these kingdoms where she
has them. They are as it were houses of life for the peregrinating evolving
monads to live in to pass through to graduate from and enter the next
house of life or kingdom. Is that clear enough? Nature needs these through
eternity. That is why long after we human monads shall have left the human
kingdom and evolved up to become Dhyan-Chohans of the lowest dhyan-chohanic
kingdom the human kingdom will still remain containing monads or
individuals then using the bodies kept alive by those new incoming
individuals from what is now the animal kingdom. If the human kingdom all
evolved to become Dhyan-Chohans there would be a gap between them and the
beast. the monads go up step by step kingdom after kingdom."
So the monad is not the same as the kingdom it is inhabiting. I can't
actually explain what I understand about where the animal monad fits in.

Help somebody. Sorry if I called you an elephant but I need some help.
Bee
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 10:28:11 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: re re animal monad revisited

Bee restating Purucker:

BB
>He said that there is also an animal monad in us along with the
>rest of the monads. We are composite beings and the animal monad
>in us now becomes a human monad in the next round or something
>like that. Our present human monad is headed for Dhyan- Chohans
>at that time. He is at pains to point out he is not talking
>about our rupas bodies. Maybe it is the human-animal monad as
>distinct from the animal-animal monad that sort of oversees the
>body and the elemental essences that make it up. The
>animal-animal monad needs a spell as human-animal monad so to
>evolve to human-human monad state then to human-dhyan-chohan
>stage and onwards and onwards. It is a long process like
>billions of years from animal-animal monad to human-human monad.
>To understand something properly I need to convert it into
>simpler terms and that ain't so easy with all this stuff.

JHE
Yes you have it right! Congratulations--this is really
hard stuff so I know that you have put a lot of effort into it
and it is paying off. The only correction I have is that the
monads change kingdoms not between rounds but between
manvantaras as a rule but there is an exception which you will
run into later.

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: 04 Nov 1995 10:29:36 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: monads

Ann:

AB
My first reaction to this post was "huh?". There's been a lot of
talk on the list about how new-comers feel about TS and how the
books needs to have the language updated and how the educational
materials need to be redone. The above conversation strikes to
the heart of the matter. I'm sure that those with a few years or
more than a few years of study can into this stuff and understand
the lingo but the new guy would be running for the ARE.

JHE
You are right this stuff looks foreboding and most
students of theosophy get it all mixed up anyway. But it is not
impossible--it only requires a lot of mental effort. HPB
mentioned in the introduction to the ~Key to Theosophy~ that for
the mentally lazy theosophy would remain a mystery. Her warning
suggests to me that she was very aware that it would take a real
concerted effort in order to understand the Theosophical
teachings regardless of one's education level. It is not the
vocabulary but the concepts that are difficult. One can learn
the foreign and unfamiliar words and still have difficulty
grasping the concepts. I believe that the Study of The Secret
Doctrine is in itself a spiritual exercise--and any exercise
requires effort.

AB
I dropped out of Akbar Lodge in Chicago when I had the chance to
join a study group that began with Introductory Study Course to
Theosophy. Globes? Rounds? I didn't have clue and stayed with
the study group until a couple of weeks ago when ran out of
people. I went back to Akbar Lodge more confident but still
sure that I don't know anywhere near what the others do.

JHE
I how do you know that they had the teachings right either?
My own experience is that one has to put aside every
preconception and struggle with what the author is saying without
assuming that she is saying the same time as another author.
However I have found that few students do this--instead they
begin with the assumption that every theosophical author is
saying essentially the same time as any other--only in different
ways. This assumption is deadly.

AB
Have you noticed how many people involved with TS have teaching
degrees at universities? A friend told me that most people read
on the level of a third-grader. Where does that leave TS?

JHE
Not in a very good place. But one does not need to have
gone to a university or even college to be able to read and
understand say ~The Secret Doctrine.~ HPB wrote that anyone of
average intelligence can do it. It is that so few are willing to
make the effort. Instead they look for "easier" books to
explain the teachings. The problem with the easier books is that
the authors don't necessarily understand the teachings either.

Good 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: 04 Nov 1995 10:30:56 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: animals

Bee:

BB
de Purucker made a remark that I am trying to unravel as he would
not elaborate. He was talking about how life-atoms float around
in and around us and our bodies and that we are changing and
exchanging life-atoms and comments on how a husband and wife who
live closely together can come to look like each other. He then
likens this to pets too how a pet and its owner can resemble
each other. And he says"It is the change of life-atoms and it is
not always good either. It is not good for the pet and it is not
good for the human being." He says there are other seasons too
but doesn't say so in case he upsets pet owners. That sort of led
to the monad thing too. Still none the wiser on that last score.
Having a cat for 10 years that thinks it owns me and would live
on my lap permanently and has slept next to me untill recently I
have a vague idea what it might be but it needs a lot of thinking
about.

JHE
Yes GdeP was quite outspoken about having pets. I find it
curious because Katherine Tingley the Leader of the Point Loma
TS before Purucker had a dog. I think one of GdeP's big points
here and as I understand from GdeP's personal students is that
the animal kingdom needs to go through its own experience in the
wild of finding food to avoid being eaten in turn and of living
in the social system of its own kind. When dogs and even cats
become family pets they become humanized. This is especially
noticeable in dogs. A biology professor once described to me the
behavior of a pet dog as opposed to a wild one as being
"bizarre." Cats are also through human care and breeding
becoming more and more domestic. Recently I heard about a new
breed called a "rag doll cat." It is so non aggressive and
friendly to humans that the breeders warn that it could not
survive in the wild.

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: 04 Nov 1995 11:27:23 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: animal monad revisited

> Think of it this way: There is one Divine Monad which is
>a spark from the flame of divinity. Every single geometrical point
>in space-time is one of these Monads yes there are a heck of a lot
>of them. Now these send "rays" or self-expressions down into the
>cosmic planes of manifestation. When such a Divine Monad is
>expressing itself as an animal in the animal kingdon it is called for
>convenience only an animal monad. When expressing itself as a
>human in the human kingdom it is called a human monad and so on.
>This is pretty much the way that I see it. Does this help? If so then
>you will be ready for more advanced stuff because G de P then starts
>getting into some complicated technical issues. Eldon can help
>out there.
>
> Jerry S.
>Hi Jerry
>That is not actually what he was saying as I am trying to understand. He
>said that there is also an animal monad in us along with the rest of the
>monads. We are composite beings and the animal monad in us now becomes a
>human monad in the next round or something like that. Our present human
>monad is headed for Dhyan- Chohans at that time. He is at pains to point out
>he is not talking about our rupas bodies. Maybe it is the human-animal
>monad as distinct from the animal-animal monad that sort of oversees the
>body and the elemental essences that make it up.
<snip>
>The animal-animal monad needs a spell as human-animal monad so to evolve to
>To understand something properly I need to convert it into simpler terms and
>that ain't so easy with all this stuff. It is like I paint myself a mental
>picture of what I am trying to understand and once it starts to look like a
>painting then I begin to understand.
>Many thanks Bee

My first reaction to this post was "huh?". There's been a lot of talk on the
list about how new-comers feel about TS and how the books needs to have the
language updated and how the educational materials need to be redone. The above
conversation strikes to the heart of the matter. I'm sure that those with a few
years or more than a few years of study can into this stuff and understand the
lingo but the new guy would be running for the ARE.

I dropped out of Akbar Lodge in Chicago when I had the chance to join a study
group that began with Introductory Study Course to Theosophy. Globes? Rounds?
I didn't have clue and stayed with the study group until a couple of weeks ago
when ran out of people. I went back to Akbar Lodge more confident but still
sure that I don't know anywhere near what the others do.

Have you noticed how many people involved with TS have teaching degrees at
universities? A friend told me that most people read on the level of a
third-grader. Where does that leave TS?

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 13:02:54 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: animal monad revisited

I think I just lately picked up something in the literature which might
clarify. Some writers inlcuding the ones I'm most familiar with
use the word "Monad" to denote something which is part of the spritual self.
Recently I've come
across the word "Monad" where it's being used synonymously with "Bodies". The
Animal monad I take from this means the physical human body.
I still don't like to have it called "animal" because we
think of that term as being denigrating. It often isn't nice to call a human
being an animal. Matter of fact I think maybe we ought to apologize
to the animals for thinking this way but we do.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 14:33:02 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

> Liesel:
> <I'd like to know who else around here feels or has felt at one time
> <that they've been excluded by Theosophists.
>
> Count me in. I have been on the edge of resignation
> more than once.
>
> Jerry S.

And me.

Alan

I continue to be amazed I guess because I thought for a long time it was me. It
wasn't.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 14:46:08 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

Dear Donna

How is anybody who isn't there going to contribute to my growth or I
to theirs? The only friendly Theosphical contact I had besides Stan
Treloar in Canada & the 02 ladies in the Wheaton library sort of
was Harry & Marie. Harry contributed a lot to my
growth but I doubt that I contributed anything to his except maybe
how to better cure the headache I gave him since he knew a lot
more than I did. Marie & I helped each other at times because Harry was
putting us both through the same strict regimen. He was like a Roshi.

I'm not talking about who controls whom I could care less. I'm
talking about feeling that I was a member of a group I belonged to.
Like when somebody comes to a PTA meeting & pays their dues they
belong to the PTA & are treated as such.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 14:49:11 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

To Bee

Grannies unite & aaamen to that.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 15:10:28 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Vajrayana Practice & Theosophy

To Jerry S.

Re to abstain from or enjoy sex... chaqu'un a son gout.

Re Bodhisattva vow.

I've for a long time now tried to live like a
bodhisattva-in-the-becoming. I don't know for whom I'd take a vow.
But maybe you're right. The unconscious likes ceremonies.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 15:44:46 GMT
From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: In the Name of Peace

Greetings -
I've just heard the terribly sad news of the assasination of Y.
Rabin the Prime minister of Israel and a man who spent the last few
years withstanding the tremendous emotional vortices swirling around the
middle-east in the difficult attempt to bring peace to a region that has
not known it for a very long time.
That he could make the long inner personal journey necessary to
explore this road as leader - to be able to forgive on the scale he had
to forgive to reach the point of understanding the pain of his enemies
as being identical to the pain within himself and in the face of
terrible violence and powerful opposition even from his own people to
seek peace to seek the buried and unmapped road along which the Israeli
and Palestinian people might travel - what a testament to how magnificent
humans can be when the force of their character places them in leadership
positions and then goes a step further and proves equal to the task.
It kind of overwhelms me makes me want to honor him in some
small way and upon thinking about this I'd like to invite any on the
list to join me in using the principles of thought outlined in Theosophy
and spend some energy for the next few days in the formation of sharp
crystal clear images of the accomplisment of peace in the middle-east
charging and animating those images with the highest and finest vibration
of pure compassion and delibrately directing those energy-bundles
towards the middle-east ... with the intention that they be used to
support all those who will try in the abscence of that beautiful crusty
old leader to carry his work to completion - as the best way to honor a
leader is to further the intentions dearest to his heart.
With love and some sadness -JRC
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 18:48:16 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Re: Animal Monad revisited.

>Bee:<So the monad is not the same as the kingdom it is inhabiting. I can't
><actually explain what I understand about where the animal monad fits in.
><
><Help somebody
>
> Think of it this way: There is one Divine Monad which is
>a spark from the flame of divinity. Every single geometrical point
>in space-time is one of these Monads yes there are a heck of a lot
>of them. Now these send "rays" or self-expressions down into the
>cosmic planes of manifestation. When such a Divine Monad is
>expressing itself as an animal in the animal kingdon it is called for
>convenience only an animal monad. When expressing itself as a
>human in the human kingdom it is called a human monad and so on.
>This is pretty much the way that I see it. Does this help? If so then
>you will be ready for more advanced stuff because G de P then starts
>getting into some complicated technical issues. Eldon can help
>out there.
>
> Jerry S.
Hi Jerry
That is not actually what he was saying as I am trying to understand. He
said that there is also an animal monad in us along with the rest of the
monads. We are composite beings and the animal monad in us now becomes a
human monad in the next round or something like that. Our present human
monad is headed for Dhyan- Chohans at that time. He is at pains to point out
he is not talking about our rupas bodies. Maybe it is the human-animal
monad as distinct from the animal-animal monad that sort of oversees the
body and the elemental essences that make it up.
The animal-animal monad needs a spell as human-animal monad so to evolve to
human-human monad state then to human-dhyan-chohan stage and onwards and
onwards. It is a long process like billions of years from animal-animal
monad to human-human monad.
To understand something properly I need to convert it into simpler terms and
that ain't so easy with all this stuff. It is like I paint myself a mental
picture of what I am trying to understand and once it starts to look like a
painting then I begin to understand.
Many thanks Bee
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 19:33:44 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist and know a Master when ya see one

JRC:
< Yes! It occured to me years ago when I was reading E. Levi on
<Talismans that Madison Avenue *was* practicing pure Talismanic magic -
<and quite often a very low form of it. What is the creation of a brand or
<product logo other than a delibrate attempt to tie a symbol to a specific
<chain of subconscious associations ... that with an intense advertising
<campaign will cause that chain of associations to be evoked in consumers
<whenever they see the logo?

This is exactly what is happening. Carl Jung taught that magic
and the old gods never died but are still with us today in changed forms.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 19:33:49 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Animal Monad revisited.

Bee:
<That is not actually what he was saying as I am trying to understand. He
<said that there is also an animal monad in us along with the rest of the
<monads. We are composite beings and the animal monad in us now becomes a
<human monad in the next round or something like that. Our present human
<monad is headed for Dhyan- Chohans at that time. He is at pains to point out
<he is not talking about our rupas bodies.

Yes it does get confusing. I am not sure that I understand it all
either or even want to for that matter.
I will try to present this as best I can coming at it with my own
words and from my own understanding. I had hoped that Eldon would have
jumped in here to spare me this. He will doubtless take gas and correct me
later for my misconceptions but I will give it a go anyway.
G de P carefully differentiates between two poles: the
subjective and the objective. Bodies or vehicles or rupas which is Sanskrit
for "forms" are objective while monads are subjective. Every atom in our
physical body is the body or rupa of a monad. Every atom cell and organ is
conscious and alive. Our physical body itself can be considered as being
the body of our physical monad the collective consciousness of all of its
cells and organs. Our etheric body can be considered to be the body of our
vegetable monad. Our desires and emotions or astral body can be
considered to house our animal monad. Our thoughts and memories or
human ego or mental body can be considered to house our human monad.
Our intuition and higher aspirations or causal body can be considered to
house our dhyani-chohanic monad and so on. OK then so who are we
in all of this? We are pure consciousness in our essence but we take on
a sense of identity with these monads as we relate to them in life. We
say "I am hungry" when we identify with our physical monad. We say "I
just had a thought" when we identify with our human monad and so on.
However we are really none of them being in essence a Divine Monad
or pure consciousness.
G de P's view of monads is rather staggering. He says that
every geometric point in space and there are bizzillions of points in a cubic
inch is a monad or monadic center of consciousness. Matter itself then
is an aggragate of bodies for which each and every atom has its own
monad. In other words every geometric point in every material object
from an atom to a galaxy is an embodied monad while every point in space
is a disembodied monad. It really staggers the mind to try and picture
this.

Jerry S.

BTW I believe that our animal monad can move up to a human monad
only in the next manvantara not in the next Round of this one. Same
with all of the monads in our constitution. Fifth-Rounders for example
are still human.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 19:33:52 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re to be a theosophist

Jerry HE:< The difference in our
<readings is that I don't recall anywhere in TMR where Paul wrote
<that these historical people "WERE the Adepts when they raised
<their consciousness to higher planes." Would you kindly point
<this out for me? Also are you using the word "Adept" as
<synonymous to "Master?"

Right. I don't think he actually said that in the book
and yes I am equating Adept with Master as the distinctions
are somewhat fuzzy to most people. I am beginning to see
where you are coming from.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 19:33:56 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: animal monad revisited

Bee:
< Why I have this urge to know
<EVERYTHING I don't know and sometimes wish it would just go away but many
<times it is exciting to suddenly find some answers. We get our kicks in
<strange way! I am not an intellectual so the going gets rough sometimes but
<I keep plugging on.

Your desire to KNOW is absolutely necessary to tread the Path
to any length. It is the only true motivator toward the spiritual light that I
know of. I know that it can be annoying it almost wrecked my marriage!
but it can kindle into an inner spiritual light some day if it hasn't already.
The fact that you are not an intellectual is irrelevant. The smartest
intellectual will get nowhere at all without that inner desire to know
EVERYTHING that you so eloquently describe. Most intellectuals for
example think they know everything already and so are not motivated
to keep going. Your post was great and monads and elementals
are thought-provoking topics to explore.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 19:34:00 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

<My stand on
<magic and ethics for examples don't make me real popular.
<
< Jerry S.
<Liesel:
<That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard of. Your magic seems to
<me to be white & what's wrong with your ethics?

I appreciate your intent but most theosophists make no
distinction between black and white magic.

As to ethics my problem may be one of not having enough
patience. As I have said before I believe that the first step on the
spiritual Path is the development of ethics and morals. However
if done properly ethics always tends to skew your worldview towards
a black and white picture. In other words people with strong ethics
tend to see everything in the world as either good white or bad
black. They condemn others quickly and are usually very
judgemental. Now the second step on the Path is the development
and cultivation of compassion. Compassion once developed
tends to skew your worldview towards shades of grey. In other
words your nice comfortable world of good and bad is challenged
and you start to see possibilities of greyness. After awhile the
black and white blends into shades of grey everywhere. Why?
Because everyone acts with motivation and purpose. Murderers
and rapists do so out of disfunction. They were raised in
disfunctional families whose parents probably also came from
disfunctional families and so on. Anyway somewhere along
step 02 you begin to develop compassion not only for the victims
but also for the criminals. They also suffer. Once compassion
reaches out to everyone equally then sharp distinctions of good
and evil tend to dissolve into greyness. Absolutely no one is totally
good or totally evil. We are all grey which is to say somewhere in
between. So when I hear theosophists say things that are clearly
coming from a black and white worldview I tend to get irritated
with them and say things that get me into trouble. I prefer to think
that theosophists are or should be already well along step 2.
I need to work more on my patience.

Thanks for the word "Kastengeist". Although I am from German
heritage on both sides I have never learned the language.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 19:34:06 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: animal monad revisited

Bee:< He then likens this to pets too how a pet and its
owner can resemble each other. And he says"It is the change of life-atoms
and it is not always good either. It is not good for the pet and it is not
good for the human being." He says there are other seasons too but doesn't
say so in case he upsets pet owners.>

As a pet owner his remarks upset me a good deal. In the
end I opted to ignore them and keep my pets. Sending animals out
into the "wild" is equivalent to killing them or worse their end will probably
be painful such as a road kill or something. I can't agree with G de P on
this one. I suppose its me but I credit animals with more intelligence
and more evolutionary status than most theosophists are willing to give.
Besides psychological studies prove that petting animals reduces
stress and adds to our longevity. I can't help but think that animals
are better off for receiving love and care also isn't everything?.

Purucker's statement that the animal would be better off in
the wild is based on the idea that they can't enter the human kingdom
until the next manvantara - which seems to us humans to be a very long
time to wait around. This falls in line with his teaching that our evolutionary

"growth" ends up on a higher plane or subplane than we started and thus
justifies the expended effort of all these lifetimes of work. Well I have
rejected that notion too because both of these ideas depend on
space-time and they only "make sense" to our human way of thinking.
I just don't believe life has to function within such a rigid format. I see
HPB's teachings about the planetary chain as being a model and as
such it has its uses as well as its limitations. I suppose that this is
one reason why I get so irritated when I see or hear theosophists
speak of these things as gospel. Well I'm working on this as best
as I can so I ask all recipients of my barbs to please bear with me.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 04 Nov 1995 22:21:44 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Re: animal monad revisited

>.
>>
>> Jerry S.
>>Hi Jerry
>>That is not actually what he was saying as I am trying to understand. He
>>said that there is also an animal monad in us along with the rest of the
>>monads. We are composite beings and the animal monad in us now becomes a
>>human monad in the next round or something like that. Our present human
>>monad is headed for Dhyan- Chohans at that time. He is at pains to point out
>>he is not talking about our rupas bodies. Maybe it is the human-animal
>>monad as distinct from the animal-animal monad that sort of oversees the
>>body and the elemental essences that make it up.
><snip>
>>The animal-animal monad needs a spell as human-animal monad so to evolve to
>>To understand something properly I need to convert it into simpler terms and
>>that ain't so easy with all this stuff. It is like I paint myself a mental
>>picture of what I am trying to understand and once it starts to look like a
>>painting then I begin to understand.
>>Many thanks Bee
>
>My first reaction to this post was "huh?". There's been a lot of talk on the
>list about how new-comers feel about TS and how the books needs to have the
>language updated and how the educational materials need to be redone. The
above
>conversation strikes to the heart of the matter. I'm sure that those with
a few
>years or more than a few years of study can into this stuff and understand the
>lingo but the new guy would be running for the ARE.
>
>I dropped out of Akbar Lodge in Chicago when I had the chance to join a study
>group that began with Introductory Study Course to Theosophy. Globes? Rounds?
>I didn't have clue and stayed with the study group until a couple of weeks ago
>when ran out of people. I went back to Akbar Lodge more confident but still
>sure that I don't know anywhere near what the others do.
>
>Have you noticed how many people involved with TS have teaching degrees at
>universities? A friend told me that most people read on the level of a
>third-grader. Where does that leave TS?
>
>- ann
I guess I am stubborn and I seem to have this inner urge to KNOW. Know what
has been the problem and I have been looking for 20 odd years in all sorts
of places. I think I have settled in theo because of the ideas and the
books. At this moment in time I am glad to have found de Purucker as I feel
I can understand better what it is about. Why I have this urge to know
EVERYTHING I don't know and sometimes wish it would just go away but many
times it is exciting to suddenly find some answers. We get our kicks in
strange way! I am not an intellectual so the going gets rough sometimes but
I keep plugging on. Maybe I can help others to understand one day. This
elemental essence thing has got me into areas that never grabbed me before.
Kind regards Bee
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 00:44:15 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Re: animal monad revisited

>I think I just lately picked up something in the literature which might
>clarify. Some writers inlcuding the ones I'm most familiar with
>use the word "Monad" to denote something which is part of the spritual self.
> Recently I've come
>across the word "Monad" where it's being used synonymously with "Bodies". The
>Animal monad I take from this means the physical human body.
>I still don't like to have it called "animal" because we
>think of that term as being denigrating. It often isn't nice to call a human
>being an animal. Matter of fact I think maybe we ought to apologize
>to the animals for thinking this way but we do.
>
>Liesel
>
>As I understand it the animal monad is not the body. It is the original
monad sent forth to inhabit all the kingdoms and make use of the forms
therein made by the elementals out of the essence of that kingdom. The
bodies of the animal kingdom are already made and the monad has evolved to
the animal stage and so takes on an animal body. It evolves into the higher
animal stage and then at the right time returns into the body of a barely
human human where it slowly evolves still called animal monad but as it
seems to me there is also the human monad that was originally sent forth
before the one I am describing evolving on a higher plane along with the
animal one which is learning to become human in a future stage. It gets
complicated but it seems that we have various aspects to us which aren't
apparent to us yet.
de Purucker made a remark that I am trying to unravel as he would not
elaborate. He was talking about how life-atoms float around in and around us
and our bodies and that we are changing and exchanging life-atoms and
comments on how a husband and wife who live closely together can come to
look like each other. He then likens this to pets too how a pet and its
owner can resemble each other. And he says"It is the change of life-atoms
and it is not always good either. It is not good for the pet and it is not
good for the human being." He says there are other seasons too but doesn't
say so in case he upsets pet owners. That sort of led to the monad thing
too. Still none the wiser on that last score. Having a cat for 10 years that
thinks it owns me and would live on my lap permanently and has slept next to
me untill recently I have a vague idea what it might be but it needs a lot
of thinking about.
Regards bee
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 08:43:35 GMT
From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com>
Subject: Chaos and RAW

.

What do you think of Robert Anton Wilson? Do you think of him? I have recently
picked up on his ideas "in the air" so to speak. I plan to read "The
Illuminatus". His "Quantum Psychology" mentions chaos theory as do many of you
Jerry Scheuler. in particular. He also talks a lot about the supposed
illuminati movement which is often associated with the Masters as in K. Paul's
recent book. Many think he is a nut in search of a buck. Any thoughts?

Namaste

Keith Price
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 09:16:50 GMT
From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com>
Subject: "I acted on God's orders"

Spiritual Master often hear the voice of "God". Ann picked up on the humourous
side of supposed Masters like Elvis who is worshipped after his death. Others
noted the Madsion Avenue use of "black magic" to motivate people to buy buy
buy.

THe man who killed Rabin heard the voice of what he called "God". How much evil
has been justified this way?

I have thought that the Brothers of the Shadow are not very esoteric hidden or
occult. They seem to be very obvious in their movements. I am thinking of drug
cartels gangs bombers hate groups etc.

The Rabin assasination brings up again the religious underpinnings of world
events in a "dark" sense.

In the Reuters account:

"The Jewish mystic opposed to Israel's giving up West Bank land for peace placed
a curse on . . Rabin a month ago appealing to the angels to kill him by last
week . . . The rabbis said the curse generally works wihtin 30 days. That put
the expiration date for the curse in early Nov the magazine said."

Timothy McVey also had documents of a philisophical nature from John Locke
saying tha killing an oppressor is justified.

One can see the hand and powers of the dark forces everywhere.

Although I doubt that the angels where involved still thought-forms are
powerful numinous pervasive igniting volatile etc.

Still one hope that peace will be speeded by this event and that Karma will
adjust the scales. Yes one hopes. Many are now putting out positive
thought-forms or prayers. I hope they work!

Namate
Keith Price
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 09:40:09 GMT
From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com>
Subject: Animal and Monads and Movies

There has been a lively and interesting discussion about the monad as it travel
through the 'kingdoms" etc.
I suggested that angels are subhuman in that they don't have a monad as such but
share a group monad as animals do. I could be wrong in my reading. It seems
there are varying views in the literature

An example of the discussion:

"Not one of these kingdoms ever passes through evolution or
development or unfolding into the next higher kingdom never
because these kingdoms refer to the rupas which shelter the
monads. For instance the animal kingdom never becomes a human
kingdom. the mineral never the plant and so on.

JHE
One of GdeP more important statements and a wonderful
clarification of HPB's teachings concerning monads. As you get
to know HPB's writings better I recommend that you take some
time to compare this statement back to HPB's. One reason that I
find GdeP's statement so important here is because he is clearly
making a distinction he between this and the neo-theosophical
teachings concerning the "descending and ascending monads" that
you will find outlined in CWL's and Hodson's writings. See for
instance ~Kingdom of the Gods.~

Jerry HE
END QUOTATION

Keith: I would like to mention an interesting movie; "Wings of Desire" by
Werner Herzog German. In the film the actor who plays Columbo I foget his
name is an angel who is attracted to the problems of a couple. Unlike most
"guardian angel" films like "It's a Wonderful Life" "Angels in the Outfield"
etc. the angel trades his higher wings for a human desire nature after
experiencing an embodiment or temporary incarnation. He decides not to meddle
like a Polyanna but embraces the totality of the human experience. He isn't a
nirmankaya but consciously devolves or perhaps enters the human kingdom as
possibly all of us did because we left the clear perfect light for the maya of
incarnation and now must strive to get back through wisdom-experience-intuition
Sophia. Does this sound like Gnosticism? You bet! It is a quite
interesting film for theosophists I think.

Keith Price
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 10:01:55 GMT
From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Channelling Part 01

[NOTE: This is part 01 of a two part post and is a bit long but
I couldn't figure out how to be brief -:].

The channelling discussion has been quite interesting
especially since we have every perspective from that of those who
actually channel to those who claim the virtually all
channelling is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all
costs.
I've never channelled myself but have worked with channels
on a number of occasions on various different projects and would
like to offer a point of view that might be a bit different than
any yet voiced.
I think that first and most important is that one's point
of view of channelling may well be primarily dependent upon one's
concept of exactly what the "conscious self" *is* and what place
it plays in the organization of the whole human constitution
i.e. including both personal/mortal and spiritual/immortal
aspects.
The dispute I would have with standard Theosophical model
which mostly seems to be "don't do it - it is dangerous to give
control up to another entity is that it seems to be based on a
conception of the human psyche that was common in the late 19th
century but has been greatly reformed by a century of the study
of psychology.
Throughout the objections about giving up "conscious"
control is the assumption that there *is* a solid consistent
entity called the "conscious self" that can either be
"controlling" or can "surrender" its control. Problem with this
is that psychology is coming to increasingly understand that
"conscious self" that sits on the "throne" is far more of a
democracy and an often unintegrated and unruly one at that with
many different players than it is a single consistent self. And
it is not only psychology but a good deal of spiritual writing
that also speaks to this. Many on the list have read Gurdjieff
who made a great deal of the fact that the vast number of people
walk through the world almost entirely *asleep* ... that is that
so-called "conscious control" is an illusion. That it takes
enormous energy to remain aware of oneself for even a few
moments and that a rather shocking number of the thoughts
decisions and actions people believe are undertaken as
"conscious" acts are instead motivated by whatever psychological
component or drive happens to be in control of the conscious self
at the moment - and even further that few know what their own
underlying motivations even are.
I remember being quite taken with this thought when I
happened to be reading a bit of Gurdjieff during the Gulf War
several years ago. I remember watching this utterly bizarre wave
of righteous patriotism spreading across the country very
deliberately and even quite openly fed by the US Government -
and especially the military - and eagerly spread by the media. I
remember in particular sitting in a coffee shop and listening to
a conversation at the next booth in which a group of men and
women were discussing the war and the anti-war protesters ...
and I noticed that in their conversation were not only the ideas
but actually entire sentences that were taken almost *verbatim*
from a General's speech the previous day. These people suddenly
appeared to me to be *channelling* that is while each would say
their "conscious self" was fully in control of their words their
energy systems were simply completely saturated with a particular
form of energy the darkly pleasurable buzz of supporting self-
righteous killing that had been deliberately induced as a
vibration in the collective consciousness and words were going
into their ears and back out of their mouths with virtually no
conscious consideration applied to them during their journey.
According to some modern psychology as well as writers like
Gurdjieff that so-called "conscious self" that is allegedly so
dangerous to surrender during channelling may not even exist in
the first place except as a comforting illusion and at the very
least is a far more fluid unstable and inconsistent thing than
is suggested in the old models that frame it as a single
powerful king on a throne and in control of its kingdom.
Perhaps it is helpful to distinguish between the voice - the
words actually coming into verbal manifestation - and the inner
impulses that are behind the formation of those words. From a
particular point of view *everything* a person says is
channelled ... the relevant question being the *nature* of what
is being "channelled" rather than the act of channelling. To
hold as Patrick does that channelling "kama-manasic" entities
is wrong and dangerous ignores the fact that the vast majority of
current human casual conversations are composed of nothing other
than "kama-manasic" impulses being "channelled" by those
talking - its just that those impulses come from urges desires
thoughts and all manner of archetypal constellations within the
people's own energy-systems rather than from an external
"entity". And it seems to me that the nature of the kama-manasic
impulses is far more important a question than is their source:
Take for example two situations ...
A good-hearted person deliberately tries to "channel" an
entity they have come to know and that identifies itself as an
"initiate". It speaks light relatively general spiritual
aphorisms is not particularly deep leaves the person and a few
other people in the room feeling slightly better than before if
very little wiser. Even further say the channeller gave up
"conscious" control to the entity and that they were in fact
slightly deluded ... the entity was not an "initiate" but one of
the countless "kama-manasic" entities that exist in the inner
world that clothed itself in the concept of the "initiate" that
it found in the person's subconscious as a way of presenting
itself in a form comfortable to the channeller and I've watched
a few things do this.
Now move to Rwanda in Africa; a military colonel desiring
for military purposes to move masses of populations into groups
in particular places orders his soldiers to shoot any men
straying from the group and gives orders to deliberately block
UN food trucks from reaching a settlement of starving refugees
because he wants those refugees to be forced to go to another
location all of which has actually happened in recent history.
Now according to one model the person in the first example
would be considered engaged in activities "dangerous" to her
spiritual growth would be seen as channelling a "lower" entity
that was "deluding" her and her group while the colonel in the
second example would not be considered to be "channelling" and
would be seen as being in full "conscious" control of himself.
Looking however primarily at the *impulses* motivating
their respective words both impulses might be said to be "kama-
manasic" but IMO even superficial spiritual aphorisms are
generated by impulses far more refined than the also "kama-
manasic" impulses and motivations that would order unarmed men
shot and starving children to be deprived of food.
Even further considered in a spiritual sense the channel
while in the short term possibly "deluded" might very well have
as the underlying motivation the urge to seek light to seek
something higher and while such an urge may well lead to
lifetimes full of hits and misses of delusions and mistakes and
errors it will inevitably if persisted in ultimately lead the
person completely beyond delusion.
And it might be said that that Colonel was also in grip of
the ultimate delusion - the illusion of separateness as HPB so
aptly put it that would allow him to believe that he could
succeed at what he wanted at the expense of thousands of lives -
only in his case the urge towards light ... the impulse that
would lead him out of the illusion has not yet been born.

The second point has to do with the *nature* of the alleged
danger and delusion a channeller faces. In the Theosophical model
of growth it is a process that extends through many lifetimes
and often what in the short term i.e. considered on the scale
of a single lifetime is delusion may very well when considered
from a much longer perspective be a positive spiritual
characteristic. Sooner or later down the road the mortal
personality layers of the human constitution are going to *have*
to surrender themselves - to their own higher animating spirit
call it by whatever name. This certainly cannot be thought of
as an easy thing to do as at least IMO one of the effects of
the path itself is to produce at first a very powerful
personality. For it to surrender control may not be something it
does all of a sudden but may perhaps be something it learns to
do by degrees. Growth is almost always *conceptualized* in a
small number of large generalized stages but *accomplished* in
thousands of tiny steps. Perhaps those who feel drawn to learn
to channel are in essence "practicing" giving up personality
control - by doing it for short periods of time with entities
that are not threatening or overwhelming ... setting the stage
and developing the patterns that will allow them at some time in
the distant future to give up personality control permanently to
something as overwhelming as the inner human.
Hence considered it terms of one life it may appear as
though a person is being "deluded" or not deluded by a particular
"kama-manasic entity" ... but whether delusion or wisdom its
effects are temporary and will end with the life of the current
personality as it is the current personality asking the
questions and hearing the answers - but this whole issue may be
*secondary* to a more permanent trait that was practiced and
developed ... the basic underlying pattern governing the
interactions between the soul and the personality ... that down
the road may be a necessary spiritual characteristic.
-JRC
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 10:03:08 GMT
From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Channelling Part 02

[Part 02 of a two part post].

The final point is that the *meaning* of words like
"channelling" and "mediumship" has changed enormously since HPB
and the Masters were writing their comments of the subjects. HPB
it must be remembered lived during a time when something called
"sitting for development" was practiced when large numbers of
people were experimenting with trying to contact the "souls of
the dearly departed" - i.e. were developing themselves by
deliberately becoming totally and *indiscriminately* passive and
then trying to come into contact with what perhaps without
realizing it were little more than the shells of the
personalities of loved ones.
Channelling today at least as practiced in some circles is
quite a bit different thing ... that is is *not* necessarily the
same phenomena the early TS writers were criticizing. While this
does not automatically mean it is ok it does mean that the
criticisms and warnings of a century ago cannot just be sort of
lifted out of those times and then plopped down in the late 20th
century and assumed to be totally valid. Channelling today IMO
varies in at least three different important ways:
1 Even in the host of "new age" books about the subject
there is a far greater degree of sophistication about the inner
worlds than there was a century ago. Not only do none of the
books encourage "sitting for development" - in the sense of just
trying to be indiscriminately open to any damn thing that wanders
by - but most of them explicitly and extensively discuss the
issues of protection of keeping free of "lower" entities of
being quite specific about the nature of what one wishes to
attract. Leading to ...
2 There is a far greater understanding of the role of to
use a general term for the concept *Intent* in functioning in
the inner worlds ... an understanding that one's own attitudes
and intentions creates a specific inner orientation that will
determine the nature and level of beings attracted. At the most
superficial level this is the "we create our own reality"
ideology that when pushed too far and poorly understood makes
people believe they create the objective world. This ideology
however comes from a much deeper philosophical position that
probably began with Kant and most recently has expressed itself
as the branch of philosophy called phenomenology. This position
would not say that there is no objective world but rather that
the capacities for understanding in the individual human are
relatively so minuscule in relation to the totality of the world
that substantial numbers of psychological and in some schools
even neurological biochemical filtering mechanisms exist for the
express purpose of both creating an underlying conceptual
paradigm within which to understand what is perceived we all
hold a meta-picture of the "world" in our heads and to then
permit only that small number of elements out of the immensity of
the actual world that will fit within that picture to be
perceived.
To fool around with "Intent" is to in effect *use* these
principles to deliberately and consciously alter those filters so
as to open specific avenues of awareness and close others. This
principle can apply to outer world experience i.e. a person
after a series of bad relationships may begin to notice that all
of them seemed to unfold according to a particular pattern and
even further be with a distinct type of person - leading them to
understand they need to alter an interior set of patterns and
relationship assumptions which if accomplished will manifest as
the possibility for a whole different sort of relationship with
a completely different type of person a type that in their
previous state because of perceptual filtering they simply
never would have even *noticed* let alone been attracted to.
In modern channelling literature this principle is coming
to be increasingly understood and applied to the inner worlds as
well - with people being encouraged to be extremely specific
about the nature of what they are open to.
That is that there is a significant difference between a
channel that perhaps for instance because of a deep
insecurity unconsciously *intends* to hear a particular message
which in the inner realm means that the only doorway open is the
one through which an entity willing to deliver that message will
be able to enter and a relatively more refined channel whose
whole system is charged with the unconditional desire for truth
and oriented to only be open to beings of stature. This sort of
differentiation was not made in HPB's time because that second
sort of channelling was virtually *nonexistent*.
This principle also means that those who hold negative
conceptions of channelling and who find themselves focussing
heavily on "danger" on fear filled with suspicion about *any*
voice from the inner worlds should certainly *not* channel
because that paradigm *itself* will become the filter that will
effectively block those impulses that are *not* harmful and
delusional.
3 The final point I'd like to make is that *IMO* the
*baseline* human psyche of today is very different than it was a
century ago - it is far more fluid far less fixed into a small
set of patterns and perhaps *capable* in some cases of
withstanding the high voltage of genuinely high spiritual
entities. [NOTE: I must say that some of this idea comes from
clairvoyant observations and is hence subjective and may be
evaluated as thoroughly unreliable by some.]
In observing the inner worlds there appears to me to be a
sort of physics a set of almost scientific mechanical principles
that governs interactions between beings in general and the
human persona and "higher" beings in the particular case of
channelling. Once past the denser regions of inner space in
which almost all energy has an overwhelming predilection to
pattern itself tightly into fixed form which is the realm in
which mortality exists because once it is entered it makes the
apparent phenomena of "death" inevitable - no *form* can be
permanent - anyway once past this region there is a much more
immense realm that I've never been able to see the limits of in
which does exist orders of existence including something like
"beings" but these beings are almost purely energy. They might
be said to have great "wisdom" but this wisdom has almost
nothing to do with what we call "knowledge" ... i.e. it is not a
series of conceptualizations not a "philosophy" both of which
might be considered as almost dead and static *aftereffects* of
the movements of the energy itself.
It may be that one reason for warnings about "channelling"
had to do with the inner physics of connection: For a human
personality structure to be touched even slightly by one of
these immense beings who *do* have great wisdom *are* highly
"spiritual" and *would* be valuable to hear channelled it would
have to be *extremely* flexible or the energy would simply blow
the psyche into bits. Probably the best analogy might be the
power grid of a particular region. A power plant generates
extremely high voltages but if it were ever hooked up directly
to a single house it would simply fry all the wiring and burn
the house down. It must be first stepped down through a series of
transformers. And every house has a set of fuses or circuit
breakers that make sure that any surge of power in excess of what
the house's wiring can handle will cut off the flow before it
fries the wiring.
It think for instance that most major religions are
generated first as a current from one of those immense beings
that the "esoteric" side of the religion is the set of
transformers - and is composed of "Masters" and "Initiates"
i.e. those whose development renders them capable of
withstanding the impact of the pure juice and whose role is to
"step it down" this function is I believe the core principle
represented in the "Hierophant" card of the Tarot to pattern it
into a set of discrete form-side concepts each containing but a
tiny piece of the original energy that will unfold itself to
"light and heat" the energy-systems of the individuals belonging
to the "exoteric" side of the religion - i.e. the individual
"houses".
Now as humanity as a whole evolves i.e. as the human
persona becomes more flexible it may be that the rigid
hierarchy of the power grid - required for *safety* - may be able
to become more relaxed. This is a view of what I believe *may*
be 21st century "channelling":
Suppose a growing minority of humans possess personality
structures refined and fluid enough to be able to be "re-wired"
to withstand higher voltages hence allowing the circuit breakers
to be bypassed. Imagine the possibility that instead of the model
of pure energetic impulses needing large hierarchal religious
structures with the somewhat immense *downside* and potential
for abuse such a system has inherent in it to render the
impulses safe for individual consumption that instead a far more
decentralized picture became possible in which every *community*
possessed a few individuals capable of responding to the energy
itself and adapting it with far greater specificity to those
living in that place and time. While these people might not be
able to touch the pure unfiltered current they might at least
be able to more directly contact it after only its first or
second transformation and remember every *level* in a church
hierarchy represents another level of "transformers" ...
And to push this analogy to its final form ... the reason
why almost everyone who has power or standing in a current
religious or spiritual organization will speak out sharply
against channelling is the same reason that modern power
companies are doing everything they can to suppress research into
"alternative" power including metaphorically enough *buying*
for the sake of *burying* every alternative energy patent they
can get their hands on: It will mean the foundations of their
power will be cut out from beneath them.
We may be now seeing the first admittedly stumbling steps
towards this very different picture of spiritual and religious
activity. The basic underlying pattern is of certain individuals
beginning to try to channel "spiritual entities" i.e. to
connect directly instead of through the process of entering a
religious hierarchy - that is to go "off the grid" and seek
power directly from sun & wind & etc. and of people in
communities beginning to go to those channels to take advantage
of that direct connection instead of for instance going to a
Catholic priest who will simply adapt principles determined in
Rome to specific situations. And while the first steps *are*
difficult and may contain many mistakes the underlying pattern
itself may ultimately become not only a new "religion" but an
entirely different concept of what religion itself *is*. And even
further the evaluation of the "danger and delusion" cannot be
done in a vacuum ... but must be done in comparison to
*hierarchal religion* ... Might some channels cause trouble by
being unclear being deluded becoming authoritarian and
controlling and thinking they should be put on a pedestal?
Certainly but they are causing only the tiniest *fraction* of
the trouble caused for the identical reasons by modern
mainstream *priesthoods*. Its just I believe that we've become
so accustomed to such abuses have just simply accepted that
abuses of hierarchal standing are a necessary evil that must be
borne to derive the positive aspects from religion. But to really
evaluate channelling we must throw this assumption out. For
every modern channel that mistakenly advises a woman to leave a
relationship there are a hundred Baptist preachers threatening
women with eternal damnation if they dare leave the husbands that
have beat them from the first day of their marriages.
I do not channel and would never advise anyone to do it or
not to do it but I do tip my hat to those who have chosen
perhaps without knowing it to be what I believe a century from
now may be seen as the first pioneers to explore a new and wild
land ... a land that might contain benefits currently not even
dreamed of.
-JRC
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 12:18:52 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: re re monads

Liesel writes:

LD
>Re Jerry H-E's remarks
>
>Seems to me that theosophical concepts aren't that difficult for
>people top lewrn any more. TOday a lot more people understand
>them at least somewhat.

JHE
That has not been my experience.

LD
>Dera Jerry I find it interesting that you think that you can't
>assume that every theosophical author is saying the same thing
>as every other.

JHE
Oh I *can* make that assumption. I just won't.

LD
>That means that even the authors have individual differences
>let alone the students.

JHE
That's right.

LD
>That being so why do you condemn some of the authors?

JHE
You have been under this misapprehension almost since you came on
theos-l and my guess is that you have become quite confortable
in this belief--so I almost hate to point this inconsistency out
to you.

LD
>Different people respond to different vibes & since we all
>seem to be made that way why do you object so much?

JHE
I have no objections to people's differences. In fact: viva la
difference!

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: 05 Nov 1995 12:41:19 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: "I acted on God's orders"

To Keith

Re:Rabin.

I got religious took out my prayer book lit a candle & said
Kaddish. It's the theosophical hope that positive thoughtforms will
help humanity to better ways. But that's all you can do is hope.
Anyway I'm an optimist. If I weren't I wouldn't believe so strongly
in my theosophical principles nor try to act on them.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 13:01:38 GMT
From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Re: Channelling Part 01

Liesel ...
I grasp your point of view and in neither post said anyone
*should* channel. In fact I do not channel and very likely never will -
I'm just not arranged that way. In fact I even believe and said in the
posts that people who find themselves having objections to channelling
especially if there is a gut-level instinctual reaction to the concept
ought *not* channel ... both because those attitudes themselves will
condition what is attracted as well as because the negative reactions to
the concept may well be a fully valid signal from the inner being that
such an activity is not appropriate in the current life. *Nothing* in
either post said you or anyone else ought to channel.
But perhaps you will be willing to consider the possibility that
there are others like maybe Bee in whom there is no such "inner
prohibition" in whom such an activity may be if not an outright valid
part of their path at least has no deleterious effects and even
further if well developed may be an avenue through which others are
well served. And that the second main point of the posts the
standardized Theosophical approach to the topic which might be called
the Nancy Reagan "Just say no!" philosophy might be in need of some
updating or at least might be able to entertain a few more "grey areas"
than currently exist.
-JRC
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 13:09:06 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: animal monad revisited

To Bee:
Re: pets sacrificing themselves to fill a human need.

If Chou chou didn't fill a human need she would have died as a 06
week old kitten. Someone found her in a ditch choking from 02 neck
wounds full of maggots & brought her to my son who's a veterinary.
He healed her & since she was sprightly & I was looking for a new
cat he brought her to me. She fills a need. She's company I love to
watch her play & she's just very lovable as cats are. I also trained her
@cat he brought her to me. She fills a need. She's company I love to
lovingly out of biting the minute you touched her. she now grabs
your skin in her teeth to indicate "I don't like this" but doesn't
hurt unless you don't heed her. I allow this because she needs to
defend herself. She obeys real well for a
cat & it's because she "loves" me or whatever it is that a little
beasty feels. Her life is valuable but not only because she fills a
@cat & it's because she "loves" me or whatever it is that a little
need for me but also because I try to teach her different things to help her
along her cat evolution. She's a happy little kitty of 2. Except for the
fact that she never sees another cat I don't think she's missing
anything important. Yes roaming in the yard but Mysty got bitten &
then run over so it's my judgement that Chou chou is better off indoors.
I try to reciprocate for that she's come to my house as my pet & try
to make sure it's not a useless empty life for her. It isn't. She's
also treated with respect. I respect her as a being & I respect her
wishes which she's learned to express real well because I respond
to her... even if I have to tell her "no" when she sits by the door
asking to go for a run in the hallway.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 13:18:32 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: In the Name of Peace

Re JRC's idea of sending very clear images of an achieved peace to the Middle
East - I'm with you.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 13:30:10 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: monads

Re Jerry H-E's remarks

Seems to me that theosophical concepts aren't that difficult for
people top lewrn any more. TOday a lot more people understand them
at least somewhat.

Dera Jerry I find it interesting that you think that you can't
assume that every theosophical author is saying the same thing as
every other.
That means that even the authors have individual differences let
alone the students. That being so why do you condemn some of the
authors? Different people respond to different vibes & since we all
seem to be made that way why do you object so much?

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 13:43:50 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

To Jerry

Shades of grey are very nice colors but I know from experience that
you can easily get into
trouble when you tell people that muderers & rapists ar human beings
as well. & incidentally it's easier to summon up some compassion if
it's a theoretical case if you don't just have a murderer or a
rapist attacking you. I also tend to get
impatient with people who have dumb opinions. May I pass on some
advice I got which helped me. Regard it as a teaching experience ie
maybe you can teach them something.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 14:18:54 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: ". . . Gods orders"

Price:
>"The Jewish mystic opposed to Israel's giving up West Bank land for peace
placed
>a curse on . . Rabin a month ago appealing to the angels to kill him by last
>week . .
>Timothy McVey also had documents of a philisophical nature from John Locke
>saying tha killing an oppressor is justified.

>One can see the hand and powers of the dark forces everywhere.

I have observed that the manifestation of the dark forces are always preceeded
by the thoughts that carry out their wishes. The primary thought is "I want
what I want . . . at any cost." Intense desire leads to desperation and
desperate acts which human beings justify by their desperation. "He just
wouldn't get out of my way so I ran him down shot him gassed him got rid of
him . . ."

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 14:59:27 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Chaos and RAW

Keith:What do you think of Robert Anton Wilson? Do you think of him? I have
recently
picked up on his ideas "in the air" so to speak. I plan to read "The
Illuminatus". >

I have read most of his books and many articles. I like him
but take some of what he says with some salt. Beware though he likes
Crowley :-.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 16:16:49 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Channelling Part 01

To John Crocker

Dear John

This time I most emphatically don't agree with you.

Agreed that there are people in this world who just go along with
the thought forms of the crowd they're with ... even if it's a mob.
CWL describes this.

Agreed that all of us are influenced by the culture we live in to
some degree & etc.

I've been taught by my theosophical teachers to try to be aware of
these influences & to make up my own mind as much as possible. One
of Harry's favorite sayings was "don't just believe... ask why".
I go so far as to often shut off the sound of TV advertising
& I stuck to driving Toyotas because
they were small & maneuverable dependable & inexpensive. I didn't
break my butt to pay for a Chrysler Imperial. Serge King even taught us
how to communicate somewhat with our unconscious & how to influence
it. I found out long time ago that as long as I wasn't my own boss
as long as I didn't know how to steer my own boat
I was being tossed hither & yon by
any old wave that happened along. Steering also includes consciously
rolling with the punches. My whole training & teaching/learning these
past 30 years has been to make me more aware of what's going on
around me in order to become more efficient at working with it.
For this reason I just don't believe in channeling which is being
done widely today sorry Bee. I didn't tell you not to because I
think grandmas are allowed to do whatever they think is best for
themselves ... nor do I believe in hypnotism ... also
widely practised today. I think that's why Theosophists are such
individualists. The best of us don't follow the crowd aren't
influenced by anyone except if we think it's right for us. Don't tell
me to regress & go get influenced by some other entities that I've by
now managed to cast off. Don't tell me to go toss on the waves
while someone else is steering . No thanks.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 17:06:25 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re Channelling

Some comments & responses to JRC's "channeling":

< Problem with this
<is that psychology is coming to increasingly understand that
<"conscious self" that sits on the "throne" is far more of a
<democracy and an often unintegrated and unruly one at that with
<many different players than it is a single consistent self.
This is true. Although Jung was a monotheist and
proposed the Self one of his foremost students James Hillman
is a polytheist -- he proposes the Self is actually a collection
or aggragrate with each of the ancient gods/goddesses
representing one aspect.

< According to some modern psychology as well as writers like
<Gurdjieff that so-called "conscious self" that is allegedly so
<dangerous to surrender during channelling may not even exist in
<the first place except as a comforting illusion
This is also a central teaching of Buddhism.

< From a
<particular point of view *everything* a person says is
<channelled ... the relevant question being the *nature* of what
<is being "channelled" rather than the act of channelling.
This is pretty much my own view. I got this view
from the theosophical teaching that "thoughts are elementals."
Reference Purucker's essay Thoughts Are Elemental Beings
on p 513 of STUDIES IN OCCULT PHILOSOPHY. It is a
short but pithy essay which ends with the concept that
every elemental i.e. thought is inherently divine just
like everything else is inherently divine. A long time ago
says Purucker we too were just thoughts in the mind of
some being.

< In observing the inner worlds there appears to me to be a
<sort of physics a set of almost scientific mechanical principles
<that governs interactions between beings in general and the
<human persona and "higher" beings in the particular case of
<channelling.
This reminds me of my own 05 Laws of Monads:
1. The Law of Conservation of Mass: The number of monads in any
world system is conserved. The number of monads that enter a
world system must equal the number that will exist that system
2. The Law of Constant Proportions: Monads that combine to
form specific cosmic elements are always of the same type
within any world system. There is a fixed ratio of monadic types
that is characteristic of the combination.
3. The Law of Multiple Proportions: As the monads within a world
system evolve outwards from within they combine into discrete
groups called kingdoms. The energy needed to evolve from one
kingdom to the next is the same for each monad in that world
system.
4. The Law of Equivalent Proportions: Only after a monad enters
a specific subplane of a plane can can communication be
established with other monads acting on that subplane. In
order for two or more monads within a world system to react
or interact with each other their consciousnesses must be
focused on the same subplane.
5. The Law of Constant Ratios: When monads interact together
their Not-I's worlds overlap by discrete amounts. The ratio of
the overlaps is equal to the degree of possible influence
between such monads.
ENOCHIAN PHYSICS p 182

The last two laws can be applied to channeling rather well.

I want to thank JRC for the excellent posting. It contains much
food for thought. I hope that Eldon Rich Patrick and others
will chip in with their own responses and opinions.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 17:40:59 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Liesel's Channelling Part 01

Liesel:
<I've been taught by my theosophical teachers to try to be aware of
<these influences & to make up my own mind as much as possible. One
<of Harry's favorite sayings was "don't just believe... ask why".
<I go so far as to often shut off the sound of TV advertising ...<snip>
< I found out long time ago that as long as I wasn't my own boss
<as long as I didn't know how to steer my own boat
<I was being tossed hither & yon by
<any old wave that happened along. Steering also includes consciously
<rolling with the punches. My whole training & teaching/learning these
<past 30 years has been to make me more aware of what's going on
<around me in order to become more efficient at working with it.
<For this reason I just don't believe in channeling which is being
<done widely today <snip> ... nor do I believe in hypnotism ... also
<widely practised today. I think that's why Theosophists are such
<individualists. The best of us don't follow the crowd aren't
<influenced by anyone except if we think it's right for us. Don't tell
<me to regress & go get influenced by some other entities that I've by
<now managed to cast off. Don't tell me to go toss on the waves
<while someone else is steering . No thanks.

Whoa slow down Liesel. I don't think John was
advocating that we should all start channeling. I also do NOT
channel. BTW back when I was a Christian Scientist our
family had a remote control to turn the sound off the tv during
commercials and CS teaches the evils of hypnotism too. I
applaud you for doing this because we are all open to
suggestion and blocking out unwanted thoughts is a good
preventative step to take. Hypnotism does rob us of our
conscious control I know this from talking to hypnotists.
I wouldn't presume to tell you or anyone else to "go get
influenced by some other entities." What John is saying
that I do agree with is that channeling is a lot more
common than we would like to think and that by grouping
all channeling into a collective package with an "evil"
label is really counterproductive to our best interests in
the long run its fine for the short term though. Conscious
control simply must at some point be given up in order
to allow our inner divinity to shine through us. We do
not want Elvis or Jesus or Aunt Mavis to come through
though. I think that all theosophists will agree with that.
My whole point with this subject of channeling is to
avoid a black-white attitude that all kama-manas is
wrong and all buddhi-manas is right and that we have
the presumption of being able to judge the difference.
I think Eldon is close to agreeing with me on this. He
is saying that kama-manas should be temporarily
avoided by new students and I have no problem with
that at all. Once buddhi-manas is developed then we
can tell when kama-manas is functioning usually but
not always and to think that is very naive and dangerous.
Also the idea that we can practice buddhi-manas while
driving our car down the highway for example is a very
dangerous idea. Ramakrishna for instance would
enter samadhi for such long periods that his disciples
had to force feed his body to keep it alive until his
consciousness returned to its normal human state.
Our normal human consciousness in the waking state
is when consciousness focuses through manas. Any
other focus requires a shift or altered state either upward
into spirit or downward into matter. The practice of
strengthening concious control like you describe is
part of a long established tradition in all occult schools
and is mandatory. However it must be given up or put
aside in order to let in the light of our inner divinity. This
is often symbolized as an act of sacrifice. We first set up
the King ego and then we slay him through sacrifice to a
higher good. This sacrifice is not easy and few dare to
undergo it at all. The Buddhist teaching that the ego is a
fiction or maya can help us to do this.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 22:50:06 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: In the Name of Peace

Imaging begins ....

Alan
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 05 Nov 1995 22:54:11 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: Animal and Monads

>
> "Not one of these kingdoms ever passes through evolution or
> development or unfolding into the next higher kingdom never
> because these kingdoms refer to the rupas which shelter the
> monads. For instance the animal kingdom never becomes a human
> kingdom. the mineral never the plant and so on.
>
> JHE
> END QUOTATION

No "kingdom" can become another one - that seems reasonable
enough. Apples never become oranges.

Nor it seems to me does any animal monad become a human one
or vice versa. What humans need to realise is that there is
*no* "higher" and "lower" and no "progress" in the kingdoms
except in terms of a limited understanding - limited simply
because of the restrictions placed upon the inhabiting
intelligence by its bodily form. It's hard to send thoughts of
peace and goodwill anywhere if you are starving: the mind is
preoccupied to exclusion with thoughts of FOOD.

There may be different "kingdoms" - though I see them as states
of being - but they seem to retain their difference at all
times.

What is to me a spiritual or monadic :- fact is that all
life is ONE incarnate and discarnate. We human monads share in
this One Life with the whole of what we call Creation. There
may be differences in quality subjectively perceived from
creature to creature being to being life to life but all are
interconnected whether they want to be or not. The Law of
Being if you will. Not only are "I and the Father or Mother"
One but so am I and the cat the wolf the dung-beetle the
dust mite the chohan the saint the sinner the theos-l
subscriber .....

However many globes chains cats mice or anything else there
may be and however satisfying our intellectual speculations
concerning them are they are all as nothing without love.
Those from Christian traditions will recall the words of Paul
in 01 Corinthians on this.

>From the Book of [ancient] Wisdom [not in protestant bibles]:

"Whoever loves wisdom loves life; and they that seek her early
shall be filled with joy."

And whoever loves life loves all of life's creatures not in
their bodily forms perhaps but in their spiritual
connectedness with "I".

Shema Israel .....

A.
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 06 Nov 1995 01:29:14 GMT
From: Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

< Leisel's Original Comment: Dear Bee
Agreed that we all have our own ways & opinions our own Paths. That's as it
should be. But you indicate that you're a member of a group. You mention that
some
of your group isn't in agreement with you channeling. From that statement one
gathers that you've been able to talk to them about it. I didn't even have
anyone to bounce my ideas off of to tell what I was just then studying my
newest esoteric discoveries. Most people around me aren't esoterically minded
.. aren't interested in Theosophcical ideas. So I felt completely isolated. I
felt like an outcast. That kind of a cold shoulder from the organization which
is nearest & dearest to you is pretty hard to take especially if you just
happen to be as I was then at a particularly difficult period in your life.>

<Donna's Comment: You know I've come across this on more than one ocassion.
As much as we wish to be trusting of our groups and our like minded
associations too many times it is proven that such groups and associations
and I think I read this in your correspondence over the last couple of days
are being treated as competitive grounds for power and influence by the people
we would like to think are friends. Status who knows more about what than
whom blah blah blah ... you name it it exists in many places and I find it
so dismal. To me the purpose of such exchanges is to somehow contribute to
one another's growth either spiritually or however you wish to say it. And a
true contribution is done with the right intentions. I find that our paths of
ten cross for that reason if we are aware of it or not. It's about control and
for many people control is a very important component to life. So perhaps
our challenge is to identify those people as they aren't exactly healthy
albeit they may have some yet unseen purpose or hold an unlearned lesson to
identify those who are truly our friends. To know where we can go when we need
support or guidance ... where it is safe. Finding a safe place can many times
be the greatest challenge of all in this crazy convoluted world.>

<Dear Donna
How is anybody who isn't there going to contribute to my growth or I to
theirs? The only friendly theosphical contact I had besides Stan Treloar in
Canada & the 02 ladies in the Wheaton library sort of was Harry & Marie.
Harry contributed a lot to my
growth but I doubt that I contributed anything to his except maybe how to
better cure the headache I gave him since he knew a lot more than I did. Marie
& I helped each other at times because Harry was
putting us both through the same strict regimen. He was like a Roshi.
I'm not talking about who controls whom I could care less. I'm talking about
feeling that I was a member of a group I belonged to. Like when somebody comes
to a PTA meeting & pays their dues they belong to the PTA & are treated as
such.
Liesel>

To Leisel:

Well excuse me Louise I'm trying to lighten up here okay?. So let me ask
.. what are you worried about? What *expectations* did or do you have?
Sounds like they weren't met ... uh yeah big time. You're going to make
yourself nuts if you keep comparing things to the PTA. Yuck. Ah expectations
are a terrible thing particularly when launched effectively by hot tempers and
tempestuous people.

But seriously maybe I didn't understand what you were looking for. Care to
clarify? Or maybe I'm making a big deal out of nothing.

Dismayed Donna
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 06 Nov 1995 05:55:28 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Channeling

Jerry S.
>This is true. Although Jung was a monotheist and
>proposed the Self one of his foremost students James Hillman
>is a polytheist -- he proposes the Self is actually a collection
>or aggragrate with each of the ancient gods/goddesses
>representing one aspect.

I could see this. When I've endeavoured to write fiction I'm discovered that
more than one of the characters were different aspects of my psyche.

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 06 Nov 1995 07:20:02 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Re Channelling

JRC:
<Say forgive my literary blind spot but what is this "Enochian
<Physics"? Is this a work of your own? And if so I would be interested
<to hear from whence you derived the laws of Monads you mentioned or
<maybe I should just read the thing.

Gee a chance to plug one of my books ...

Enochain Physics is the third book that I wrote on Enochian
Magic the seventh is due to be published in Feb of next year. It was
first published in 1988 and is now in its second printing. It is not
selling great but about average I suppose there are 10000
in print and the average book is said to sell about 7000 copies.

My goal was to combine magic with emphasis on Enochian
and science with emphasis on physics. As far as I know I am the
only one to do this in such depth lots of books combining science with
Eastern religions though. In the book I borrow heavily my critics
say too heavily on theosophy and especially on the doctrine of monads
which most magic schools don't use. In fact the current head editor at
Llewellyn criticized it as a book on theosophy rather than magic he was
not at Llewellyn in 1988 when it was published thank goodness.

Anyway it was a lot of fun to write. However it addresses
only classical physics. I would love to revise it to include chaos
theory string theory dark matter and so on which I wasn't able to include
back in the 80s. In the book I describe what I call the Enochian Monad
Model which suggests that we are all I-Not-I Monads. According to
my model we are each inherently a consciousness center I a world
Not-I and an interconnecting force called fohat. This is rather mystical
and not easily put into words. Most people have a hard time with it
because they want to see only one world that we all share through our
sensory systems. In my model we each have our own world and
owing to the formation of life-waves these overlap into shared areas.
Globe D in my model is really the overlapped area of all I-Not-I
Monads in the human life-wave undergoing evolutionary development
on the physical plane. All of the globes are thus collective efforts on
the part of their inhabitants. Anyway I then go on to use my model to
explain all kinds of magical powers and such. Basically the book
explores the laws of magic and science and compares the two.

I have seen this book in both used bookstores and in
libraries including Pasadena TS library the last time I looked
so you probably won't have to buy a copy. One problem
with it is that most theosopists will find it too heavy on the magic
side while most magicians will find it too heavy on the theosophy
side. Don de Gracia said that he bought a copy and read it but
he never got around to telling me what he thought of it could be
he didn't like it and didn't want to hurt my feelings? . In fact
I have gotten no feedback whatever from anyone on theos-l.
This is probably OK because I take criticism about as well as
Paul does. My main concern with it is that it leaves out chaos
theory which I have only recently been studying. Chaos
theory gives us a whole new slant to the magic-science
relationship. Hope this helps.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 06 Nov 1995 07:26:41 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: to be a theosophist

According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins:

quoting PJ as having the goal of--
> Proving the reality of the Masters and thus getting HPB and
> Theosophy some long-overdue respect.
>
> JHE
> You lost me here. Part of your premise As I read it--and
> as everyone else I know who has read the book reads it is that
> HPB created an elaborate fraud concerning the existence of the
> Masters in order to cover the identity of some politically active
> people.
Definitely not a premise. When I first started out I didn't
even intend to get into the mystery of the Masters but was
just trying to fill in some blanks in HPB's biography. When
the first hypotheses about the Masters began to emerge the
political context was not yet very apparent. Remember we're
talking here about my motives for doing the research which are
quite distinct from what I found once the research was
underway. BTW I wouldn't say "HPB created an elaborate fraud"
but rather that "in attempting to conceal the identities of the
Masters while proving their existence HPB became involved in
an elaborate mixture of truth and fiction that developed once
underway in ways that she could not control." I don't think
she deliberately set out to perpetrate fraud but rather than
when asked questions she couldn't safely answer she came up
with diversionary responses blinds that took on a life of
their own.

How does this gain public respect for HPB and the
> Masters?

Before my books there were two extant possible interpretations
of the truth value of the Theosophical literature's claims
about the Masters:
1 They are completely fictional the consensus of virtually
all non-Theosophical writers
2 They are just as HPB described them the consensus of
vitually all Theosophical writers

and I propose
3 They are fictionalized portrayals of real people who were
HPB's spiritual teachers and occult sponsors

The effect of my work on the non-Theosophical reader's view of
HPB and the Masters appears to be to demolish option 01
entirely. I doubt that any serious book on her will blithely
assume the non-existence of the Masters. The evidence that is
rejected by Theosophists as inadequate to prove all my specific
hypotheses conclusively is accepted by non-Theosophists as
quite adequate to establish the plausibility of the general
thesis-- that the Masters existed but were not accurately
described by HPB. To my mind proving that HPB derived her
teachings from genuine adepts e.g. people with recognized
expert knowledge in various traditions Kabbalah
Rosicrucianism Sikhism Tibetan Buddhism etc. is a
considerable step forward from the Meade/Washington etc.
portrayal of her as a demented medium who concocted her
teachings from poorly-understood books.

But as Godwin says in the introduction to your own
> book you were only offering a theory and nothing more. If your
> theory turns out to be fact then you have indeed exposed more
> than one myth and you *will* be deeply respected at least by
> me for it and as far as I'm concerned you will have done a
> great service to the TM. On the other hand if it turns out not
> to be true then you have created a new myth that makes the
> Masters as represented in the Mahatma letters to be fabrications;
> Olcott to be a fool; and HPB to be a fraud. With this second
> scenario how did you ever expect for even a moment that the
> Theosophical Organizations which owe their existence to your so
> called myth created by HPB would ever welcome your book?

You are talking about implications here implications that were
never apparent to me as I was writing the book and which even
now seem to me to be far too harshly stated. Does my work
really imply that the Mahatma letters are fabrications? I
think not; HPB evidently believed herself able to enter into
telepathic communication with adepts she knew and wrote while
in such a state of consciousness. I can't say how real such a
connection was one way or another but don't rule out its
genuineness. Regarding Olcott I don't see him as a fool at
all but as someone who grew wiser and wiser over the years of
his association with HPB and who became in a very important
way an Initiate of the mysteries through his connection with
her. As for HPB being a fraud I think your use of that as a
noun suggests the black-and-white view of the subject. No I
would not say that HPB *was* a fraud and don't think my
hypotheses imply it. Rather she was a person with sincere
motives and genuine wisdom to share who because of
circumstances beyond her control was obliged to package that
wisdom in a misleading way. But it is indeed easy to see why
Theosophists are not embracing such a view.

Thanks for the chance to clarify or confuse further? some
issues.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 06 Nov 1995 08:55:41 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: TMR

quoting PJ as having the goal of--
> Proving the reality of the Masters and thus getting HPB and
> Theosophy some long-overdue respect.
>
> JHE
> You lost me here. Part of your premise As I read it--and
> as everyone else I know who has read the book reads it is that
> HPB created an elaborate fraud concerning the existence of the
> Masters in order to cover the identity of some politically
>active people.

KPJ
Definitely not a premise. When I first started out I didn't
even intend to get into the mystery of the Masters but was
just trying to fill in some blanks in HPB's biography. When
the first hypotheses about the Masters began to emerge the
political context was not yet very apparent.

JHE
I and any dictionary defines "premise" as propositions
leading to a conclusion. It really doesn't matter that your
intentions and hypothesis changed as you wrote the book. That is
the normal state of affairs of doing research. Your book as a
finished product draws conclusions based upon premises you set
down. Whether or not those premises were what you intended as a
result of your shifting "intentions" and "hypothesis" also
doesn't matter. What matters IMO is the finished product that
is read by the public and judged by their own experiences.

KPJ
Remember we're
talking here about my motives for doing the research which are
quite distinct from what I found once the research was
underway.

JHE
You may be talking about your motives but I'm not. Your
motives may be implied in your premises but I don't need to know
your motives in order to understand your premises.

KPJ
BTW I wouldn't say "HPB created an elaborate fraud"
but rather that "in attempting to conceal the identities of the
Masters while proving their existence HPB became involved in
an elaborate mixture of truth and fiction that developed once
underway in ways that she could not control." I don't think
she deliberately set out to perpetrate fraud but rather than
when asked questions she couldn't safely answer she came up
with diversionary responses blinds that took on a life of
their own.

JHE
I would call that an elaborate fraud. It was she who
advertised the existance of the Masters and it was she who
explained their nature. Whether or not her fraud was
"deliberate" is an interesting question but makes the result no
less of a fraud.

JHE
> How does this gain public respect for HPB and the
> Masters?

KPJ
Before my books there were two extant possible interpretations
of the truth value of the Theosophical literature's claims
about the Masters:
1 They are completely fictional the consensus of virtually
all non-Theosophical writers
2 They are just as HPB described them the consensus of
vitually all Theosophical writers

JHE
I see at least one more which I think is far more important
than the two you mentioned--the neo-theosophical portrayal of the
Masters which is precisely the one which the public is most
familiar and what the public will be measuring their concepts of
the Masters against when reading your book.

KPJ
and I propose
3 They are fictionalized portrayals of real people who were
HPB's spiritual teachers and occult sponsors

JHE
Right. Now how does this proposal gain respect for HPB and
the Masters?

KPJ
The effect of my work on the non-Theosophical reader's view of
HPB and the Masters appears to be to demolish option 01
entirely.

JHE
We can't know for sure but it seems unlikely that people
who already made up their minds that the Masters don't exist
would be interested in reading your book in the first place. But
for that chance reader-- you have given that person another
option. Have you met anyone who ABSOLUTELY did not believe in
the existence of the Masters who were drawn to read your book
under their own volition? I'm not referring to people who had
doubts about the Masters but those who were convinced by people
like Marion Meade and Washington that they didn't exist.

KPJ
The evidence that is
rejected by Theosophists as inadequate to prove all my specific
hypotheses conclusively is accepted by non-Theosophists as
quite adequate to establish the plausibility of the general
thesis-- that the Masters existed but were not accurately
described by HPB.

JHE
So you are saying that your book has brought non-
theosophists who did not believe in the Masters to accept your
thesis "that the Masters existed but were not accurately
described by HPB"? Any evidence of this?

KPJ
To my mind proving that HPB derived her
teachings from genuine adepts e.g. people with recognized
expert knowledge in various traditions Kabbalah
Rosicrucianism Sikhism Tibetan Buddhism etc. is a
considerable step forward from the Meade/Washington etc.
portrayal of her as a demented medium who concocted her
teachings from poorly-understood books.

JHE
I agree. "Proving" this would be a step forward and would
wipe out your first interpretation: that the Masters don't exist;
and wipe out your second: that the Masters are as HPB described
them. It would also wipe out my additional interpretation: the
neo-theosophical concept the Masters. However you didn't "prove
it." You offered only a "suggestion" as Godwin said in your
introduction. Therefore you have done nothing more than add
another possibility to the above three and others too.
But to return to my original question: how does "proving" or
even "suggesting" that "in attempting to conceal the identities
of the Masters while proving their existence HPB became involved
in an elaborate mixture of truth and fiction that developed once
underway in ways that she could not control" give HPB and
theosophy some long overdue respect? It seems that you are
substituting one negative perception for another. But the real
question is what is the truth of the matter? If neither option
is the true one then I don't think much of a positive nature was
accomplished.
My own opinion is that you have raised a possibility but
not in my mind anything that approaches a certainty. Perhaps a
more thorough search and a deeper probing would have brought me
over. But in reading your book I would ask myself as I read
from page to page: how did he ever interpret this quote like
that?; why did he bring this up and ignore that?; why does he
accept this but doubts that?; why is he presenting this side of
the story and ignoring the other? etc. Of course I'm hardly
your typical reader either. I have copies of almost every
reference you used within 30 feet of me and a lot more that I
believe would have been relevant but not used. Also I did go
through the trouble of checking those references. I think it is
the rare reader who already knows the literature as well as you
that you have to lookout for and aim to convince. If you can
convince that reader then the rest are easy.

JHE
> But as Godwin says in the introduction to your own book you
>were only offering a theory and nothing more. If your theory
>turns out to be fact then you have indeed exposed more than one
>myth and you *will* be deeply respected at least by me for
>it and as far as I'm concerned you will have done a great
>service to the TM. On the other hand if it turns out not to be
>true then you have created a new myth that makes the Masters as
>represented in the Mahatma letters to be fabrications; Olcott to
>be a fool; and HPB to be a fraud. With this second scenario
>how did you ever expect for even a moment that the Theosophical
>Organizations which owe their existence to your so called myth
>created by HPB would ever welcome your book?

KPJ
You are talking about implications here implications that were
never apparent to me as I was writing the book and which even
now seem to me to be far too harshly stated.

JHE
Are you saying that your proof readers never brought these
"implications" to your attention?

KPJ
Does my work really imply that the Mahatma letters are
fabrications? I think not; HPB evidently believed herself able
to enter into telepathic communication with adepts she knew and
wrote while in such a state of consciousness.

JHE
I think so. Compare the rhetoric of your statement with the
perjoratives that I have starred in Godwins' intro:

The two Mahatmas most involved with the Theosophical Society
during HPB's indian years were called Morya and Koot Hoomi
and were *alleged* to perform *wondrous psychic feats*
through her. p. 02

Already doubt in being put into the minds of the readers
concerning the possibility of "feats" like the "telepathic
communication" that you suggest above. Now for your statements:

Although the previously cited pages imply that Olcott was
responsible for writing some of the later KH letters and
that Thakar Singh had a role in the correspondence with
Sinnett HPB clearly was deeply involved p. 174

This sounds like the suggestion of a fabrication to me. And your
conclusion:

The nature and extent of HPB's communication with the
Masters remain mysterious. But it is reasonable to conclude
that the Mahatma letters are more the work of HPB than
believers care to accept yet more inspired by real Masters
than her critic have even imagined p. 175.

Now where is your suggestion that HPB was in telepathic
communication with the Adepts? I realize that you quote Sinnett
as making this suggestion among other people making other
suggestions but where do you suggest that such a telepathic
communication might have actually took place? If I were an
uninformed reader who believes in the possibility of telepathy I
believe that I would still come to the conclusion from your
description that HPB and perhaps Olcott fabricated the letters.
Whether or not they were influenced by Thakar Singh would count
for nothing in raising my estimation of HPB.

KPJ
I can't say how real such a connection was one way or another
but don't rule out its genuineness.

JHE
Not ruling out something doesn't give much. I don't rule
out that the pyramids were built by aliens either; but I wouldn't
bet on it.

KPJ
Regarding Olcott I don't see him as a fool at all but as
someone who grew wiser and wiser over the years of his
association with HPB and who became in a very important
way an Initiate of the mysteries through his connection with
her.

JHE
Yes. I was aware that you think quite highly of HSO. I'm
really addressing another one of those "implications" here that
you might not have been aware of. Or what you call:
"implications that were never apparent to me as I was writing the
book".

KPJ
As for HPB being a fraud I think your use of that as a
noun suggests the black-and-white view of the subject. No I
would not say that HPB *was* a fraud and don't think my
hypotheses imply it. Rather she was a person with sincere
motives and genuine wisdom to share who because of
circumstances beyond her control was obliged to package that
wisdom in a misleading way. But it is indeed easy to see why
Theosophists are not embracing such a view.

JHE
I'm glad to know that you do see why most theosophists
don't. Whether non-theosophists share your above stated view of
HPB after reading your book is another question. This post is
getting too long but perhaps in another one I will look at your
rhetoric in TMR concerning HPB.

KPJ
Thanks for the chance to clarify or confuse further? some
issues.

JHE
And thank you. This was a good chat and it clarified some
of my own thinking too.

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: 06 Nov 1995 13:16:07 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org>
Subject: re re monads

>Agreed: Vive la difference. It would be nice if you could
>abide by it.
>
>Liesel

JHE
I can and I do. I hope you will someday too.

LD writing to Donna
>You're absolutely right I should remember that others don't
>play by my should rules but by their own.

JHE
Yes: this is a good thing for you to remember. It will also
help you when you read my posts on theos-l too.

Vive la difference!
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: 06 Nov 1995 15:43:17 GMT
From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Re: Re Channelling

On 06 199511 Jerry Schueler wrote:
>
> Anyway it was a lot of fun to write. However it addresses
> only classical physics. I would love to revise it to include chaos
> theory string theory dark matter and so on which I wasn't able to include
> back in the 80s. In the book I describe what I call the Enochian Monad
> Model which suggests that we are all I-Not-I Monads. According to
> my model we are each inherently a consciousness center I a world
> Not-I and an interconnecting force called fohat. This is rather mystical
> and not easily put into words. Most people have a hard time with it
> because they want to see only one world that we all share through our
> sensory systems. In my model we each have our own world and
> owing to the formation of life-waves these overlap into shared areas.
> Globe D in my model is really the overlapped area of all I-Not-I
> Monads in the human life-wave undergoing evolutionary development
> on the physical plane. All of the globes are thus collective efforts on
> the part of their inhabitants. Anyway I then go on to use my model to
> explain all kinds of magical powers and such. Basically the book
> explores the laws of magic and science and compares the two.
I'll have to look at this ... is this model more explicit in any
one of the books you speak of? [I'm actually writing on somewhat similar
of a concept right now .... got a book half done and you're right it
*is* tricky to talk about - and I'm attempting to do it without using the
vocabulary of any particular spiritual paradigm but rather attempting to
think from the root up.

> My main concern with it is that it leaves out chaos
> theory which I have only recently been studying. Chaos
> theory gives us a whole new slant to the magic-science
> relationship. Hope this helps.
Ah yes. And I would add that Complexity Theory is even a more
startling contribution. In fact the ramifications of some of its ideas
could well be very dangerous were they understood by people of ill
intent. Nonetheless the extremely fluid way modern science esp. Chaos
Complexity and Quantum Theorists is beginning to use the concepts of
dimensionality of spaces state phase & etc. of scale well I'd
better not get started its late & I'm busy tonight -:.
Have you begun work on the Chaos/Magic link or still just laying
the foundation? Maybe the list wouldn't mind seeing a rough draft of a
chapter if you wouldn't be adverse to posting it. I personally think it
might stimulate a wonderful discussion.
-JRC
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 06 Nov 1995 15:50:18 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Animal and Monads

Re: our recent conversations & re Alan's comments:

Someone mentioned that they think it isn't good for us to live too
closely with animals. My answer was that I Iove it & think I'm
learning from it.. Lateron I
remembered that CWL said someplace that when you get to being an
Arhat or some such very spiritual being you shouldn't live with
animals anymore.

Alan you talk about the Corinthians & "they all are as nothing
without love." I'm just reading a book "The Universe Is A Green
Dragon" in which the author states that the entire universe is held
together with love one example of which he says is gravity... an
attraction.

You also mention spiritual connectedness. Yesterday I wrote an
answer to John Crocker to the effect that my whole training has been
to learn to paddle my own canoe to become more & more aware of
what's really going on around me & acting on it. After I sent it I
began to think about that the whole unverse is connected & that we
also need to learn to act in unison with other entities. I think
maybe this should be done by symbiosis with each entity respecting
& accepting what the other has to give & etc. rather than that it
be a masochistic/sadistic relationship with 01 lording it over the
other. I'm not sure that explains all that I mean but it's in the
ball park.

Alan you talk about "spiritual connectedness". An insight I got
about 02 years ago which meant a lot to me is that we're also
physically connected to the whole universe. When you think of the
life wave progressing from mineral to plant etc. we still have the
universe's minerals in our bodies and DNA evolved from bacilli & we
gather energy from eating vegetables & etc.

Alan - The HPB pamphlet arrived today. That was fast. Haven't had a chance
to look at it yet but thank you.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 06 Nov 1995 16:16:37 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Liesel's Channelling Part 01

Jerry S.

I suppose my opinion on channeling is too black & white. Maybe some
good can come of it at times. But I'm not the one who'll be willing to
experiment with that. My feeling of independence was too hard to come
by for that.

As for giving up yourself to "let in the light of our inner
divinity" I guess you mean a state of grace. I'm willing to accept
light which I feel comes to me from "above" but I want to make darn
sure first that it's really a light from above & not a
will-o-the-whisp.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 06 Nov 1995 16:26:49 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: re re monads

Jerry HE

Agreed: Vive la difference. It would be nice if you could
abide by it.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 06 Nov 1995 16:38:18 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

Dear Donna

Maybe you're right. I was trying to make Wheaton live up to my
should rules. that's Serge King's term. A should rule is that you
expect another person or organization or being to live up to what you
think they should do. You're right I shouldn't have expected anything of
Wheaton & should have said "thank you Lord" for whatever useful came
my way. You're absolutely right I should remember that others don't
play by my should rules but by their own.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 06 Nov 1995 19:34:54 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Channelling

Wow JRC you have quite blown me away. What a masive channeling from
someone who doesn't. Four pages of part 2. Wow.
I haven't analysed it to that extent. I do believe that what I now call a
personal experience is impossible to explain to someone who has not had that
personal experience themselves. Some of what has been said in previous posts
has made good sense to me but I have a barrier to my communication of
personal experiences. It is like an ego thing. I have a dread of being
egotistical so I limit my explaining to more objective ideas and not
necessarily what I believe deep down is going on. I do have a knowing of
what is being channelled and I have been told about a couple of previous
lives that account for what is going on this time around. That is a deeply
personal thing and something that I do not share because I cannot prove to
my ego that it is true except for a deep knowing that it probably is so I
have some ambivience about it.
It is a real happening but 'real' in which term is the problem. I shall
study your post a bit more and see what comes to me.
Many thanks for the deep consideration you have given the subject.
Bee
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 07 Nov 1995 05:16:56 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: TMR

According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins:
responding to KPJ--
>
> JHE
> I would call that an elaborate fraud. It was she who
> advertised the existance of the Masters and it was she who
> explained their nature. Whether or not her fraud was
> "deliberate" is an interesting question but makes the result no
> less of a fraud.

There are two reasons why I resist labelling HPB a fraud while
believing her capable guilty of doing things that you regard as
deserving that label. Both relate to the meaning of "blinds."
First HPB said several things ABOUT her statements regarding
the Masters that should give pause. Early on in 1875's "Letter
to Hiraf" she wrote:
The Oriental Cabala the practical full and only existing
copy is carefully preserved at the headquarters of this
Brotherhood in the East and I may safely vouch will never
come out of its possession...
where they are who they are is more than is given me to
reveal. Perhaps I do not know it myself and only dreamed it.
Thousands will say it is all imagination; so be it. Time will
show. The only thing I can say is that such a body exists and
that the location of their Brotherhoods will never be revealed
to other countries until the day when Humanity shall awake in
a mass from its spiritual lethargy and open its blind eyes to
the dazzling light of truth. A too premature discovery might
blind them perhaps forever.BCW I: 106

If she tells us in advance that she is not allowed to give out
accurate information about the location of the Brotherhoods
and then later she gives out purported information about those
locations what are we to think? Her vows of secrecy got
lifted by somebody so she was allowed to give out accurate
information? Or that this is disinformation consistent with
her vow NOT to reveal the truth?

There are things said AFTER the India debacle to Hodgson in
letters that bear out the idea that the real Masters were
portrayed in a deceptive light. And what about Morya's own
statement quoted at the beginning of TMR which I don't have
before me to the effect that HPB is required often to withhold
accurate information about the Masters and "at times to
mislead." Not sure of quote

That's point one-- is it really a fraud if she told us
beforehand not to believe her on this subject and told us
afterwards not to believe everything that had been alleged of
the Masters?

Point two is that HPB ALSO TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MASTERS.
That is a tremendous amount of what she says of them DOES
check out when you look to historical sources. You CAN see a
succession of mentors with inside knowledge of virtually every
esoteric tradition synthesized in her writings. Particularly
in her Russian writings we get a much more down-to-earth
portrayal of her relations with the Masters that yields plenty
of clues to her real associations. So is she a fraud if she
tells us a large amount of the truth mixes it up with fiction
and then warns us that this is the case? To me that's an
occultist using blinds.
>
> JHE
> > How does this gain public respect for HPB and the
> > Masters?
>
>From the rather pathetic borderline psychotic down-on-her-luck
medium of Marion Meade we go to a portrait of HPB as the most
learned woman of her century to quote Godwin. Showing the
succession of learned and often powerful men and women under
whose inspiration she developed succeeds in lifting her forever
from the Meade/Washington/Campbell portrayal. Admittedly it's
respect as an intellectual force and a historical influence that
she gets from my readers not respect as a religious leader.

re: ways of seeing the Masters
> JHE
> I see at least one more which I think is far more important
> than the two you mentioned--the neo-theosophical portrayal of the
> Masters which is precisely the one which the public is most
> familiar and what the public will be measuring their concepts of
> the Masters against when reading your book.

And I would suggest that my work goes a lot further toward
undermining that illusion than all the anti-HPB books combined.
Why else do I get so much more grief than Washington et al?

> 03 They are fictionalized portrayals of real people who were
> HPB's spiritual teachers and occult sponsors
>
> JHE
> Right. Now how does this proposal gain respect for HPB and
> the Masters?

I repeat: Theosophy is genuinely derived from the most highly
qualified individuals of the time sharing their wisdom with
HPB. Dayananda was the most important Hindu reformer of his
time; Jamal ad-Din the most influential Islamic reformer;
Thakar Singh the central figure in the Sikh reform movement;
Sumangala the leading figure in revival of Sinhalese Buddhism.
That someone like HPB was able to move in their circles makes
her in a sense greater than all of them--- the most truly
global consciousness of her century as far as I can see. Why
is it not clear that this is a person and network of advisors
deserving of more respect than HPB and her Masters have
heretofore been accorded by non-Theosophists?
>
> KPJ
> The effect of my work on the non-Theosophical reader's view of
> HPB and the Masters appears to be to demolish option 01
> entirely.
>
> JHE
> We can't know for sure but it seems unlikely that people
> who already made up their minds that the Masters don't exist
> would be interested in reading your book in the first place. But
> for that chance reader-- you have given that person another
> option. Have you met anyone who ABSOLUTELY did not believe in
> the existence of the Masters who were drawn to read your book
> under their own volition? I'm not referring to people who had
> doubts about the Masters but those who were convinced by people
> like Marion Meade and Washington that they didn't exist.

Several. Greg Tillett for starters told me "I used to
believe they were entirely fictional but you convinced me I
was wrong." David C. Lane known for his skeptical writings on
Eckankar and the Radhasoami movement said the same. No
non-Theosophist reader has EVER said to me "I still think it's
more likely that the Masters are totally fictional." It's
almost inconceivable that such a view could survive an
attentive reading of my books. Of course inertia means that it
will take a long time for this to sink down to the level of the
general reader but scholars interested in the field have yet
shown no signs of rejecting the fundamental thesis. Although
Theosophists have furiously rejected the thesis as they misread
it-- that I have conclusively established solid one-to-one
identifications for all the pseudonymous Masters in
Theosophical books.
>
> JHE
> So you are saying that your book has brought non-
> theosophists who did not believe in the Masters to accept your
> thesis "that the Masters existed but were not accurately
> described by HPB"? Any evidence of this?

Abundant; even unanimous from the feedback I get.
>
> JHE
> I agree. "Proving" this would be a step forward and would
> wipe out your first interpretation: that the Masters don't exist;
> and wipe out your second: that the Masters are as HPB described
> them. It would also wipe out my additional interpretation: the
> neo-theosophical concept the Masters. However you didn't "prove
> it." You offered only a "suggestion" as Godwin said in your
> introduction. Therefore you have done nothing more than add
> another possibility to the above three and others too.

No I have done considerably more than that I really do
believe. Using Barzun's progression from possible through
plausible through probable to proven let's weigh the four
options you cite:
1 The Masters are totally fictional. I'd say I have proven
this one impossible. Finding many individuals who correspond
in many salient details to the descriptions of the Masters
makes my option 03 the most plausible IMO. But finding a single
person whose identity as a Theosophical Master can be
established rules out option 01 completely. And with Dayananda
the Sengchen Tulku Swami Sankaracharya maybe Shyamaji
Krishnavarma the evidence of her and Olcott's having seen them
as Master figures is quite strong-- stronger than in other
cases that are more vulnerable to criticism.
2 The Masters are just as described in the Theosophical
literature. This one too is actually impossible. For
example there are four conflicting versions-- major
conflicts-- of HPB's acquaintance with Morya. Three MUST be
false. Therefore not EVERYTHING HPB wrote about Morya can be
true; therefore not everything she wrote about the Masters can
be true. But apart from this problem the "all true" faction
must recognize that THEY ARE MAKING AN EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM THAT
REQUIRES EXTRAORDINARY PROOF while I am making an ordinary
claim that is perceived as much more plausible a priori to
readers who are not already committed to Theosophical dogma.
3 The Masters are more accurately described by
neo-Theosophical writers like Leadbeater or Bailey than by
HPB. That is an even more extraordinary claim for which NO
proof has ever been cited no historical proof that is
although Hodson's visions suffice for some. Highly
implausible no supporting evidence but not ruled out.
4 The Masters did exist but were not accurately described by
HPB. This one has the virtue of HPB's own testimony as well
as the overwhelming preponderance of evidence.
Within #4 of course is room for an infinite number of
specific hypotheses about specific Masters an area in which I
feel much less confident that my work will pan out in the long
run. But the overall thesis is a winner.

> But to return to my original question: how does "proving" or
> even "suggesting" that "in attempting to conceal the identities
> of the Masters while proving their existence HPB became involved
> in an elaborate mixture of truth and fiction that developed once
> underway in ways that she could not control" give HPB and
> theosophy some long overdue respect? It seems that you are
> substituting one negative perception for another.

Negative if you are looking for a spiritual leader who never
told a lie. Not so negative if you are looking for someone
with real wisdom and knowledge derived from genuine
authoritative sources.

But the real
> question is what is the truth of the matter? If neither option
> through the trouble of checking those references. I think it is
> the rare reader who already knows the literature as well as you
> that you have to lookout for and aim to convince. If you can
> convince that reader then the rest are easy.

If I can convince that reader I can fly to the moon and back
in 60 seconds. Sorry-- don't mean that to be nasty. But the
more preconceptions about the Masters a person has based on
familiarity with the literature the more resistance my thesis
will encounter. That's not bad just the way of the world.
Any new approach is welcomed more by people LOOKING for a new
approach than by people satisfied with the one they have.
>
> Are you saying that your proof readers never brought these
> "implications" to your attention?

SUNY provides only copy editing; the book was not edited at all
in the sense of my getting feedback on major issues. My
proofreader was not a Theosophist and would not care about
implications that would get me in hot water with the group.
> KPJ
> Does my work really imply that the Mahatma letters are
> fabrications? I think not; HPB evidently believed herself able
> to enter into telepathic communication with adepts she knew and
> wrote while in such a state of consciousness.
>
> JHE
> I think so. Compare the rhetoric of your statement with the
> perjoratives that I have starred in Godwins' intro:
>
> The two Mahatmas most involved with the Theosophical Society
> during HPB's indian years were called Morya and Koot Hoomi
> and were *alleged* to perform *wondrous psychic feats*
> through her. p. 02
>
> Already doubt in being put into the minds of the readers
> concerning the possibility of "feats" like the "telepathic
> communication" that you suggest above. Now for your statements:

There were stranger feats than that
like the cup and saucer phenomenon that can only be called
wondrous. But I don't see how you can blame Godwin or me for
putting doubts into anyone's minds. Those doubts have been the
predominant non-Theosophical outlook on HPB for more than a
century. Again Theosophists' view of HPB is an extraordinary
claim for which the outside world is awaiting extraordinary
proof and not getting it.
>
> Although the previously cited pages imply that Olcott was
> responsible for writing some of the later KH letters and
> that Thakar Singh had a role in the correspondence with
> Sinnett HPB clearly was deeply involved p. 174
>
> This sounds like the suggestion of a fabrication to me. And your
> conclusion:

She herself later admitted that sometimes she was the physical
writer of words psychically transmitted. What's fabricating
about that?
>
> The nature and extent of HPB's communication with the
> Masters remain mysterious. But it is reasonable to conclude
> that the Mahatma letters are more the work of HPB than
> believers care to accept yet more inspired by real Masters
> than her critic have even imagined p. 175.
>
> Now where is your suggestion that HPB was in telepathic
> communication with the Adepts? I realize that you quote Sinnett

in the word "inspired"-- which I leave open as to HOW inspired
they were meaning I don't know the extent of authorial
responsibility for the "inspirers" living or dead and the
recipient of the inspiration HPB respectively.
> uninformed reader who believes in the possibility of telepathy I
> believe that I would still come to the conclusion from your
> description that HPB and perhaps Olcott fabricated the letters.
> Whether or not they were influenced by Thakar Singh would count
> for nothing in raising my estimation of HPB.

Again I think you are evaluating HPB from a very particular
point of view. "Was this person honest enough to justify my
having respected her as a spiritual leader for most of my
life?" That stacks the decks in a very different way from
asking "Was she a great person did she accomplish important
things for humanity was her knowledge genuine were her
intentions sincere?"
>
> JHE
> Not ruling out something doesn't give much. I don't rule
> out that the pyramids were built by aliens either; but I wouldn't
> bet on it.

Let me make the statement stronger then and say in light of
the first fragment in the Voice of the Silence in light of
HPB's associations with Hindus Sikhs and Buddhists I feel
confident that she used certain yogic practices related to the
teachings of Radhasoami for making an inner contact with her
literary "inspirers" and that this contact was productive of
some highly valuable writings. As to what was REALLY going on
how genuine the telepathy was whether they were sending what
she was receiving-- one has eventually to say "How the hell do
I know?" Which I wish more Theosophists were willing to admit
about murky issues like these.
>
> JHE
> And thank you. This was a good chat and it clarified some
> of my own thinking too.

I found this very enjoyable and must say am able to speak
frankly and less defensively about these matters now that I
don't have to worry about "how can you call yourself a
Theosophist and say that..."

Cheers
PJ
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 07 Nov 1995 09:47:29 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: TMR

KPJ regarding HPB's veracity
If she tells us in advance that she is not allowed to give out
accurate information about the location of the Brotherhoods
and then later she gives out purported information about those
locations what are we to think? Her vows of secrecy got
lifted by somebody so she was allowed to give out accurate
information? Or that this is disinformation consistent with
her vow NOT to reveal the truth?

JHE
Are you saying that HPB later gave out an address as to
where we can contact one of these brotherhoods? If she did I
missed it. Please advise me as to where in HPB's writings I can
find this address.

KPJ
There are things said AFTER the India debacle to Hodgson in
letters that bear out the idea that the real Masters were
portrayed in a deceptive light.

JHE
You mean that she withheld information about the Masters?
That she would go to any extreme to preserve the anonymity of the
Masters? No argument there. Even KH said as much when he said
in the Mahatma letters to Sinnett that Koot Hoomi was a nom de
plume. It is clear that the Masters did not wish to become
public figures and HPB was careful to protect this from
happening. HPB as I understand her was interested in making
known the existence of Masters as this was an important concept
in her occult teachings that people with superior spiritual
knowledge and occult powers do exist but she was not allowed to
name names and give out addresses.

KPJ
And what about Morya's own
statement quoted at the beginning of TMR which I don't have
before me to the effect that HPB is required often to withhold
accurate information about the Masters and "at times to
mislead." Not sure of quote

JHE
Yes that fits. They wanted to remain anonymous at all
costs. Even in a letter to Sinnett which you quote HPB found
it more desirable to allow the world to believe that she invented
the Masters then to expose their identity. Though obviously this
was a painful position for her to be forced into.

HPB
That's point one-- is it really a fraud if she told us
beforehand not to believe her on this subject and told us
afterwards not to believe everything that had been alleged of
the Masters?

JHE
Where did she say this?

KPJ
Point two is that HPB ALSO TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MASTERS.
That is a tremendous amount of what she says of them DOES
check out when you look to historical sources. You CAN see a
succession of mentors with inside knowledge of virtually every
esoteric tradition synthesized in her writings. Particularly
in her Russian writings we get a much more down-to-earth
portrayal of her relations with the Masters that yields plenty
of clues to her real associations.

JHE
By Russian writings you are referring the ~Caves and
Jungles of Hindustan.~ We've been through this before privately.
and places. This was a common mode of fiction during the
Victorian era. Sir Walter Scott was a master of this technique.
There are indeed clues concerning the Masters in this series but
would HPB reveal real clues to their true identities even in
fiction what she would not reveal in fact? I think that would
be too much of a risk since part of the fun of reading this kind
of novel was to try and pick fact from fiction. This kind of
hunting falls under literary criticism which is my field of
expertise. If she mentions Meru then you can say it is
fictional. If she mentions Lahore you can find it on the map.
But if you want to argue that she mentioned Mysore when it
reality she was talking about Meerut then you will have found
yourself trapped in a big guessing game where there are really no
answer--it just looks like there are. That is what made this
kind of fiction fun for her Russian readership.

KPJ
So is she a fraud if she
tells us a large amount of the truth mixes it up with fiction
and then warns us that this is the case? To me that's an
occultist using blinds.

JHE
If you are referring to ~Caves and Jungles~ then that is to
me a woman writing historical fiction. HPB's system of binds as
I have seen them in her writings is the using of a general term
to avoid giving specific information. For instance she might use
Deva when she didn't want you to know that she met Dhyani Chohan.
A Deva could be a Dhyani Chohan but it could also be a nature
spirit. A blind is not a lie or a fabrication but are usually
created by making generalizations in order to avoid giving
specific information. HPB was consistent in how she created
blinds going all the way back at least to ~Isis Unveiled.~

JHE
> > How does this gain public respect for HPB and the
> > Masters?
>

KPJ
>From the rather pathetic borderline psychotic down-on-her-luck
medium of Marion Meade we go to a portrait of HPB as the most
learned woman of her century to quote Godwin. Showing the
succession of learned and often powerful men and women under
whose inspiration she developed succeeds in lifting her forever
from the Meade/Washington/Campbell portrayal.

JHE
This is not the HPB I saw in your book nor is it the HPB I
saw in Meade or Campbell I've only skimmed Washington so far so
I cant' talk about him yet. You Meade and Campbell all
acknowledge HPB's intelligence and her contacts with other
intelligent people. The three of you also portray HPB as one who
created a deception. The only difference is that I see is that
you argue that HPB's deception was based upon real people. Why
do you feel that HPB is more respectable if she invented the
Masters and fashioned them upon real people then if she invented
them completely from her imagination? It makes little difference
to me.

KPJ
Admittedly it's
respect as an intellectual force and a historical influence that
she gets from my readers not respect as a religious leader.

JHE
I don't believe HPB ever intended to be a religious leader.
If she were respected for what she was and what she did for the
intellectual atmosphere of civilization she would be classed as
a philosopher. But philosophy is a male only field so she never
would have been accepted anyway.

JHE re: ways of seeing the Masters

> I see at least one more which I think is far more important
> than the two you mentioned--the neo-theosophical portrayal of
>the Masters which is precisely the one which the public is most
> familiar and what the public will be measuring their concepts
>of the Masters against when reading your book.

KPJ
And I would suggest that my work goes a lot further toward
undermining that illusion than all the anti-HPB books combined.
Why else do I get so much more grief than Washington et al?

JHE
Anti HPB books generally use the neo-theosophical portrayal
as the straw man to destroy and replace it with nothing. As far
as a portrayal of HPB goes I'm not sure however that your
scenario is any better than the nothing they were left with.

KPJ
> 03 They are fictionalized portrayals of real people who were
> HPB's spiritual teachers and occult sponsors
>
> JHE
> Right. Now how does this proposal gain respect for HPB and
> the Masters?

KPJ
I repeat: Theosophy is genuinely derived from the most highly
qualified individuals of the time sharing their wisdom with
HPB. Dayananda was the most important Hindu reformer of his
time; Jamal ad-Din the most influential Islamic reformer;
Thakar Singh the central figure in the Sikh reform movement;
Sumangala the leading figure in revival of Sinhalese Buddhism.

JHE
But these are not the people she quotes nor interacts with
in her writings. If you are to argue that "Theosophy is
genuinely derived from the most highly qualified individuals of
the time..." then we can look at the people and the books she
quotes from in order to determine who those individuals were whom
she derived Theosophy from. Here the list is a very different
one: E. Levi Bailley Crooks Skinner Gerald Massey and of
course the religious and philosophical classics. She also has
relatively little to say about Islam or Sikhism. I find it more
reasonable to assume that the source of information are those
whom she gave credit to. To argue that HPB quoted from a vast
array of literature to hide the identities of her informers is
too fantastic for me to accept.

KPJ
That someone like HPB was able to move in their circles makes
her in a sense greater than all of them--- the most truly
global consciousness of her century as far as I can see. Why
is it not clear that this is a person and network of advisors
deserving of more respect than HPB and her Masters have
heretofore been accorded by non-Theosophists?

JHE
Because: 1. She was a woman therefore she has no business
writing philosophical works; 2. She argued against and proved
wrong some of the major male authorities during her time e.g.
Muller and Rhys-Davids; 3. She stood up against institutional
Christianity; 4. She opposed the materialistic bent of science;
5. She opposed the beliefs of the Spiritualists; 6. She argued
that Eastern philosophy deserves at least equal respect to
Western philosophy. With all of the enemies she made taking
these stands who was left to speak well of her?

> KPJ
> The effect of my work on the non-Theosophical reader's view of
> HPB and the Masters appears to be to demolish option 01
> entirely.
>
> JHE
> We can't know for sure but it seems unlikely that people who
> already made up their minds that the Masters don't exist would
> be interested in reading your book in the first place. But for
> that chance reader-- you have given that person another
> option. Have you met anyone who ABSOLUTELY did not believe in
> the existence of the Masters who were drawn to read your book
> under their own volition? I'm not referring to people who had
> doubts about the Masters but those who were convinced by
> people like Marion Meade and Washington that they didn't
> exist.

KPJ
Several. Greg Tillett for starters told me "I used to
believe they were entirely fictional but you convinced me I
was wrong." David C. Lane known for his skeptical writings on
Eckankar and the Radhasoami movement said the same. No
non-Theosophist reader has EVER said to me "I still think it's
more likely that the Masters are totally fictional." It's
almost inconceivable that such a view could survive an
attentive reading of my books. Of course inertia means that it
will take a long time for this to sink down to the level of the
general reader but scholars interested in the field have yet
shown no signs of rejecting the fundamental thesis.

JHE
I had in mind the general reader--the populous at large not
the occult historians who read everything that comes out at a
matter of course. But it is still interesting that Tillett and
Lane were converted from a belief that HPB made up to Master to a
belief that HPB fabricated the Masters upon people who she knew.
I also agree that it seems more reasonable that HPB or anyone
else would create fiction from bits of fact then to create it
whole cloth. If those were my only possible options I would
find the former more believable too. My point however which I
admit was not clear is that the general reader who did not
believe in the Masters in the first place would not be likely to
buy and read a book on the subject. However your point is also
well taken that if people like Tillett and Lane accept your
thesis then they would in turn cite and support your book in
their writings.

KPJ
Although Theosophists have furiously rejected the thesis as they
misread it-- that I have conclusively established solid
one-to-one identifications for all the pseudonymous Masters in
Theosophical books.

JHE
Why do Theosophists "misread" your book but other people
don't? Does disagreeing with your conclusions necessarily mean
that your book was misread? Do you believe that I have accused
you of "conclusively" establishing "solid one-to-one
identifications for all the pseudonymous Masters in Theosophical
books" ?

> JHE
> So you are saying that your book has brought non-
> theosophists who did not believe in the Masters to accept your
> thesis "that the Masters existed but were not accurately
> described by HPB"? Any evidence of this?

KPJ
Abundant; even unanimous from the feedback I get.

JHE
Are you thinking of the Tilletts and the Lanes or people
from the general public?

> JHE
> I agree. "Proving" this would be a step forward and would
> wipe out your first interpretation: that the Masters don't
> exist; and wipe out your second: that the Masters are as HPB
> described them. It would also wipe out my additional
> interpretation: the neo-theosophical concept the Masters.
> However you didn't "prove it." You offered only a
> "suggestion" as Godwin said in your introduction. Therefore
> you have done nothing more than add another possibility to the
> above three and others too.

No I have done considerably more than that I really do
believe. Using Barzun's progression from possible through
plausible through probable to proven let's weigh the four
options you cite:
1 The Masters are totally fictional. I'd say I have proven
this one impossible. Finding many individuals who correspond
in many salient details to the descriptions of the Masters
makes my option 03 the most plausible IMO. But finding a single
person whose identity as a Theosophical Master can be
established rules out option 01 completely. And with Dayananda
the Sengchen Tulku Swami Sankaracharya maybe Shyamaji
Krishnavarma the evidence of her and Olcott's having seen them
as Master figures is quite strong-- stronger than in other
cases that are more vulnerable to criticism.

JHE
OK lets take them one at a time: For Dayananda you cite
p 111 a KH letter saying that "D. Swami was an initiated Yogi
a very high chela at Bandrinath endowed some years back with
great powers and a knowledge which he has since forfeited and
that HPB told you the truth...." That sounds like a failed chela
to me not a Master. Olcott's second hand account of HPB's
statement about him that you cite p 109 is ambiguous and may
very well be supportive to the statement in the KH letter.
Remember an Adept is not a Mahatma. Both HPB and Olcott
distinguished between the two. For Sengchen Tulku you have an
enigma but very possibly a person whom HPB gained information.
But does HPB or HSO call him a Mahatma? For Swami Sankaracharya
you cite p. 208 an article by HPB showing that she considered
him an "initiated Adept"--still not a Mahatma. So much for your
establishment of a "Theosophical Master."

KPJ
2 The Masters are just as described in the Theosophical
literature. This one too is actually impossible. For
example there are four conflicting versions-- major
conflicts-- of HPB's acquaintance with Morya. Three MUST be
false. Therefore not EVERYTHING HPB wrote about Morya can be
true; therefore not everything she wrote about the Masters can
be true. But apart from this problem the "all true" faction
must recognize that THEY ARE MAKING AN EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM THAT
REQUIRES EXTRAORDINARY PROOF while I am making an ordinary
claim that is perceived as much more plausible a priori to
readers who are not already committed to Theosophical dogma.

JHE
We would have to examine and evaluate these "conflicting
statements." Conflicting does not necessary mean untrue.
However HPB's claims about the Mahatmas are in themselves
extraordinary and IMO unprovable. But unprovable does not
necessarily mean false. As for "Dogma" belief in the Masters in
any form never was such in the TS.

KPJ
3 The Masters are more accurately described by
neo-Theosophical writers like Leadbeater or Bailey than by
HPB. That is an even more extraordinary claim for which NO
proof has ever been cited no historical proof that is
although Hodson's visions suffice for some. Highly
implausible no supporting evidence but not ruled out.

JHE
Agreed

KPJ
4 The Masters did exist but were not accurately described by
HPB. This one has the virtue of HPB's own testimony as well
as the overwhelming preponderance of evidence.
Within #4 of course is room for an infinite number of
specific hypotheses about specific Masters an area in which I
feel much less confident that my work will pan out in the long
run. But the overall thesis is a winner.

JHE
Yes--a real possibility but as you say lots of room for
interpretation. This is one that I'm also happy to entertain
however I don't feel confident that your specific hypotheses
will pan out either.

JHE
> But to return to my original question: how does "proving" or
> even "suggesting" that "in attempting to conceal the identities
> of the Masters while proving their existence HPB became
> involved in an elaborate mixture of truth and fiction that
> developed once underway in ways that she could not control"
> give HPB and theosophy some long overdue respect? It seems
> that you are substituting one negative perception for another.

KPJ
Negative if you are looking for a spiritual leader who never
told a lie. Not so negative if you are looking for someone
with real wisdom and knowledge derived from genuine
authoritative sources.

JHE
For myself I'm neither looking for a spiritual leader who
never told a lie nor am I looking for one who created a Mahatmic
Myth. Actually I'm not looking for a spiritual leader at all.
However an HPB as you propose not only created an illusion
concerning the Masters but by the falsity of the concept of a
group of in effect living Buddhas this aspect of her teachings
falls into question. Further if she fabricated the Mahatmas
from these people you mention then she fabricated the
Theosophical teachings from them also. This doesn't sound like a
person "with real wisdom and knowledge" but someone who patches
together information and hides the source of it.

JHE
> But the real question is what is the truth of the matter? If
> neither option through the trouble of checking those
> references. I think it is the rare reader who already knows
> the literature as well as you that you have to lookout for and
> aim to convince. If you can convince that reader then the
> rest are easy.

KPJ
If I can convince that reader I can fly to the moon and back
in 60 seconds. Sorry-- don't mean that to be nasty. But the
more preconceptions about the Masters a person has based on
familiarity with the literature the more resistance my thesis
will encounter. That's not bad just the way of the world.
Any new approach is welcomed more by people LOOKING for a new
approach than by people satisfied with the one they have.

JHE
On the other hand it is easy to convince someone of
something they know nothing about. I'm sorry but a person who
is knowledgeable about the literature is not necessarily closed--
they just require a more complete and more informed explanation
then someone who knows nothing. An informed person will have
more questions which you will have to answer. The only informed
person I know of who has asked those hard questions is Dan
Caldwell yet you will not publicly defend your book against his
questions. If your thesis is strong then you can weather his
questions until he runs out of them. As for me I'm not
challenging your book but only responding to it. There is a big
difference.

JHE
> Are you saying that your proof readers never brought these
> "implications" to your attention?

KPJ
SUNY provides only copy editing; the book was not edited at all
in the sense of my getting feedback on major issues. My
proofreader was not a Theosophist and would not care about
implications that would get me in hot water with the group.

JHE
Too bad. I would never do it that way.

> KPJ
> Does my work really imply that the Mahatma letters are
> fabrications? I think not; HPB evidently believed herself able
> to enter into telepathic communication with adepts she knew
> and wrote while in such a state of consciousness.
>
> JHE
> I think so. Compare the rhetoric of your statement with the
> perjoratives that I have starred in Godwins' intro:
>
> The two Mahatmas most involved with the Theosophical Society
> during HPB's indian years were called Morya and Koot Hoomi
> and were *alleged* to perform *wondrous psychic feats*
> through her. p. 02
>
> Already doubt in being put into the minds of the readers
> concerning the possibility of "feats" like the "telepathic
> communication" that you suggest above. Now for your
> statements:

KPJ
There were stranger feats than that
like the cup and saucer phenomenon that can only be called
wondrous. But I don't see how you can blame Godwin or me for
putting doubts into anyone's minds. Those doubts have been the
predominant non-Theosophical outlook on HPB for more than a
century. Again Theosophists' view of HPB is an extraordinary
claim for which the outside world is awaiting extraordinary
proof and not getting it.

JHE
There are more options than acceptance and rejection of the
phenomena. A third option is the non committed description--no
"alleged" no perjoratives no adjectives indicating either
acceptance or rejection--just an indication that this is what is
of record. Then if you want to go into it you can write about
how different people responded to the phenomena--ie what they
said about it but pro and con. To me this approach is far
greater evidence of objectivity than the addition of
perjoratives.

JHE
> Although the previously cited pages imply that Olcott was
> responsible for writing some of the later KH letters and
> that Thakar Singh had a role in the correspondence with
> Sinnett HPB clearly was deeply involved p. 174
>
> This sounds like the suggestion of a fabrication to me. And
> your conclusion:

KPJ
She herself later admitted that sometimes she was the physical
writer of words psychically transmitted. What's fabricating
about that?

JHE
Nothing if you had taken the time to relate to the reader
HPB's explanation of how Mahatma Letters are transmitted.
Otherwise it appears that she was fabricating.

JHE
> The nature and extent of HPB's communication with the
> Masters remain mysterious. But it is reasonable to conclude
> that the Mahatma letters are more the work of HPB than
> believers care to accept yet more inspired by real Masters
> than her critic have even imagined p. 175.
>
> Now where is your suggestion that HPB was in telepathic
> communication with the Adepts? I realize that you quote
> Sinnett

KPJ
in the word "inspired"-- which I leave open as to HOW inspired
they were meaning I don't know the extent of authorial
responsibility for the "inspirers" living or dead and the
recipient of the inspiration HPB respectively.

JHE
"Inspired" doesn't mean "telepathic." To make the
suggestion you would have to use the word "telepathic" or a word
that leads the reader to understand that you are talking about
telepathy. Making a suggestion is also not the same as "leaving
open."

JHE
> uninformed reader who believes in the possibility of telepathy
> I believe that I would still come to the conclusion from your
> description that HPB and perhaps Olcott fabricated the
> letters. Whether or not they were influenced by Thakar Singh
> would count for nothing in raising my estimation of HPB.

KPJ
Again I think you are evaluating HPB from a very particular
point of view. "Was this person honest enough to justify my
having respected her as a spiritual leader for most of my
life?" That stacks the decks in a very different way from
asking "Was she a great person did she accomplish important
things for humanity was her knowledge genuine were her
intentions sincere?"

JHE
I'm asking neither question. First of all HPB is not my
"spiritual teacher" and my respect for her rests upon what she
produced--not her personality. I already have opinions about her
"greatness" what she "accomplished" and the "genuineness" of
her knowledge which you theses does not address. As for her
intentions your thesis directly involves this. Though you do
not see her characterization of her as a fraud because of her
good intentions I'm of the opinion that a fraud can be
perpetuated under either good or evil intentions.

> JHE
> Not ruling out something doesn't give much. I don't rule
> out that the pyramids were built by aliens either; but I
> wouldn't bet on it.

KPJ
Let me make the statement stronger then and say in light of
the first fragment in the Voice of the Silence in light of
HPB's associations with Hindus Sikhs and Buddhists I feel
confident that she used certain yogic practices related to the
teachings of Radhasoami for making an inner contact with her
literary "inspirers" and that this contact was productive of
some highly valuable writings. As to what was REALLY going on
how genuine the telepathy was whether they were sending what
she was receiving-- one has eventually to say "How the hell do
I know?" Which I wish more Theosophists were willing to admit
about murky issues like these.

JHE
It seems that their "sending what she was receiving" is an
important question to investigate concerning your argument that
her Theosophical teachings were based upon these people.

> JHE
> And thank you. This was a good chat and it clarified some
> of my own thinking too.

KPJ
I found this very enjoyable and must say am able to speak
frankly and less defensively about these matters now that I
don't have to worry about "how can you call yourself a
Theosophist and say that..."

JHE
I never said or even hinted such a thing to you. Do you
believe that I did?

Good discussion. 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: 07 Nov 1995 12:07:36 GMT
From: Coherence@aol.com
Subject: Is there any way . . . ?

Does anyone know if there is a way to retrieve previous correspondence from
this board.

On afternoon my computer CRASHED AND BURNED wiping out many files
and programs. I have spent the last two days trying to reformat and restore
everything not fun.

I am interested in receiving Theos-L letters which were posted between
Thursday Nov 02 and Nov 07 at about noon.

Any help you all could provide is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 07 Nov 1995 12:25:05 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: Is there any way . . . ?

According to Coherence@aol.com:
>
> Does anyone know if there is a way to retrieve previous correspondence from
> this board.

Yes. Send to listproc@vnet.net this message no subject

get theos-l theos-l.yymmdd
in your case .951102 through .951107

> On afternoon my computer CRASHED AND BURNED wiping out many files
> and programs. I have spent the last two days trying to reformat and restore
> everything not fun.
My condolences-- and best wishes for reconstruction.

>
> I am interested in receiving Theos-L letters which were posted between
> Nov 02 and Nov 07 at about noon.
>
> Any help you all could provide is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 07 Nov 1995 13:43:33 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: critiquing GRS Mead's "Concerning HPB"

Dear Alan dear anybody who's interested in this critique

Well Alan I got around to reading the pamphlet you sent me this AM & most of
what it contains was rather unexpected.

I found it rather incongruous that a pamphlet most of whose contents
deal with defending HPB against being maligned should begin with a
foreword maligning CWL. Why is it wrong to malign one person & but
not equally wrong to malign another? Maligning is insidious whenever it's
being done. It injures the person it's done to
the person who's doing it & the person who reads or hears about it.
It succeeded in turning me off right away

Moreover I find all this defending people who matter against people
who don't matter in the least rather useless & of little interest. I myself
don't need to be convinced of HPB's genuineness & I think most
present-day Theosophists don't either So why drag up all this junk?

I would have preferred to have read some more of Mr. Mead's
description of what HPB was like as a person which he finally got
around to in the last few pages. Those lines are precious.

Re: Footnote 02 on p.23.
Whoever wrote this presumably Mr. Mead was not very well informed. I
happen to know that in Germany & in France where I've gone to
school they use a decimal comma instead of a decimal point...
possibly in Russia they do too. At any rate judging from the
anecdote HPB learned about a decimal comma rather than a decimal
point & wasn't familiar with its English translation

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 07 Nov 1995 14:05:24 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Re Channelling

Jerry S. says
"We each have our own world ..... these overlap into shared areas."

What a neat idea!
Liesel

JRC "Maybe the list wouldn't mind seeing a rough draft of a
chapter on Chaos / magic.... it might stimulate a wonderful
discussion.

Second the motion Jerry if you're willing? Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 07 Nov 1995 14:19:48 GMT
From: RIhle@aol.com
Subject: Re: TMR

>KPJ
>As for HPB being a fraud I think your use of that as a
>noun suggests the black-and-white view of the subject.

RJI
And indeed perhaps the only difference between fiction and non-fiction is
that at least the author of the former stays awake as partial lies are sent
forth into the world. And furthermore perhaps unless one keeps alive the
ability to fictionalize even oneself there is no hope that anyone including
oneself will ever become an Adept. . . .

Best wishes

Richard Ihle
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 07 Nov 1995 14:24:58 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: TMR

Re: fraud or not fraud

When I was working one of my jobs was to interview jobless people
to try to get them placed. There was often a question as to the
veracity of what they were telling me. If I had sat there & had tried
to figure out where they were lying & where they were telling the truth
I would never have gotten any other work done. I would also have
gotten myself all tied up in knots while I was trying to figure it &
wondering who was lying about what. So I decided that the best way
for me to work was to just take whatever an applicant said at face
value unless it was really a blatant lie & this gave me at least
a reasonable modus operandi. Now these people were alive
& sitting in from of me & I could watch their kinetics & etc.
HPB et al have been dead over100 years & all we have is their
writings. Who's to know? Really know? Shall we send someone
to Devachan to interview HPB? Maybe some impostors have tried that too
along with maybe 01 or 02 who've really done it. How are we going to sort
all that out? You tell me!

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 07 Nov 1995 16:42:44 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Re Channelling

JRC about my Enochian Monad Model:
< ... is this model more explicit in any
<one of the books you speak of? [I'm actually writing on somewhat similar
<of a concept right now .... got a book half done and you're right it
<*is* tricky to talk about - and I'm attempting to do it without using the
<vocabulary of any particular spiritual paradigm but rather attempting to
<think from the root up.

It is spelled out in Enochian Physics and summarized in my
Enochian Workbook. Basically I too avoided any particular
spiritual paradigm. My model is pretty much my own. But it
does help explain a lot of things. On page 51 I say: "It expresses
an old poetical and mystical definition of man as a circle whose
center is nowhere and whose circumference is everywhere. If
we think of the center as monadic consciousness the I and the
circumference as infinite Space the Not-I then it is obvious that
the Enochian Monad Model is but a slight enhancement of the
ancient mystical definition of man. The Enochian Monad Model
is thus a modern expression of an ancient idea." The fallout
that is so difficult for the human mind to understand is that we
take our world with us wherever we go. We are not really victims
of an external world but the inner world and outer world are
two sides of the same continuum held together by a powerful
attraction and also repulsion. I came up with this after
meditating on HPB's idea of Motion Space and Fohat
together forming the universe.

< Have you begun work on the Chaos/Magic link or still just laying
<the foundation? Maybe the list wouldn't mind seeing a rough draft of a
<chapter if you wouldn't be adverse to posting it. I personally think it
<might stimulate a wonderful discussion.

Actually I drafted a book that no one would publish. I
posted several chapters on this on theos-l a long time ago. You have
to ftp to get it.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 07 Nov 1995 16:42:49 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Telepathy and Esoteric E-Mail

Paul:
< As to what was REALLY going on
<how genuine the telepathy was whether they were sending what
<she was receiving-- one has eventually to say "How the hell do
<I know?" Which I wish more Theosophists were willing to admit
<about murky issues like these.
<
As I have already pointed out even a high Adept/Master would
have trouble knowing for sure that every word was right. The
problem with telepathic communication is that it is not done
in words. It is done in images which the receiver must then
interpret in his/her own words. How does one know for sure that
they interpreted correctly? Only by going back to the sender
for confirmation and that is the *only* way to know for sure.
HPB admitted that she was an Initate not an Adept. But I would
think that if her Masters discovered she had gotten some teaching
entirely wrong that they would have told her this when they
eventually met. The Masters probably wouldn't quibble over the
exact wording anyway.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 07 Nov 1995 23:28:00 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: "I acted on God's orders"

Keith:

>THe man who killed Rabin heard the voice of what he called "God". How much
evil
>has been justified this way?

The same is true with 'holy' wars in the name of various major religions.
I think the problem is due to a form of confusion on the part of the
would-be killers.

It is a spiritual practice to give expression to higher powers to things
that are bigger than ourselves. The sense of self-sacrifice is most-readily
experienced in a situation where one is expected to die for a cause. I
think that this feeling of wanting to give oneself to a higher cause is
*used* by various movements. A suicide bomber in Palestine may have the
highest intentions but be deluded and mislead in what he thinks. And this
is where the problem can be found.

If we don't keep our bearings and maintain a proper sense of alertness
in life we can be mislead by others manipulated by our own good
intentions and led to do wrong. It's not that someone might do what
he knows to be wrong and later uses some lofty explanation to justify
later. I'd expect that more often that person is inwardly misled.

>I have thought that the Brothers of the Shadow are not very esoteric
>hidden or occult. They seem to be very obvious in their movements.
>I am thinking of drug cartels gangs bombers hate groups etc.

There are obviously bad activities in the world. And obviously good ones.
Who's to say there aren't hidden groups for both good and bad in the
world as well?

>The Rabin assasination brings up again the religious underpinnings of
>world events in a "dark" sense.

This was mostly a symbolic event. A hero figure was targeted. He was
a fine man and an asset to the peace movement. But for every public
figure that falls countless noble men and women behind the scenes
suffer injustice daily. Do we care as much for the common person as
the world figure?

>Timothy McVey also had documents of a philisophical nature from John Locke
>saying tha killing an oppressor is justified.

And Hitler used occultism and astrology in his dark work. The
"bad guys" use whatever means are at their disposal with no
ethics to guide their actions. Their leaders possibly know what
they are really doing; the followers may be mislead sometimes
sincere people.

In nazi Germany books were burned and children were trained to
turn in their parents for politically impure views. A few centuries
back people were burned as witches and one could be subject to
torture and death by the inquisition.

When is violence allowable in politics? I'm inclined to say
never except in self-defense like when a nation is under attack.
But situations are not always clean-cut. The IRA or the PLO may
feel they are at war with an oppressive status quo. Perhaps their
violence leads to some political clout. Is this good? On the
other hand the United States was founded using guerilla warfare
and was probably seen as dirty fighting by the ruling British
government.

>One can see the hand and powers of the dark forces everywhere.

And the hands and powers of the forces for light. Which do we
look at and work for? We can align ourselves with the forces for
good and seek to better the world or do battle with the bad.
What we do with our lives is an individual thing.

>Still one hope that peace will be speeded by this event and that Karma will
>adjust the scales. Yes one hopes. Many are now putting out positive
>thought-forms or prayers. I hope they work!

Sometimes it takes a minor shock to rekindle our enthusiasm
for working for the good. We really can't depend upon world
leaders to do things for us; we need to take the initiative
in our own lives to brighten the world.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 07 Nov 1995 23:49:29 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: TMR

RJI:

>And indeed perhaps the only difference between fiction and
>non-fiction is that at least the author of the former stays
>awake as partial lies are sent forth into the world.

The important point here is that it's quite possible for a
writer to mix personal opinions and speculations with what
the writer knows and produce an unconscious mix of fact and
fiction. This is especially likely in writing about Theosophy
where a clear understanding of the philosophy is difficult.

We face a even-more difficult task of making out what is said
when we're dealing with esoteric teachings that are only
partically presented to us. Something is held back; other things
are given us under blinds or veils. The intent here I think
is to not attempt to state the deeper truths in plain language
but to place the student in the proper state of readiness where
the idea spontaneously arises in the student's mind.

This is a practice of something like jnana yoga and the
intent is to train theosophical students to originate their
understanding of the Esoteric Philosophy *from within* where
the books and external training provides assistence and a form
of "reality check" against what one comes up with. The goal is
to awaken the student's Inner Teacher which is really a new
activity of mind.

>And furthermore perhaps unless one keeps alive the ability to
>fictionalize even oneself there is no hope that anyone
>including oneself will ever become an Adept. . . .

I wouldn't use the word "fictionalize" but would agree that
there's an important truth in what you say here. We are ever-creating
ourselves. The person of this moment is the totality of all that
has been. What we were 100 years ago *does not exist*; it only
carries forward as karmic content and changes effected in us at
that time.

We can *change our past* when we change that part of us that
carries the effects of that past. In doing so we are rewriting
ourselves at this moment. It is not really fictionalizing the
past because there is no past. Rather we are modifiying ourselves.
There is a part in us which carries the effects of a past event;
we can change that part of us and *to us* the past has changed.

In doing this though we've changed the past *for us* and not
for the other people that we had interacted with. If 20000 years
ago someone killed us we can change ourselves today so that the
event of being killed is not the same and therefore *for us*
the past has changed. The person that killed us though remains
unchanged regarding that "past event" until or unless we interact
with that person.

Between us and our killer we have the totality of our shared
past stored in our karma with that person. The karma is not a
fixed quantity of reward/punishment but is rather a living
connectedness a living dynamic relationship that we have with
the other person.

By interacting with others we can change both our personal
and our shared past with them. We change it by changing ourselves
and changing the content of our relationship with them our
shared karma.

The past per se is an illusion except as it is recognized as
living content of our consciousness. Apart from us in life and
from that content it has no existence.

We can say then that we "fictionalize" ourselves or rewrite
our past. And this happens when we *change* ourselves in the
present including that part of ourselves that carries the past.
So let's get our those writing pens and get to work. There's
much room for improvement in ourselves and in our relationships
with others!

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 01:52:01 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: critiquing GRS Mead's "Concerning HPB"

> Dear Alan dear anybody who's interested in this critique
>
> Well Alan I got around to reading the pamphlet you sent me this AM
> & most of what it contains was rather unexpected.
>
> I found it rather incongruous that a pamphlet most of whose contents
> deal with defending HPB against being maligned should begin with a
> foreword maligning CWL. Why is it wrong to malign one person & but
> not equally wrong to malign another? Maligning is insidious whenever it's
> being done. It injures the person it's done to
> the person who's doing it & the person who reads or hears about it.
> It succeeded in turning me off right away

I understand this and advised against another adverse comment
re CWL which was not included in R.A.Gilbert's Preface for
exactly the reasons you state. However RG is the prime mover
behind the project and supplies the material. I just do the
other part - scanning printing etc. Personally I liked Mead's
account of his working with HPB and thought you would as you
clearly do. When I first mentioned it to you the preface had
not been written sigh.

<snip>

> I would have preferred to have read some more of Mr. Mead's
> description of what HPB was like as a person which he finally got
> around to in the last few pages. Those lines are precious.

Indeed they are! Would that he had written more about her.

> Re: Footnote 02 on p.23.
> Whoever wrote this presumably Mr. Mead was not very well informed. I
> happen to know that in Germany & in France where I've gone to
> school they use a decimal comma instead of a decimal point...
> possibly in Russia they do too. At any rate judging from the
> anecdote HPB learned about a decimal comma rather than a decimal
> point & wasn't familiar with its English translation
>
> Liesel

I shall pass this on to anyone who should know - it's a very
good point!

--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 02:11:46 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: re: GRS Mead's "Concerning HPB"

Liesel

LD
I found it rather incongruous that a pamphlet most of whose
contents deal with defending HPB against being maligned should
begin with a foreword maligning CWL. Why is it wrong to malign
one person & but not equally wrong to malign another? Maligning
is insidious whenever it's being done. It injures the person it's
done to the person who's doing it & the person who reads or
hears about it. It succeeded in turning me off right away

JHE
To malign is to speak harmful untruths about another person.
If G.R.S. Mead was speaking the truth about CWL then he cannot
be said to be maligning him. One the other hand if Mead was
saying untrue things in the belief that they were true one could
not say that Mead was acting with the intent to malign. Mead
knew CWL for a number of years. He was one of the members of
Olcott's 1906 London committee formed to question CWL concerning
the accusations made against him by the parents of several boys
in Chicago. Therefore Mead was able to speak from first hand
knowledge concerning CWL. Mead was principled enough concerning
his opinions of CWL that he resigned from the TS in 1908 when
Besant brought Mr. Leadbeater back into the Society.
Perhaps it would help if you read the pamphlet with the
knowledge that Mead genuinely believed that CWL was an evil man
and wished to warn other people concerning him.

LD
Moreover I find all this defending people who matter against
people who don't matter in the least rather useless & of little
interest. I myself don't need to be convinced of HPB's
genuineness & I think most present-day Theosophists don't
either So why drag up all this junk?

JHE
Because all of the "junk" was never resolved. When HPB was
discredited by the Coulombs Olcott elected to ignore it and he
also prevented HPB from taking them to court. Olcott decided to
ignore it and said that it would all blow over and be forgotten.
It never did blow over and it has never been forgotten. My
guess is that if Olcott had stood up for HPB and HPB was allowed
to bring her charges of slander against the Coulombs it would
have been forgotten. But the public perceives an accusation that
is answered with silence to be an admission of guilt.

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: 08 Nov 1995 02:20:45 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Fraud or not

> Re: fraud or not fraud

> HPB et al have been dead over100 years & all we have is their
> writings. Who's to know? Really know? Shall we send someone
> to Devachan to interview HPB? Maybe some impostors have tried
> that too along with
> maybe 01 or 02 who've really done it. How are we going to sort all that
> out? You tell me!

> Liesel

If I knew you had lied to me I would trust you less and you
would feel the same in reverse circumsances wouldn't you?

We know HPB lied sometimes - she told us she did. We know CWL
got his clairvoyance badly wrong sometimes - the evidence is
clear to see. And so some of us trust the work and writings of
them less than we might have otherwise done.

We also know HPB left us a priceless heritage but that doesn't
make her a saint or a goddess. We also know CWL followed a
theosophical model which I for one find extremely helpful but
that doesn't make either of us an "Adept".

HPB CWL Annie B. you me were or are fallible human beings.
As theosophists we try to work towards a kind of unity expressed
in archaic language by the first object but that doesn't make
*us* saints gods or goddesses either.

I does however show that we care about the truth and its
value *which is written above the TS logo* and which
non-theosophists expect us to aim for. When it is shown that
our founders were sometimes less than perfect and we try to
brush the unpleasant side of history under the carpet no one is
fooled for long the TS and its reputation suffers yet
another karmic blow and the numbers continue to decline.

Our founders *got some things wrong* and we should not be afraid
to admit it.

Alan
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 04:25:59 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Vajrayana Practice & Theosophy

Paul:

>It isn't exploring the path by oneself that worries me; after
>all that *is* what we must do. But rather accepting any dead
>teacher as an authority not to be contradicted. If we're in a
>personal relationship there is the possibility of feedback
>about potential misunderstandings. But in the absence of a
>guru we need some kind of feedback from our associates or our
>own judgment that can override what we get out of books.

Granted we don't have the feedback of a non-living theosophical
person to keep us in check. But we do have the writings teachings
to bounce our ideas off of. And we have the karmic circumstances
of our lives to observe for immediate feedback on what we're up
to. It is *less* than having a living Teacher but still *more*
I'd say than taking a completely ad hoc approach without any
Teacher or established school at all.

>"Cornerstone of the future religions of humanity" does not to
>me necessarily mean not-yet-born religions. Theosophy
>has been the cornerstone of a global approach to spirituality
>which will continue to reverberate in Buddhism Hinduism
>Christianity etc.

I'd agree that the theosophical movement will affect Western
and Eastern religions and help them evolve and adapt to the
Western psyche. The "global approach" should refer I'd think
to an attitude or outlook wherein we openly accept everyone's
religions and approaches. This does not preclude specific
religous or Mystery practices arising out of the movement.

The generality of Theosophy is not because it's presented in
a vastly superior manner than approaches in the past. My
interpretation is that it is presented in a generalized manner
to allow specific forms to spontaneously arise out of it in
accord with Western thought. This is akin to holding a weekend
program and allowing the people that come determine its schedule
rather than predefining the events of the weekend in advance.

The raw materials for future religions and philosophies is
presented in an unbiased manner and it ripe for being used
in the formulation of specific approaches.

>Even if the TS were to become extinct
>tomorrow and HPB's books all go out of print and her name be
>forgotten the changes already wrought will continue to help
>shape the future of religion.

True. The changes made to date won't be lost. And they run deeper
than meets the eye. The Teachings themselves in the possession
of the Mahatmas won't be lost. The only loss would be in Western
public access to fragments of the Mystery Tradition the loss of
raw materials out of which future Western Schools could be founded.

>> Any approach that keeps its focus solely on the spiritual
>> or intellectual/spiritual does not run this risk for anything
>> that you do can only be beneficial.

>Here I disagree most sharply. There are plenty of approaches
>that focus solely on the spiritual or intellectual/spiritual
>that are not beneficial but rather the reverse IMO. ... After
>all remember what KH said about 2/3 of the evils that afflict
>humanity. It was religion not psychism to which he
>attributed them.

True. We have 1/3 of the evil from selfishness and the remaining
2/3 from organized religions. We're told that the biggest barrier
to coming into contact with the Masters is "false but sincerely
held beliefs".

My statement was directed to ad hoc spiritual practices where
there's no bona fide Mystery School or spiritual organization to
join. When we're on our own it's far safer I think to stick
to the spiritual and intellectual and not experiment with the
occult arts nor the psychic. Granted of course that people
with natural-born paranormal abilities can learn about what is
happening in their lives.

It's different when we undertake a specific organized spiritual
practice. Then the ground rules and guidelines come from the
practice that we've adopted. The psychic is ok or its banned
depending upon the school and our gurus will oversee our
development according to the practice we're entering upon.

This is a different situation than for the person not inwardly
awakened without that inner spark that grows to a flame and
*forces one to undertake the Path*. Apart from the Path itself
and specific genuine schools that are in support of it there
are many organized religions that exist in varying stages of
corruption. The benefit of any such religion to its membership
will vary depending upon the degree of light that is still
preserved in it the degree of original inspiration.

I'd agree with you when it comes to an organized religion
of the general public variety. Even if such a religion banned
the occult the effect of participating in the religion could
easily be harmful to one's spiritual progress.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 05:00:32 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: regarding pets

>> Bee

>> [Purucker says:] It is the change of life-atoms
>>and it is not always good either. It is not good for the pet
>>and it is not good for the human being.

> Jerry S:

>Sending animals out into the "wild" is equivalent to killing them or
>worse their end will probably be painful such as a road kill or
>something. I can't agree with G de P on this one.

I would have been inclined to say the same thing ten years ago
while I had two green Amazon parrots and was not yet married.
Since getting married and having children they've taken my time
and energy and the birds had to be given away. The birds became
neglected due to a lack of time for them and needed a new home.

My thinking is that pets provide a partial substitute for the
absence of human friendship and loving relationships but they
just can't completely take the place of another human being.

>I suppose its me but I credit animals with more intelligence
>and more evolutionary status than most theosophists are willing
>to give.

True. On the higher Globes they're said to be far more advanced
than we are here on Globe D. And they have billions of years of
evolution before them too. There's much to the experience of the
Animal Kingdom in the Fifth Sixth and Seventh Rounds that goes
vastly beyond what is available to animals in the present.

The same is true of us too and the gap between the two Kingdoms
continues to widen since the Manasaputras awakened the fire of
mind in us in the Third Root Race some 18 million years ago. We
will have less-and-less in common with animals in the distant
future.

>Besides psychological studies prove that petting animals reduces
>stress and adds to our longevity.

That's true. But it falls short of a relationship with another
human where an equal amoung of love and time is invested.

>I can't help but think that animals are better off for receiving
>love and care also isn't everything?.

Yes but humans aren't the only creature to be able to express
love and care. Animals do this to their own. We can give animals
a sense of the feeling of what it's like to be a human but
they can't do anything with that feeling.

>Purucker's statement that the animal would be better off in
>the wild is based on the idea that they can't enter the human kingdom
>until the next manvantara - which seems to us humans to be a very long
>time to wait around.

These are two separate ideas. There is the closing of the door into
the Human Kingdom but that is based upon the timing of a specific
event the incarnation of the Manasaputras. And there is the idea
that animals are best off in the wild. That is it's in a natural
environment untouched by human hands where the Animal Monads are
able to establish their appropriate ecosystems based upon their own
evolutionary needs unbiased by human society. An animal is more likely
to live a stimulating existence and to achieve future evolution in
a natural setting than in a city part or human's home.

>This falls in line with his teaching that our evolutionary
>"growth" ends up on a higher plane or subplane than we started
>and thus justifies the expended effort of all these lifetimes
>of work.

We differ on this one. I'd say that with each evolutionary
experience we are better off for having undergone the process.
This is akin to our becoming better writers with each article
that we write. There's always a deep part of ourselves that
grows with each cycle of existence.

>Well I have rejected that notion too because both of these
>ideas depend on space-time and they only "make sense" to our
>human way of thinking.

>From the standpoint of emptiness you can reject this. From
the standpoint of fullness you are subject to evolution and
karma. Pick your mode of consciousness and see it whichever
way you prefer. Both aspects of life are real in their own
right and continue regardless of *your* perception.

>I just don't believe life has to function within such a
>rigid format. I see HPB's teachings about the planetary
>chain as being a model and as such it has its uses as
>well as its limitations.

Perhaps the rigidity is in *our ideas*. We need to keep them
flexible to both exercize them for strength and stretch them
for flexibility like we might do with our leg muscles should
we be joggers. The limitations may be in our understanding of
the ideas rather than in the ideas themselves.

>I suppose that this is one reason
>why I get so irritated when I see or hear theosophists
>speak of these things as gospel.

Gospel in the dead letter or in the living idea the mystery
teaching that the words attempt to express?

>Well I'm working on this as best as I can so I ask all
>recipients of my barbs to please bear with me.

I think that your reaction is to your seemingly being told what to
do by Purucker and not liking what he says. But since you're
not in a particular school with the requirement to not keep
pets and since Purucker's statment was not made in regard
to the partcular circumstances of your life you should not
take it too personally.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 05:13:55 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: TMR

According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins:
>
> JHE
> Are you saying that HPB later gave out an address as to
> where we can contact one of these brotherhoods? If she did I
> missed it. Please advise me as to where in HPB's writings I can
> find this address.

All the references to Shigatse in the letters to Sinnett and
elsewhere. Cranston makes much of all this as does Fuller.
There is even a drawing. This is supposedly the home of KH a
place HPB studied for a period.
>
> knowledge and occult powers do exist but she was not allowed to
> name names and give out addresses.

Not accurate ones you mean since she was clearly allowed to
give out disinformation.
>
> HPB
> That's point one-- is it really a fraud if she told us
> beforehand not to believe her on this subject and told us
> afterwards not to believe everything that had been alleged of
> the Masters?
>
> JHE
> Where did she say this?

Again I don't keep a copy of TMR at work but in the letters
to Franz Hartmann about the Masters quoted in the
introduction. These were first published in The Path in 1896 I
think.
> in her Russian writings we get a much more down-to-earth
> portrayal of her relations with the Masters that yields plenty
> of clues to her real associations.
>
> JHE
> By Russian writings you are referring the ~Caves and
> Jungles of Hindustan.~ We've been through this before privately.

Actually I find The Durbar in Lahore to be much more valuable
historically since it seems to be mostly if not entirely
non-fiction and can be juxtaposed against the more fictional
accounts in C&J letters to Sinnett etc.
> Victorian era. Sir Walter Scott was a master of this technique.
> There are indeed clues concerning the Masters in this series but
> would HPB reveal real clues to their true identities even in
> fiction what she would not reveal in fact? I think that would

A different audience required a different level and kind of
"blinds." With Russians she seems to have gone out of her way
to make the Masters very human; with readers of English she
seems to have exaggerated their differences from ordinary
humans.
> hunting falls under literary criticism which is my field of
> expertise. If she mentions Meru then you can say it is
> fictional. If she mentions Lahore you can find it on the map.

And her most helpful book for my purposes does just that in
the title.
>
> KPJ
> So is she a fraud if she
> tells us a large amount of the truth mixes it up with fiction
> and then warns us that this is the case? To me that's an
> occultist using blinds.
>
> JHE
> spirit. A blind is not a lie or a fabrication but are usually
> created by making generalizations in order to avoid giving
> specific information. HPB was consistent in how she created
> blinds going all the way back at least to ~Isis Unveiled.~

That seems to me to be a matter of interpretation. I have
documented a suspiciously long list of name changes in which
part of a real person's name appears in the fictionalized
character's name. This looks like a consistent pattern of
"blinds": Dayal/Djual Endreinek Agardi/Agardi Metrovitch
Ten-dub Ughien/Ugyen Gyatso Mulraj Singh/Lala Mulraj
"Krishnavarma" no first name/Shyamaji Krishnavarma not to
mention Gulab Singh/Ranbir Singh whose father was Gulab and
Koot Hoomi Lal Singh/Thakar Singh.
>
> JHE
> This is not the HPB I saw in your book nor is it the HPB I
> saw in Meade or Campbell I've only skimmed Washington so far so
> I cant' talk about him yet. You Meade and Campbell all
> acknowledge HPB's intelligence and her contacts with other
> intelligent people. The three of you also portray HPB as one who

But only I portray her as someone with a lifelong commitment to
seeking initiatory contacts with spiritual traditions around
the globe who succeeded in this endeavor who was supported in
her work by adepts in many places and traditions and whose
writings are extremely valuable spiritually and historically.

> created a deception. The only difference is that I see is that
> you argue that HPB's deception was based upon real people. Why
> do you feel that HPB is more respectable if she invented the
> Masters and fashioned them upon real people then if she invented
> them completely from her imagination? It makes little difference
> to me.

But I wouldn't say she "invented them and fashioned them upon
real people." Rather she had real people she saw as Masters
and tried to claim this publicly while protecting their
privacy which got her caught up in one piece of disinformation
after another. But it seems unproductive to focus on how
respectable HPB appears to either of us in light of what she
may or may not have done that was deceptive. The real
question is does the non-Theosophical world have a greater
respect for HPB as a writer as a person as a result of my
books? Perhaps too soon to say but it looks like a definite
yes so far. Just being the subject of a university press book
gives her a certain entree into a different level of respect.
>
> JHE
> I don't believe HPB ever intended to be a religious leader.

But she sure as hell became one especially after death.
>
> JHE
> Anti HPB books generally use the neo-theosophical portrayal
> as the straw man to destroy and replace it with nothing. As far
> as a portrayal of HPB goes I'm not sure however that your
> scenario is any better than the nothing they were left with.

Better for what purpose? Shoring up Theosophists' faith in
their tradition-- no. Stimulating scholarly interest in her as
a worthy subject of investigation-- yes.
>
> JHE
> But these are not the people she quotes nor interacts with
> in her writings. If you are to argue that "Theosophy is
> genuinely derived from the most highly qualified individuals of
> the time..." then we can look at the people and the books she
> quotes from in order to determine who those individuals were whom
> she derived Theosophy from. Here the list is a very different

That would give only a distorted version-- since she generally
indicates that her real information sources are not authors of
books. But when I talk about Theosophy I'm referring not just
to a body of doctrines but more importantly to an international
MOVEMENT that was supported by a wide range of people behind
the scenes.
> one: E. Levi Bailley Crooks Skinner Gerald Massey and of
> course the religious and philosophical classics. She also has
> relatively little to say about Islam or Sikhism. I find it more
> reasonable to assume that the source of information are those
> whom she gave credit to. To argue that HPB quoted from a vast
> array of literature to hide the identities of her informers is
> too fantastic for me to accept.

That's not my thesis. Obviously she got from books what she
got from books. But the unfolding of her intellect took place
through encounters with precisely those spiritual traditions
upon which my book is focused. In rough chronological order
Rosicrucianism Kabbalah Spiritualism Sufism Hinduism
Buddhism Sikhism-- with lots in between.
>
re persuading readers that the Masters weren't entirely
fictional:
> JHE
> I had in mind the general reader--the populous at large not
> the occult historians who read everything that comes out at a
> matter of course. But it is still interesting that Tillett and
> Lane were converted from a belief that HPB made up to Master to a
> belief that HPB fabricated the Masters upon people who she knew.

Several others-- a Ph.D. historian a sociologist a
biochemist-- people who are in the general populace but have
academic credentials-- have indicated the same evaluation. The
formerly universal outside TS circles consensus that the
Masters were fictional simply has no leg to stand on anymore.

> JHE
> Why do Theosophists "misread" your book but other people
> don't? Does disagreeing with your conclusions necessarily mean
> that your book was misread? Do you believe that I have accused

No of course not. Imagining that the book claims to do things
it does not claim to do; inventing hostile motives where none
were present; making general claims about my outlook and
convictions that are dead wrong-- all are misreadings and none
have come from non-Theosophists. Why? Because IMO the
misreaders don't like the message and choose to blame the
messenger are hypersensitive to some things and oblivious to
others generally can't read what I wrote because of constant
interruptions from what they "know."

> you of "conclusively" establishing "solid one-to-one
> identifications for all the pseudonymous Masters in Theosophical
> books" ?

No one has accused me of DOING that; I have definitely been
treated as if that were my OBJECTIVE.
>
> JHE
> Are you thinking of the Tilletts and the Lanes or people
> from the general public?

Unanimous from the feedback I get.
>
> JHE
> OK lets take them one at a time: For Dayananda you cite
> p 111 a KH letter saying that "D. Swami was an initiated Yogi
> a very high chela at Bandrinath endowed some years back with
> great powers and a knowledge which he has since forfeited and
> that HPB told you the truth...." That sounds like a failed chela
> to me not a Master. Olcott's second hand account of HPB's
> statement about him that you cite p 109 is ambiguous and may
> very well be supportive to the statement in the KH letter.

But the letters from Olcott to Dayananda and from HPB to
Krishnavarma are considerably stronger.

> Remember an Adept is not a Mahatma. Both HPB and Olcott
> distinguished between the two. For Sengchen Tulku you have an
> enigma but very possibly a person whom HPB gained information.
> But does HPB or HSO call him a Mahatma?

Don't have the sources in front of me but HSO called him "one
of our Masters" as I recall.

For Swami Sankaracharya
> you cite p. 208 an article by HPB showing that she considered
> him an "initiated Adept"--still not a Mahatma. So much for your
> establishment of a "Theosophical Master."

Hmmm. There's something in your phraseology of "so much for
your..." that conveys a reflexive wish to shut out the
possibility that I'm right. Where do you get the idea that
"Theosophical Master" is exactly equivalent to "Mahatma" and
entirely distinct from "Initiated Adept"? The terms are used
sometimes interchangeably sometimes with fine distinctions.
Remember the letter from HPB to Hartmann that says they were
called adepts until Damodar came along and started calling them
Mahatmas?
?
>
> JHE
> We would have to examine and evaluate these "conflicting
> statements." Conflicting does not necessary mean untrue.

Will post.
> However HPB's claims about the Mahatmas are in themselves
> extraordinary and IMO unprovable. But unprovable does not
> necessarily mean false. As for "Dogma" belief in the Masters in
> any form never was such in the TS.

de jure; de facto just try messing with received views of that
topic and see how much you're treated as a fellow Theosophist.
>
> JHE
> Yes--a real possibility but as you say lots of room for
> interpretation. This is one that I'm also happy to entertain
> however I don't feel confident that your specific hypotheses
> will pan out either.

I think your confidence is lower than mine since it's mainly
the pseudonymous ones that remain mysterious and that's a
minority of cases.
>
> Myth. Actually I'm not looking for a spiritual leader at all.
> However an HPB as you propose not only created an illusion
> concerning the Masters but by the falsity of the concept of a
> group of in effect living Buddhas this aspect of her teachings
> falls into question. Further if she fabricated the Mahatmas

But is it a false concept? Or a true concept that was packaged
in a way that made it seem false? Remember that HPB said that
EVERY religions was false on its surface true in its depths.
Why not apply this to the religion of Theosophy?

> from these people you mention then she fabricated the
> Theosophical teachings from them also. This doesn't sound like a
> person "with real wisdom and knowledge" but someone who patches
> together information and hides the source of it.

What's the diff? The information came from genuine sources
she didn't make it up she synthesized it with an amazing
amount of insight and the sources did not want to be
publicized.
> JHE
> On the other hand it is easy to convince someone of
> something they know nothing about. I'm sorry but a person who
> is knowledgeable about the literature is not necessarily closed--
> they just require a more complete and more informed explanation
> then someone who knows nothing. An informed person will have
> more questions which you will have to answer. The only informed
> person I know of who has asked those hard questions is Dan
> Caldwell yet you will not publicly defend your book against his

Will not? How about HAVE to the extent of several thousand
words already with no sign of progress and gave up due to the
escalating hostility of his responses?

> questions. If your thesis is strong then you can weather his
> questions until he runs out of them. As for me I'm not

But Jerry he won't ever run out of them. Everything I do to
answer one causes him to come up with a dozen more that may
not even be an exaggeration.
> challenging your book but only responding to it. There is a big
> difference.

Which I appreciate.
>
> JHE
> There are more options than acceptance and rejection of the
> phenomena. A third option is the non committed description--no
> "alleged" no perjoratives no adjectives indicating either
> acceptance or rejection--just an indication that this is what is

"Alleged" does not imply acceptance or rejection-- just
suspension of judgment. It's what reporters are obliged to say
when people are accused of crimes-- the alleged murderer etc.
Obviously the point is that "alleged" means "we don't know
whether or not it is true" not "we don't believe it."

> of record. Then if you want to go into it you can write about
> how different people responded to the phenomena--ie what they
> said about it but pro and con. To me this approach is far
> greater evidence of objectivity than the addition of
> perjoratives.

Nothing pejorative about "wondrous" any more than alleged. I
think you may be hypersensitive to words referring to HPB that
you wouldn't think twice about in another context?
>
> JHE
> Nothing if you had taken the time to relate to the reader
> HPB's explanation of how Mahatma Letters are transmitted.
> Otherwise it appears that she was fabricating.

Only Theosophists have accused me of casting HPB in such a
negative light. Since I know I didn't mean to give a
simplistic answer to the complex question of the MLs
authorship; since I explicitly stated that it remains a mystery
and all I can say is that the answer is probably somewhere in
between the extremes I think it's a bum rap to blame me for
implications that only a minority of highly critical readers
find in my books. Jerry S. for example did not seem to get
the impression that you did.
>
> JHE
> "Inspired" doesn't mean "telepathic." To make the
> suggestion you would have to use the word "telepathic" or a word
> that leads the reader to understand that you are talking about
> telepathy. Making a suggestion is also not the same as "leaving
> open."

It really seems here as if you are holding me to some litmus
test of how Theosophical authors are supposed to write about
HPB. The telepathy issue is referred to regularly in TMR and
gone into in more detail in Initiates. The one passage you
cite doesn't recapitulate the issue but assumes readers will
remember that HPB claimed telepathic communication with the
Masters.
>
> JHE
> I'm asking neither question. First of all HPB is not my
> "spiritual teacher" and my respect for her rests upon what she
> produced--not her personality. I already have opinions about her
> "greatness" what she "accomplished" and the "genuineness" of
> her knowledge which you theses does not address.

In your opinion. I think otherwise. If by "address" you mean
either "what I meant to write about" or "what many other
readers have derived from it" then the book DID address these
issues. Just not to your satisfaction.
As for her
> intentions your thesis directly involves this. Though you do
> not see her characterization of her as a fraud because of her
> good intentions I'm of the opinion that a fraud can be
> perpetuated under either good or evil intentions.

True and I would not shrink from saying that HPB was involved
in perpetrating a fraud. But that is nowhere near saying that
she WAS a fraud. Especially since she seems to have repented
and backpaddled from the deceptions later.
>
> JHE
> It seems that their "sending what she was receiving" is an
> important question to investigate concerning your argument that
> her Theosophical teachings were based upon these people.

Any suggestions about how one might retroactively tune into
telepathic conversations to find out?
> frankly and less defensively about these matters now that I
> don't have to worry about "how can you call yourself a
> Theosophist and say that..."
>
> JHE
> I never said or even hinted such a thing to you. Do you
> believe that I did?

For almost a year I've been looking over my shoulder and
cringing wondering when the next angry Theosophist would
address me in a tone that implied the above question. No you
are not one who would ever say such a thing. As for hinting--
when you say things like "you should have expected an outraged
reaction from Theosophists for portraying HPB as a fraud" I'd
say yes definitely that hints at saying that the reaction is
justified and that I deserve the rejection received so
abundantly. And that rejection is clearly a de facto
excommunication a message that "we can no longer respect you
as a Theosophist." But if you don't support the tone and
message used by Algeo TenBroeck Eklund Caldwell et al.
I'd appreciate your saying so.

Either way your questions are stimulating and not offensive
and I am enjoying this discussion.

Cheers
Paul
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 05:32:57 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Re: Telepathy and Esoteric E-Mail

>Paul:
>< As to what was REALLY going on
><how genuine the telepathy was whether they were sending what
><she was receiving-- one has eventually to say "How the hell do
><I know?" Which I wish more Theosophists were willing to admit
><about murky issues like these.
><
>As I have already pointed out even a high Adept/Master would
>have trouble knowing for sure that every word was right. The
>problem with telepathic communication is that it is not done
>in words. It is done in images which the receiver must then
>interpret in his/her own words. How does one know for sure that
>they interpreted correctly? Only by going back to the sender
>for confirmation and that is the *only* way to know for sure.
>HPB admitted that she was an Initate not an Adept. But I would
>think that if her Masters discovered she had gotten some teaching
>entirely wrong that they would have told her this when they
>eventually met. The Masters probably wouldn't quibble over the
>exact wording anyway.
>
> Jerry S.
As I understand it she saw whole pages of the books in her mind or what
ever it may be called. She wrote the words down as she saw them. The masters
also used to correct her writing over night with a blue pen. There may not
have been as much interpretation as suggested here. As I have read it that
is how she managed to quote so much of the ancient wisdom that is not in
common use. I wonder if she was able to access the Akashic Records and read
from them much of what she wrote about.
Bee
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 06:10:39 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: Telepathy and Esoteric E-Mail

According to Bee Brown:
>
> >Paul:
> >< As to what was REALLY going on
> ><how genuine the telepathy was whether they were sending what
> ><she was receiving-- one has eventually to say "How the hell do
> ><I know?" Which I wish more Theosophists were willing to admit
> ><about murky issues like these.
Jerry S.:
> ><
> >As I have already pointed out even a high Adept/Master would
> >have trouble knowing for sure that every word was right. The
> >problem with telepathic communication is that it is not done
> >in words. It is done in images which the receiver must then
> >interpret in his/her own words. How does one know for sure that
> >they interpreted correctly? Only by going back to the sender
> >for confirmation and that is the *only* way to know for sure.
> >HPB admitted that she was an Initate not an Adept. But I would
> >think that if her Masters discovered she had gotten some teaching
> >entirely wrong that they would have told her this when they
> >eventually met. The Masters probably wouldn't quibble over the
> >exact wording anyway.
> >
> > Jerry S.
> As I understand it she saw whole pages of the books in her mind or what
> ever it may be called. She wrote the words down as she saw them.

This activity called "reading in the astral light" would not
be considered telepathic but rather clairvoyant. That is she
was not receiving information sent by anyone but rather seeing
the book at a distance. ?
The masters
> also used to correct her writing over night with a blue pen.

What I wonder about this is what we would see if we could take
a time machine back and look into her window. Were words
appearing miraculously with no hand writing them? Or was HPB
the personality "asleep" while HPB's body was being used by
some entity Mahatma secondary personality to do this
editing? The latter is a less extraordinary explanation and
thus more plausible IMO. Of course this tends to put her in a
class with Cayce as someone who became unconscious in order to
channel-- which Theosophists will not like.
There may not
> have been as much interpretation as suggested here. As I have read it that
> is how she managed to quote so much of the ancient wisdom that is not in
> common use. I wonder if she was able to access the Akashic Records and read
> from them much of what she wrote about.

The mystery that drives me to write about Cayce is this
business about the akashic records. Assume as I think I can
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Cayce readings are
essentially a restatement of the Theosophical teachings with
many modifications. There are three possibilities not
mutually exclusive but rather interacting or overlapping as to
why this is so:
1 These doctrines are objectively present in some akashic
record accessed by both HPB and Cayce. So Cayce provides
independent confirmation of HPB.
2 Since it's fairly well established hope I don't end up
eating these words! that Cayce's unconscious could link up
with the unconscious of others and that the first person who
asked for readings on topics like reincarnation and Atlantis
was the Theosophist Arthur Lammers Cayce unconsciously
uploaded the Theosophical mythos intact from the mind of
Lammers and then ran with it for the next 20 years.
3 Cayce's conscious personality had plenty of contact with
Theosophical ideas through books and acquaintances and this
conscious information "bled through" into the readings.

At this point my working assumption is that all three are
equally plausible. But there are so many other things than
Theosophical ideas in the readings that the same options will
present themselves in other contexts.

What a complicated mess to write about!
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 08:03:58 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org>
Subject: TMR

> JHE
> Are you saying that HPB later gave out an address as to
> where we can contact one of these brotherhoods? If she did I
> missed it. Please advise me as to where in HPB's writings I can
> find this address.

KPJ
All the references to Shigatse in the letters to Sinnett and
elsewhere. Cranston makes much of all this as does Fuller.
There is even a drawing. This is supposedly the home of KH a
place HPB studied for a period.

JHE
References to Shigatse doesn't help. You may as well have
said Maryland. To much territory. The drawing doesn't help
either. One ravine looks pretty much like another when you are
in the mountains. I know I've hiked in a lot of them.

JHE
>knowledge and occult powers do exist but she was not allowed to
>name names and give out addresses.

KPJ
Not accurate ones you mean since she was clearly allowed to
give out disinformation.

JHE
"Disinformation" is of course your term. HPB uses the word
"lie." Though disinformation and lies both express untruths but
I think there is a difference in motive behind them. A lie might
be used to hide the truth. Disinformation leads a person away
from the truth. I don't see any evidence that HPB was quilty of
disinformation but she certainly found it necessary to lie from
time to time as your quote in TMR bears out.

KPJ
> HPB
> That's point one-- is it really a fraud if she told us
> beforehand not to believe her on this subject and told us
> afterwards not to believe everything that had been alleged of
> the Masters?

>
> JHE
> Where did she say this?

KPJ
Again I don't keep a copy of TMR at work but in the letters
to Franz Hartmann about the Masters quoted in the
introduction. These were first published in The Path in 1896 I
think.

JHE
The letter you are thinking of is on page 09 of your book.
My reading is of thesis letter is completely different from
yours. As I read it she is telling Hartmann of her efforts to
stay Olcott's wild imagination. She is not saying "not to
believe her" on the subject of the Masters but that she wants
Olcott to *hear* what she *is* trying to say about them without
getting caught up in his imaginary wanderings:

Have I not struggled and fought against Olcott's ardent and
gushing imagination and tried to stop him every day of my
life?"

She is not arguing against the existence of these Masters but
telling of her efforts to keep Olcott from becoming carried away
with his fantasies about them:

Was he not told that there were no Mahatmas who Rishi-like
could hold the Mount Meru on the tip of their finger and fly
to and from in their bodies!! at their will and who were
or were imagined by fools more gods on earth than a God in
Heaven could be etc. etc?"

Perhaps followers of CWL believe in Olcott's fantasies concerning
Masters but this quote makes it clear that inspite of Olcott's
imagination this is *not* what HPB represented them to be. I
don't see anywhere in the quote you gave that HPB is telling us
"not to believe her on this subject" but if anything not to
embroider upon what she does say.

KPJ
> in her Russian writings we get a much more down-to-earth
> portrayal of her relations with the Masters that yields plenty
> of clues to her real associations.
>

> JHE
> By Russian writings you are referring the ~Caves and
> Jungles of Hindustan.~ We've been through this before
privately.

KPJ
Actually I find The Durbar in Lahore to be much more valuable
historically since it seems to be mostly if not entirely
non-fiction and can be juxtaposed against the more fictional
accounts in C&J letters to Sinnett etc.

JHE
OK. HPB's letters to Sinnett are "fictional"? That's a new
one.

JHE
> Victorian era. Sir Walter Scott was a master of this technique.
> There are indeed clues concerning the Masters in this series
> but would HPB reveal real clues to their true identities even
> in fiction what she would not reveal in fact? I think that
> would

KPJ
A different audience required a different level and kind of
"blinds." With Russians she seems to have gone out of her way
to make the Masters very human; with readers of English she
seems to have exaggerated their differences from ordinary
humans.

JHE
You use "blinds" in a very different way than I have ever
understood their use in HPB's writings. It appears that your use
of "blinds" is synonymous to your use of the word
"disinformation." In my 30+ years of reading HPB and of studying
with others who have also read HPB you are the first person I
have ever met who understands "blinds" in this matter though I
have run into some weird interpretations. This may be your
usage but is not how HPB uses or defines the word "blind." To
bad you didn't make this point in your book it would have saved
me some confusion.

JHE
> hunting falls under literary criticism which is my field of
> expertise. If she mentions Meru then you can say it is
> fictional. If she mentions Lahore you can find it on the map.

KPJ
And her most helpful book for my purposes does just that in
the title.

JHE
I think your abridgement of my quote has obscured my point:
Victorian historical fiction is written in such a way as to give
the illusion of reality where no reality actually exists. What
appears to be the most real may be the most illusionary. Just
because Lahore is on the map doesn't necessarily mean that the
actual body of truth that is in the story has anything to do with
Lahore. Troops of literary critics work all their lives creating
convincing arguments for this being true and that not being true.
It is all for nothing--and fortunately the critics themselves
know that it is all a game. What one critic affirms then next
one denies. There is no end and there is no answers. I believe
that HPB had things that she wanted to teach in her fiction but
it also was the perfect literary form to assure that no addresses
or identifications where given out.

> KPJ
> So is she a fraud if she
> tells us a large amount of the truth mixes it up with fiction
> and then warns us that this is the case? To me that's an
> occultist using blinds.

>
> JHE
> A blind is not a lie or a fabrication but are usually
> created by making generalizations in order to avoid giving
> specific information. HPB was consistent in how she created
> blinds going all the way back at least to ~Isis Unveiled.~

KPJ
That seems to me to be a matter of interpretation. I have
documented a suspiciously long list of name changes in which
part of a real person's name appears in the fictionalized
character's name. This looks like a consistent pattern of
"blinds": Dayal/Djual Endreinek Agardi/Agardi Metrovitch
Ten-dub Ughien/Ugyen Gyatso Mulraj Singh/Lala Mulraj
"Krishnavarma" no first name/Shyamaji Krishnavarma not to
mention Gulab Singh/Ranbir Singh whose father was Gulab and
Koot Hoomi Lal Singh/Thakar Singh.

JHE
You would have made a great English major. That is the fun
of literary criticism techniques you can create patterns where
there were no patterns before. It is just a matter of carefully
selecting the evidence. Now lets see: Damodar is really Djual
Kuhl; Morya is Metrovich; K.H. is really a blind for Katherine
Hillard.... Give be a little time and I could find damn good
arguments to support these correlations--just as you did with
yours. Personally I don't think that the "blinds" that you are
looking for exist. Why should they?--for someone to eventually
solve them when HPB was adamant that the identities of her
teachers are not to be known?

> JHE
> This is not the HPB I saw in your book nor is it the HPB I
> saw in Meade or Campbell I've only skimmed Washington so far
> so I can't talk about him yet. You Meade and Campbell all
> acknowledge HPB's intelligence and her contacts with other
> intelligent people. The three of you also portray HPB as one
who created a deception.

KPJ
But only I portray her as someone with a lifelong commitment to
seeking initiatory contacts with spiritual traditions around
the globe who succeeded in this endeavor who was supported in
her work by adepts in many places and traditions and whose
writings are extremely valuable spiritually and historically.

JHE
And who created elaborate "disinformation." Don't you
consider "disinformation" a deception?

JHE
> The only difference that I see is that
> you argue that HPB's deception was based upon real people. Why
> do you feel that HPB is more respectable if she invented the
> Masters and fashioned them upon real people then if she
> invented them completely from her imagination? It makes little
> difference to me.

KPJ
But I wouldn't say she "invented them and fashioned them upon
real people." Rather she had real people she saw as Masters
and tried to claim this publicly while protecting their
privacy which got her caught up in one piece of disinformation
after another. But it seems unproductive to focus on how
respectable HPB appears to either of us in light of what she
may or may not have done that was deceptive. The real
question is does the non-Theosophical world have a greater
respect for HPB as a writer as a person as a result of my
books? Perhaps too soon to say but it looks like a definite
yes so far. Just being the subject of a university press book
gives her a certain entree into a different level of respect.

JHE
Yes. Too soon to know yet. It takes ten to twenty years
for an academic book to find its place in the literature. The
one advantage your book has is that it is the first academic book
to cover this subject. That makes it forever a classic
regardless of how good or bad it is eventually judged to be.

> JHE
> I don't believe HPB ever intended to be a religious
leader.

KPJ
But she sure as hell became one especially after death.

JHE
I don't blame her for that. Do you?

> JHE
> Anti HPB books generally use the neo-theosophical portrayal
> as the straw man to destroy and replace it with nothing. As
> far as a portrayal of HPB goes I'm not sure however that your
> scenario is any better than the nothing they were left with.

KPJ
Better for what purpose? Shoring up Theosophists' faith in
their tradition-- no. Stimulating scholarly interest in her as
a worthy subject of investigation-- yes.

JHE
No on both. I'm suggesting that for a person who is not
involved with theosophy six of one is half a dozen of the other.

> JHE
> But these are not the people she quotes nor interacts with
> in her writings. If you are to argue that "Theosophy is
> genuinely derived from the most highly qualified individuals of
> the time..." then we can look at the people and the books she
> quotes from in order to determine who those individuals were
> whom she derived Theosophy from. Here the list is a very
> different one:

KPJ
That would give only a distorted version-- since she generally
indicates that her real information sources are not authors of
books.

JHE
I think this is a partial myth that HPB tried to dispel.
See in the ~Key~ where she says that very little of what she
wrote was produced with outside help.

KPJ
But when I talk about Theosophy I'm referring not just
to a body of doctrines but more importantly to an international
MOVEMENT that was supported by a wide range of people behind
the scenes.

JHE
A movement of which the body of doctrines was a integral
part.

JHE
> E. Levi Bailley Crooks Skinner Gerald Massey and of
> course the religious and philosophical classics. She also has
> relatively little to say about Islam or Sikhism. I find it
> more reasonable to assume that the source of information are
> those whom she gave credit to. To argue that HPB quoted from a
> vast array of literature to hide the identities of her
> informers is too fantastic for me to accept.

KPJ
That's not my thesis. Obviously she got from books what she
got from books. But the unfolding of her intellect took place
through encounters with precisely those spiritual traditions
upon which my book is focused. In rough chronological order
Rosicrucianism Kabbalah Spiritualism Sufism Hinduism
Buddhism Sikhism-- with lots in between.

JHE
Exactly. And your thesis obscures the above.

>JHE [re persuading readers that the Masters weren't entirely
fictional]:
> I had in mind the general reader--the populous at large not
> the occult historians who read everything that comes out at a
> matter of course. But it is still interesting that Tillett and
> Lane were converted from a belief that HPB made up to Master to
> a belief that HPB fabricated the Masters upon people who she
> knew.
KPJ
Several others-- a Ph.D. historian a sociologist a
biochemist-- people who are in the general populace but have
academic credentials-- have indicated the same evaluation. The
formerly universal outside TS circles consensus that the
Masters were fictional simply has no leg to stand on anymore.

JHE
It is interesting that you even found "several" in the
general populace even cares one way or the other.

> JHE
> Why do Theosophists "misread" your book but other people
> don't? Does disagreeing with your conclusions necessarily mean
> that your book was misread?

KPJ
No of course not. Imagining that the book claims to do things
it does not claim to do; inventing hostile motives where none
were present; making general claims about my outlook and
convictions that are dead wrong-- all are misreadings and none
have come from non-Theosophists.

JHE
I find it extraordinary that no non-theosophist has misread
your book. My experience in teaching writing is that all people
only partially understand what they read. So in a sense all
readings are misreadings. Perhaps you are equating agreement and
non agreement with correct reading and misreading?

KPJ
Why? Because IMO the
misreaders don't like the message and choose to blame the
messenger are hypersensitive to some things and oblivious to
others generally can't read what I wrote because of constant
interruptions from what they "know."

JHE
Perhaps in some cases. Perhaps their "misreading" of the
evidence is different from your "misreading" of the same
evidence. Perhaps they are interrupted by the thought that
certain evidence is given prominence while other evidence is
ignored. etc.

> JHE
> OK lets take them one at a time: For Dayananda you cite
> p 111 a KH letter saying that "D. Swami was an initiated
> Yogi a very high chela at Bandrinath endowed some years back
> with great powers and a knowledge which he has since forfeited
> and that HPB told you the truth...." That sounds like a failed
> chela to me not a Master. Olcott's second hand account of
> HPB's statement about him that you cite p 109 is ambiguous
> and may very well be supportive to the statement in the KH
> letter.
KPJ
But the letters from Olcott to Dayananda and from HPB to
Krishnavarma are considerably stronger.

JHE
Then that is the evidence that you need to push and then
explain the contradiction in the above quote.

JHE
> Remember an Adept is not a Mahatma. Both HPB and Olcott
> distinguished between the two. For Sengchen Tulku you have an
> enigma but very possibly a person whom HPB gained information.
> But does HPB or HSO call him a Mahatma?

KPJ
Don't have the sources in front of me but HSO called him "one
of our Masters" as I recall.

JHE
Where?

KPJ
For Swami Sankaracharya
> you cite p. 208 an article by HPB showing that she considered
> him an "initiated Adept"--still not a Mahatma. So much for
> your establishment of a "Theosophical Master."

JHE
Hmmm. There's something in your phraseology of "so much for
your..." that conveys a reflexive wish to shut out the
possibility that I'm right.

KPJ
One of the definitions of misreadings that you gave above
was:
...inventing hostile motives where none were present; making
general claims about my outlook and convictions that are
dead wrong-- all are misreadings....

Why are you doing to me precisely what you hate to be done to
you? Whatever motives you attribute to my "phraseology" my
meaning is that I demonstrated that the evidence that you offered
does not establish that these where people that HPB referred to
as "masters."

KPJ
Where do you get the idea that
"Theosophical Master" is exactly equivalent to "Mahatma" and
entirely distinct from "Initiated Adept"? The terms are used
sometimes interchangeably sometimes with fine distinctions.
Remember the letter from HPB to Hartmann that says they were
called adepts until Damodar came along and started calling them
Mahatmas?

JHE
 From HPB's writings. Unless you establish your own
definition I have to go by HPB's and HSO's usage of the terms.
In my readings of HPB I have not experienced a blurring of
"Adept" and "Mahatma." They mean different things. However an
Adept *may* be a Mahatma and a Mahatma is *always* an Adept.
Therefore if HPB calls someone an "Adept" that does not
necessarily mean that person is a "Mahatma" and I would not
presume that meaning unless she makes it clear that this is what
she met. To support your position here are examples were she
could be using blinds as I understand the term but I don't see
how it is possible in these cases to determine if she is really
using a blind of if by "Adept" she really means "Adept."

JHE
> However HPB's claims about the Mahatmas are in themselves
> extraordinary and IMO unprovable. But unprovable does not
> necessarily mean false. As for "Dogma" belief in the Masters
> in any form never was such in the TS.

KPJ
de jure; de facto just try messing with received views of that
topic and see how much you're treated as a fellow Theosophist.

JHE
I don't involve myself with that crap. I don't accept the
"spiritual authority" of anybody and theosophists with "received
views" are no exception. For this reason I'm rejected by the
inner circle just like you are. The difference is that I never
wanted to be a part of that inner circle in the first place--
especially after I figured out who they are. That is one reason
why I never applied for membership in the E.S.--which is the
first requirement for being part of that inner circle. I have
other friends in the movement. One pleasant thing about my
friends is that none of them have any "received views."

> JHE
> Yes--a real possibility but as you say lots of room for
> interpretation. This is one that I'm also happy to entertain
> however I don't feel confident that your specific hypotheses
> will pan out either.

KPJ
I think your confidence is lower than mine...

JHE
Definitely.

JHE
> Myth. Actually I'm not looking for a spiritual leader at all.
> However an HPB as you propose not only created an illusion
> concerning the Masters but by the falsity of the concept of a
> group of in effect living Buddhas this aspect of her
> teachings falls into question.

KPJ
But is it a false concept? Or a true concept that was packaged
in a way that made it seem false? Remember that HPB said that
EVERY religions was false on its surface true in its depths.
Why not apply this to the religion of Theosophy?

JHE
Because I don't regard Theosophy as a religion.

JHE
> Further if she fabricated the Mahatmas from these people you
> mention then she fabricated the Theosophical teachings from
> them also. This doesn't sound like a person "with real wisdom
> and knowledge" but someone who patches together information
> and hides the source of it.

KPJ
What's the diff? The information came from genuine sources
she didn't make it up she synthesized it with an amazing
amount of insight and the sources did not want to be
publicized.

JHE
You don't need Mahatmas to determine her sources. Denis
Surat back around 1930 did a study on ~Isis Unveiled~ showing the
literary sources for her information. The same can be done for
the rest of her writings. The Mahatmas by any definition are
useless detractions in this context and she would have been
better off saying nothing at all about them.

> JHE
> On the other hand it is easy to convince someone of
> something they know nothing about. I'm sorry but a person who
> is knowledgeable about the literature is not necessarily
> closed--they just require a more complete and more informed
> explanation then someone who knows nothing. An informed person
> will have more questions which you will have to answer. The
> only informed person I know of who has asked those hard
> questions is Dan Caldwell yet you will not publicly defend
> your book against his questions.

KPJ
Will not? How about HAVE to the extent of several thousand
words already with no sign of progress and gave up due to the
escalating hostility of his responses?

JHE
What kind of "progress" do you expect? What was you goal?
To convince Dan that your thesis is right? Why not forget about
"progress" and just defend your thesis against his questions and
criticism until he runs out of questions.

JHE
> If your thesis is strong then you can weather his
> questions until he runs out of them.

KPJ
But Jerry he won't ever run out of them. Everything I do to
answer one causes him to come up with a dozen more that may
not even be an exaggeration.

JHE
That is to be expected. But eventually he will run out.

JHE
>As for me I'm not challenging your book but only responding to
> it. There is a big difference.

KPJ
Which I appreciate.

> JHE
> There are more options than acceptance and rejection of the
> phenomena. A third option is the non committed description--no
> "alleged" no perjoratives no adjectives indicating either
> acceptance or rejection--just an indication that this is what
> is of record.

KPJ
"Alleged" does not imply acceptance or rejection-- just
suspension of judgment. It's what reporters are obliged to say
when people are accused of crimes-- the alleged murderer etc.
Obviously the point is that "alleged" means "we don't know
whether or not it is true" not "we don't believe it."

JHE
"Alleged" can also be used to give the *appearance* of
"suspension of judgement." It depends upon the context.

JHE
> of record. Then if you want to go into it you can write
> about how different people responded to the phenomena--ie what
> they said about it but pro and con. To me this approach is
> far greater evidence of objectivity than the addition of
> perjoratives.

KPJ
Nothing pejorative about "wondrous" any more than alleged. I
think you may be hypersensitive to words referring to HPB that
you wouldn't think twice about in another context?

JHE
It isn't the words it is the context in which the words are
used. Yes in another context these words may not be
perjoratives. It is the context of Godwin's usage of these words
that is the issue.

> JHE
> Nothing if you had taken the time to relate to the reader
> HPB's explanation of how Mahatma Letters are transmitted.
> Otherwise it appears that she was fabricating.

KPJ
Only Theosophists have accused me of casting HPB in such a
negative light. Since I know I didn't mean to give a
simplistic answer to the complex question of the MLs
authorship; since I explicitly stated that it remains a mystery
and all I can say is that the answer is probably somewhere in
between the extremes I think it's a bum rap to blame me for
implications that only a minority of highly critical readers
find in my books. Jerry S. for example did not seem to get
the impression that you did.

JHE
Giving simplistic answers to complex questions has its own
implications that a non student of theosophy could not catch
because they know nothing about the subject in the first place.
I respond to your book as a person who is informed concerning the
literature. I make no apologies for that. As for Jerry S. he
can speak for himself. His different impression is his own
based upon his knowledge of the literature and experience with
it. It does not have anything to do with me.

> JHE
> "Inspired" doesn't mean "telepathic." To make the
> suggestion you would have to use the word "telepathic" or a
> word that leads the reader to understand that you are talking
> about telepathy. Making a suggestion is also not the same as
> "leaving open."

KPJ
It really seems here as if you are holding me to some litmus
test of how Theosophical authors are supposed to write about
HPB. The telepathy issue is referred to regularly in TMR and
gone into in more detail in Initiates. The one passage you
cite doesn't recapitulate the issue but assumes readers will
remember that HPB claimed telepathic communication with the
Masters.

JHE
That's a big assumption IMO.

> JHE
> I'm asking neither question. First of all HPB is not my
> "spiritual teacher" and my respect for her rests upon what she
> produced--not her personality. I already have opinions about
> her "greatness" what she "accomplished" and the "genuineness"
> of her knowledge which your theses does not address.

KPJ
In your opinion. I think otherwise. If by "address" you mean
either "what I meant to write about" or "what many other
readers have derived from it" then the book DID address these
issues. Just not to your satisfaction.

JHE
Yes in my opinion. All statements are only opinions. IMO
your thesis concerning the Masters does not address my views as
stated above one way or the other concerning HPB because my
opinions of her in these areas do not depend upon the existence
of the Masters under any definition. Do you understand what I'm
saying now?

JHE
> As for her
> intentions your thesis directly involves this. Though you do
> not see her characterization of her as a fraud because of her
> good intentions I'm of the opinion that a fraud can be
> perpetuated under either good or evil intentions.

KPJ
True and I would not shrink from saying that HPB was involved
in perpetrating a fraud. But that is nowhere near saying that
she WAS a fraud. Especially since she seems to have repented
and backpaddled from the deceptions later.

JHE
If she had perpetuated a fraud but never came clean with
it than I would still consider her a fraud. Feeling sorry is
not sufficient repentance. There also has to be restitution.

>> JHE
> It seems that their "sending what she was receiving" is an
> important question to investigate concerning your argument that
> her Theosophical teachings were based upon these people.

KPJ
Any suggestions about how one might retroactively tune into
telepathic conversations to find out?

JHE
No. But that wasn't my point either. I had in mind the
investigation of the matter of "telepathic communication" or
whatever you want to call it per se between them is an
important question to investigate concerning your argument that
her Theosophical teachings were based upon these people.

KPJ
> frankly and less defensively about these matters now that I
> don't have to worry about "how can you call yourself a
> Theosophist and say that..."
>
> JHE
> I never said or even hinted such a thing to you. Do you
> believe that I did?

KPJ
For almost a year I've been looking over my shoulder and
cringing wondering when the next angry Theosophist would
address me in a tone that implied the above question. No you
are not one who would ever say such a thing. As for hinting--
when you say things like "you should have expected an outraged
reaction from Theosophists for portraying HPB as a fraud" I'd
say yes definitely that hints at saying that the reaction is
justified and that I deserve the rejection received so
abundantly.

JHE
No. There is no hint intended. It has nothing to do with
you being a theosophist or not. It has to do with you being so
naive as to think that these "Organization men" who call
themselves theosophists would welcome a book that challenges the
dogmas they deny to exist perpetuated by the Organization.

KPJ
And that rejection is clearly a de facto
excommunication a message that "we can no longer respect you
as a Theosophist." But if you don't support the tone and
message used by Algeo TenBroeck Eklund Caldwell et al.
I'd appreciate your saying so.

JHE
In my mind your book has nothing to do with you being a
Theosophist. Perhaps you and others make that connection but I
don't. If you were writing propaganda for the local American
Nazi party then I would question whether or not you were acting
in a theosophical way. But your opinions concerning HPB and the
Mahatmas neither makes you a Theosophist or not a Theosophist in
my own mind. If Algeo TenBroeck Eklund Caldwell et al are
saying that you cannot be a theosophist and hold the opinions
that you do then I do not support their position. Is that clear
enough?

KPJ
Either way your questions are stimulating and not offensive
and I am enjoying this discussion.

JHE
Thanks

Jerry HE
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 11:30:04 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re to RJI - Fraud vs the Magical Imagination

RJI: < unless one keeps alive the
<ability to fictionalize even oneself there is no hope that anyone
<including oneself will ever become an Adept. . . .

Richard what you say here is very true. It is well known in
magic for example that you have to fictionalize yourself
see yourself as the way you want to be; together with
assuming a suitable magical name before you can become
such. This is not fraud but rather a necessary psychological
technique. Critics call this self-deception. Practitioners
call it self-imaging or self-visualization.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 12:19:47 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: more from "Talks on the Path ..."

This is one of my favorite passages from "The Voice" because for 01
thing it says
that no matter how far along you are on the Path you can always take
what you know to help
& teach others. It's a long passage so I'll probalby send it in 02 parts:

<It is not quite true that the Nirmanakaya gives up bliss for
Adeptship is itself the attainment of bliss.What is true is that the
Adept could remain always on the stupendous levels which he has
reached but instead he comes down to help. By doing that however he
does not forego the eternal bliss which is inherent in him; He merely
decides to work at lower levels.>

<< Yet if the doctrine of the heart is too high-winged for thee if
thou needs help thyself and fearest to offer help to others - then
thou of timid heart be warned in time: remain content with the eye
doctrine of the Law. Hope still. For if the secret Path is
unattainable this day it is within thy reach tomorrow. Learn that no
effort not the smallest - whether in right or wrong direction -
can vanish from the world of causes. E'en wasted smoke remains not
traceless. "a harsh word uttered in past lives is not destroyed but
ever comes again." the pepper plant will not give birth to roses
not the sweet jessamine's silver star to thorn or thistle turn.

<< Thou canst create this day thy chances for thy morrow. In the
great journey causes sown each hour bear each its harvest of
effect for rigid justice rules the world. With mighty sweep of
never-erring action it bring to mortal lives of weal & woe the
karmic progeny of all our former thoughts & deeds.

<< Take then as much as merit hath in store for thee O thou of
patient heart. Be of good cheer and rest content with fate. Such is
thy Karma of the cycle of thy births the destiny of those who
in their pain & sorrow are born along with thee rejoice & weep
from life to life chained to thy previous actions. >>

< If one cannot rise immediately to the resolve to be utterly
unselfish there is no need to despair. One must work on in the
right direction until one reaches the position where that ideal will
seem perfectly natural and comparatively easy of accomplishment.
Sometimes people feel that because they cannot fulfill a great ideal
that is put before them there is nothing that they can do which is
worth doing. They collapse and do nothing at all in consequence.
But that is a great mistake. The Lord Buddha was very wise in dealing
with all kinds of people and he took care to avoid this kind of
discouragement by speaking of the highest path to his monks alone.
He preached the middle path to the general public and told them to
live the highest & noblest life of which they were capable so that
lateron they would be in a position to enter his Order.
<He said that they were today creating opportunities for tomorrow that
is for their next incarnation. There is no need to despair for the
man who takes one oppportunity receives tenfold more opportunities
and he who uses what powers he has as fully as possible without
overstraining himself certainly develops those powers at a
surprising rate.

< The last paragraph makes reference to those who are born together.
It is fact that people evolve in groups the same people coming
clsely together in different relationships again & again. What
happens to one in any such group reacts very much upon the others for
both good & ill. It should be an additional incentive to those who
are aspiring to realize that whatever they are able to attain will
be of great benefit to a number of people whose destinies are thus
bound up closely with their own.>

<< = The Voice of the Silence
< = CWL

PS The passage contains what I call to myself "the great motivator".
Anything I can manage to learn or accomplish will accrue to
1. mankind. 2. myself in this incarnation or a following one. So I try
to learn & do as much as I can. I'm in business for myself ... I'm
saving the planet or at least part thereof.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 15:37:04 GMT
From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Re: Re to RJI - Fraud vs the Magical Imagination

On 08 199511 RIhle@aol.com wrote:
> Hi Jerry. Since the "raw material" of all visualization technique is
> naturally related to the third- or fourth-level "stratums" of consciousness
> such a practice is unfortunately probably not appropriate for fifth- or
> sixth-degree "souls" i.e. individuals at the fifth- or sixth-degrees of
> Self-realization. The resulting disparity between the level of semi-Self
> differentiated consciousness utilized and the degree of
> remaining/untransformed Self Undifferentiated Consciousness operating as
> "Silent Witness" is just too great to be psychologically pleasant for very
> long. Self-erasing indulgences of one sort or another can gradually ease
> such "existential pain" of course; however speaking neither as critic nor
> practitioner this is why I sometimes call vizualization technique a
> dangerous flirtation with devolution.

Greetings R I think I met you at a TS Annual Summer thing several years
ago ... good to see your inadvertantly enigmatic preesence here on the
list -: ...
The magic Jerry speaks of is at least I think it is a means of
using the recursive nature of self-illusion to ultimately defeat illusion
.. to wit:
Virtually everyone holds some form of self-image within
themselves and it greatly conditions the world they apparently live in
.. it functions almost as a filter that determines what few aspects of
the totality of the actual world will become apparent to waking
consciousness. And it is usually almost completely unconscious ... and
formed from a random and motley collection of inborn predilections
childhood environment and chance events. The apparent solidity of the
"objective" world is somewhat of an effect of the solidity of this
underlying image.
I believe what self-imaging magic attempts to do is to first
elevate this image from the unconscious up to the light of day that is
to take conscious control of what is generally an unconscious assemblege.
Then even further to glorify that image expand it attempt to live up
to that expansion ... which actually begins transforming awareness itself
.. but ultimately to the point where the transformation itself shatters
even the glorified image - hence using an image to finally shatter Image
itself.
Sorta like Narcissus redeeming himself by delibrately making an
equal but opposite mistake: He was bending over a pool fell in love
with his image reflected on top of the surface and fell in. Magic is
Narcissus standing on the bottom of the pond underwater gazing *up* at
his reflection reflected off the bottom of the surface of the pond ... a
reflection that appears to be almost transfigured because the sun is
shining through it ... and in seeking and falling in love with *that*
image ultimately again bursting through the image - to surface again
into the real world outside of the pond.
This though is quite different from "visualization" techniques
in a lot of new age books ... you know "imagine yourself wealthy" and
that kind of stuff which I would agree with you *does* create smaller
fractured images and certainly could be called a form of devolution as
it reinforces rather than overcomes the Narcissian error.
Giggles -JRC
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 15:51:19 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Regarding pets

Eldon:
>My thinking is that pets provide a partial substitute for the
>absence of human friendship and loving relationships but they
>just can't completely take the place of another human being.

Perhaps this is your experience but as for myself I'd rather be with one of my
four felines than some people I have known including some blood relatives.
Some people are poison to be around.

>>Besides psychological studies prove that petting animals reduces
>>stress and adds to our longevity.

>That's true. But it falls short of a relationship with another
>human where an equal amoung of love and time is invested.

So true. I'd much rather have a male human petting me and reducing my stress
than have to stroke a dog or cat. : -

<snip> An animal is more likely
>to live a stimulating existence and to achieve future evolution in
>a natural setting than in a city part or human's home.

Since I've lived in my current neighborhood we've had a cat living wild on our
block. He had owners but they never had him neutered or gave him shots. When
they moved away about a year ago he came back to his old territory and lived on
the streets and yards getting handouts. As he was a mottled brown I named him
"Bosco".

Last week the man that rents my garage told me he found Bosco dead in his front
yard under a bush in the rain. He lived a short but very stimulating
existence.

>Gospel in the dead letter or in the living idea the mystery
>teaching that the words attempt to express?

Yes. Just as dead as poor Bosco.

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 16:01:19 GMT
From: martinle@lainet.com Martin Leiderman
Subject: HPB Symposium on Topeka KS

The Helena Petrovna Blavatsky: Russian/American Spiritual Treasure
Symposium will be held in Topeka KS on Dec 08 9 10 1995. Coinciding
with the exhibit "Treasures of the Czars."
It will feature:
Carey William:
Reincarnation: The Global Ethic for the 21st Century.
The Education of the "Eternal Pilgrim."
Russia's Helena Petrovna Blavatsky's Prophesies.
Anton Lysy:
The Theosophical Society as the Cornerstone Foundation of
the Future Religions of Humanity.
Honesty Humility and Human Regeneration.
Fred H. Ayers:
Bridging the Spiritual Gap between East and West.
Bing Escudero:
Inner Mystery Teachings and the H.P.B. Russian Royalty
Connection.
Meditation and the Secret Doctrine.

Sponsored by the Midwest Federation of the Theosophical Society in America.
For more information contact: 913-235-2801 or 405-842-6322.
Booklet available from: The Theosophical Society in America. PO Box 270.
Wheaton IL 60189-0270
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 16:36:05 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org>
Subject: re GRS Mead's "Concerning HPB"

u
AB
>Er ... Jerry:
>
>Liesel is referring to the Abraxas booklet with a preface by Bob
>Gilbert.

JHE
Oops. :-|

AB
It is Bob's reference to CWL she is talking about not
Mead's though you are of course correct about Mead's
resignation over CWL's reinstatement which Bob also mentions.
Mead however in the text of the reprinted section does not
mention CWL at all but is sinply full of his admiration for
HPB.

JHE
OK. Though I had the wrong pamphlet the same principles
hold whether they be applied to GRS Mead or to Bob Gilbert.
Maligning according to any dictionary has to be done by someone
knowingly speaking untruths.

AB
Smile - you're on the internet <0 0>
I
<--->

JHE

How's this? <0 0>
I
*..*
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 16:37:25 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org>
Subject: "truth"

>Dear Jerry HE
>
>What's your definition of "Truth"?
>
>Liesel

JHE
In context to my post concerning Mead CWL and being
maligned? In this case the person only needs to speaking what
they *believe* to be true about another person and it can no
longer be called maligning. My authority for this is any
dictionary but at the moment I'm looking at ~Random House
Second Edition Unabridged.~ There is no reason to get into
metaphysics here.
If you want me to offer a definition of "truth" free of
context then you will have to tell me what kind of "truth" you
would like me to define e.g. "absolute truth" "personal truth"
"relative truth" "universal truth" etc.

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: 08 Nov 1995 18:04:34 GMT
From: RIhle@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re to RJI - Fraud vs the Magical Imagination

>RJI: < unless one keeps alive the
><ability to fictionalize even oneself there is no hope that anyone
><including oneself will ever become an Adept. . . .
>
>Richard what you say here is very true. It is well known in
>magic for example that you have to fictionalize yourself
>see yourself as the way you want to be; together with
>assuming a suitable magical name before you can become
>such. This is not fraud but rather a necessary psychological
>technique. Critics call this self-deception. Practitioners
>call it self-imaging or self-visualization.
>
> Jerry S.

Hi Jerry. Since the "raw material" of all visualization technique is
naturally related to the third- or fourth-level "stratums" of consciousness
such a practice is unfortunately probably not appropriate for fifth- or
sixth-degree "souls" i.e. individuals at the fifth- or sixth-degrees of
Self-realization. The resulting disparity between the level of semi-Self
differentiated consciousness utilized and the degree of
remaining/untransformed Self Undifferentiated Consciousness operating as
"Silent Witness" is just too great to be psychologically pleasant for very
long. Self-erasing indulgences of one sort or another can gradually ease
such "existential pain" of course; however speaking neither as critic nor
practitioner this is why I sometimes call vizualization technique a
dangerous flirtation with devolution.

But to be sure self-imaging is one sort of "fictionalization." Many a fine
Devil walks to and fro on this earth by means of it. . . .

I always enjoy reading you.

Best wishes

Richard Ihle
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 18:16:19 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Telepathy and Esoteric E-Mail

Some of what she read was turned around like mirror writing.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 18:51:21 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: re: GRS Mead's "Concerning HPB"

Dear Jerry HE

What's your definition of "Truth"?

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 23:03:45 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Regarding pets

Ann:

>>My thinking is that pets provide a partial substitute for the
>>absence of human friendship and loving relationships ...

>Perhaps this is your experience but as for myself I'd rather be with
>one of my four felines than some people I have known including some
>blood relatives. Some people are poison to be around.

There are as you say other types of relationships involving hate
selfishness and mutually-harmful effects. Some people are best to
avoid if possible. On the other hand the troublesome people that
appear in our lives can prove to be our best teachers.

You have an advantage over your cats. In a relationship with them
you can completely control their lives and even terrible thought!
give them away. Your advantage is in terms of both physical power
and evolutionary advantage. They can be pets but are a bit short
of full-fledged companions.

>>>Besides psychological studies prove that petting animals reduces
>>>stress and adds to our longevity.

>>That's true. But it falls short of a relationship with another
>>human where an equal amoung of love and time is invested.

>So true. I'd much rather have a male human petting me and reducing
>reducing my stress than have to stroke a dog or cat. : -

Or a crying baby to comfort or a eager child wanting to hear
about the world or a elderly grandma to take to the park and
have lunch with ...

>>An animal is more likely
>>to live a stimulating existence and to achieve future evolution in
>>a natural setting than in a city part or human's home.

>Since I've lived in my current neighborhood we've had a cat living
>wild on our block. He had owners but they never had him neutered or
>gave him shots. When they moved away about a year ago he came back
>to his old territory and lived on the streets and yards getting
>handouts. As he was a mottled brown I named him "Bosco".

Whatever environment we find ourselves in -- we adapt to it. The
same for cats or animals. But how does the nieghborhood compare
to a completely wild setting without human artifacts?

>Last week the man that rents my garage told me he found Bosco dead
>in his front yard under a bush in the rain. He lived a short
>but very stimulating existence.

Sad. Hopefully he'll find rebirth in a better environment perhaps
one day on Globe E with the rest of the animal lifewave.

>>Gospel in the dead letter or in the living idea the mystery
>>teaching that the words attempt to express?

>Yes. Just as dead as poor Bosco.

You forgot a "<grin>" here.

The idea about not keeping pets is also found in the writings of
Blavatsky and not solely Purucker. In "The Inner Group Teachings"
page 116 we find:

"People who bestow great affection upon animal pets are ensouling
them to a certain extent and such animal Souls progress very
rapidly; in return such persons get back the animal vitality and
magnetism. It is however against Nature thus to accentuate animal
evolution and on the whole is bad."

This getting back of animal vitality and magnetism is perhaps
related to why animals were sometimes used in magical pratices.

When we shift our attention away from animals and consider plants
there does not seem to be any prohibition against keeping house
plants.

Why is it bad with animals and okay with plants? My
thinking is that it's not that long since the door to the Human
Kingdom closed and the gap between the kingdoms which is rapidly
widening is still too narrow.

For now it it possible for animals to be given an inpulse towards
the Human Kingdom which they will not be able to fulfill and which
takes them away from their animal evolution. They might advance a
bit beyond the rest of the animals then have to drop out for
perhaps a Round being the animal equalivant of what a Pratyeka
Buddha would be to a human.

With all this said knowing there are perhaps some negative
effects I still may buy myself another parrot when the kids
are grown up and out of the house if my wife Brenda does
not object at the time. Granted the effects upon animals may
be negative but it's not a major negative and in the long
run say by the next Race in 04 million years the gap between
the kingdoms may have widened to the point where the type
of interchange we have today is no longer possible. We won't
then perhaps be able to have the current type of interchange
with pets.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 08 Nov 1995 23:46:09 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Re to RJI - Fraud vs the Magical Imagination

JRC:

You bring up an important point which I've also addressed in
Buddhist terms from Naropa's philosophy.

>Virtually everyone holds some form of self-image within
>themselves and it greatly conditions the world they apparently live in

This image is the activity of mind in creating a notion of
personal self.

>.. it functions almost as a filter that determines what few aspects of
>the totality of the actual world will become apparent to waking
>consciousness.

It acts as a filter in accepting some perceptions unaltered
and in rejecting or altering others. But besides that aspect
of filtering it further creates the illusion or false sense
of an external objective world a world that exists apart
from oneself. It is possible to achieve a pure state of
awareness in which this activity ceases and we gaze upon
the actual nature of life.

>And it is usually almost completely unconscious ... and
>formed from a random and motley collection of inborn predilections
>childhood environment and chance events.

Yes our self-image or personality is a fairly makeshift
construct mostly build in response to external events in
our lives.

>The apparent solidity of the "objective" world is somewhat of
>an effect of the solidity of this underlying image.

Instead of saying that it comes from the solidity of this
images I'd say that it comes from our functioning in a mode
of consciousness where we see the world in its terms. We can
experience life as a distinct personal self or without that
notion. In either case we have a personality and personal
attributes; the difference is that we can function oblivious
to it where it is transparent or we can function subject to
it where it is translucent or opaque getting in the way of
our perception.

>I believe what self-imaging magic attempts to do is to first
>elevate this image from the unconscious up to the light of day that is
>to take conscious control of what is generally an unconscious assemblege.

We do need to take responsibility for what our personalities
have become. We start off growing and changing only in response
to external stimuli. With foresight planning and self-direction
we can enact changes in our lives that are not subject to external
events but are directed from within. This is a higher form of
taking charge of our lives.

There's a still higher form of self-direction one which retains
control but yet takes others into account. This is the same
initiative to grow and evolve unburdended with the notion of
having a personal self. In this mode there's never the thought
of "what's in it for me" but always of "what's best here" even
if we personally do not end up better off.

>Then even further to glorify that image expand it attempt to live up
>to that expansion ... which actually begins transforming awareness itself

One technique for developing certain qualities is to picture
oneself already having them then acting as those they were
present in one's life and persisting until seeing them actually
arise as living qualities. This applies to one's self-image as
well and to the process of self-transformation.

>.. but ultimately to the point where the transformation itself shatters
>even the glorified image - hence using an image to finally shatter Image
>itself.

The sense of "shattering" is a Western experience equalivent
to the dark night of the soul. An Eastern approach has no such
experience but rather as Naropa would describe it experiences
a sense of "eternal delight". The shattering is the experience
of the destruction of the apparently objective world that we
thought we know. An Easterner would not have build into his
psyche a strong dependence upon this illusory objectivity and
not miss it when it vanishes before our eyes.

You make the whole thing sound quite dramatic! But it does not
have to be dramatic but can be as easy a thing as smiling back
in response to a baby's smile.

We go back and forth between the notion of a personal self
and a transcendent awareness. Both modes of viewing life are
useful in their own respects. The Vajrayana school teaches that
the two modes need to be balanced in our lives and I've also
read the Dalai Lama writing to the same effect.

>Sorta like Narcissus redeeming himself by delibrately making an
>equal but opposite mistake: He was bending over a pool fell in love
>with his image reflected on top of the surface and fell in.

I'd say that when the activity of the mind in creating the
objective world ceases we still love and respect everything
before ourselves both on the inside and on the outside.

>Magic is Narcissus standing on the bottom of the pond underwater
>gazing *up* at his reflection reflected off the bottom of the
?surface of the pond ... a reflection that appears to be almost
>transfigured because the sun is shining through it ... and in
>seeking and falling in love with *that* image ultimately again
>bursting through the image - to surface again into the real world
>outside of the pond.

The sense of "surfacing" is the experience of nondualistic
consciousness the experience of sunyata or emptiness the
transcending for the moment of the sense of personal self.
A "shattering" or "dark night" may be gone through if we're
heavily attached to our ego our personality the activity of
manas in creating a sense of self. It does not have to be
that way thought.

The idea that the Western and Eastern psyches are different
and therefore Eastern approaches won't work in the west is
-- I think -- "sour grapes".

There have been gaps in access to the spiritual path in the
West. The initial object of the T.S. was to bring Eastern
ideas to the West. We also have certain biases that prevent
us from flowering spiritually. These biases must be taken
into account when working to bring others to the Path.
But when's someone's "inner light" is awakened the biases
lose their importance and Eastern practices are just as
open to us and they are to Easterners. The only limitations
that we'd face I think are due to heredity cultural
influences and the ill effects perhaps of city life.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 03:09:07 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: re: GRS Mead's "Concerning HPB"

Er ... Jerry:

Liesel is referring to the Abraxas booklet with a preface by Bob
Gilbert. It is Bob's reference to CWL she is talking about not
Mead's though you are of course correct about Mead's
resignation over CWL's reinstatement which Bob also mentions.
Mead however in the text of the reprinted section does not
mention CWL at all but is sinply full of his admiration for
HPB.

Smile - you're on the internet <0 0>
I
<--->

Alan
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 03:56:53 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: p225 ff Talks on The Path of Occultism

Continuation from yesterday:

<<Act thou for them today and they will act for thee tomorrow.
<< 'Tis from he bud of renunciation of the self that springeth the
sweet fruit of final liberation.
<<To perish doomed is he who out of fear of Mara refrains from
helping man lest he should act for self. The pilgrim who would cool
his weary limbs in running waters yet fears not plunge for terror of
the stream risks to succumb from heat. Inaction based on selfish fear
can bear but evil fruit.
<<The selfish devotee lives to no purpose The man who does not go
through his appointed work in life has lived in vain.
<< Follow the wheeel of life: follow the wheel of duty to race &
kin to friend & foe and close thy mind to pleasure as to pain.
Exhaust the law of karmic retribution. Gain Siddhis for thy future
birth.>>

<There are people who feel that because they cannot do great things
or make rapid advance no effort is worth making. That is a great
mistake. At least they can live to help those with whom karma has
brought them into contact. They will never find themselves in a
better position until they make the most of their present environment.
If they will do this when the time comes for them to make the great
effort involved in taking the First Initiation loving friends will
be there to help. Real friends are those who are the friends of the
ego. THESE NEVER BIND ONE DOWN FOR THE SATISFACTION OF THEIR OWN
VERY LIMITED AND HUMAN AND OFTEN REALLY SELFISH EMOTIONS. THEY
ALWAYS GIVE ONE THE FREEDOM THAT IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE HIGHER
PATH.
<Some good people refrain from helping others fearing that they
themselves may be prompted by a selfish motive. Very often charity is
bestowed upon the unfortunate not really with the desire to help
them but to relieve the giver of the unhappiness that he feels at the
sight of suffering. Such a person would never go out of his way to
find people in trouble in order that they might be helped. Again
there are others who systematically give a portion of their large
incomes to charitable organziations so that they may enjoy the
remainder with no qualms of conscience. Knowing this a disciple
sometimes questions himself as to whether his own motive is pure.
But to refrain from helping because he doubts his own motive is
surely a form of selfishness. Whatever our motive may be we must
help though only that counts for real progress on the Path which is
done purely to help the sufferer without thought of self.
<IT IS NECESSARY TO USE DISCRIMINATION IN HELPING. As the Hindus say
help should be given to the right person at the right time and in
the right place. Yet the necessity for thought should not cause
hesitation. We may not always be certain which is the wiser of 02
courses of action but we must nevertheless decide upon one of
them so that the opportunity to do for goood may not be entirely
overlooked. Sometimes it is only by thought that we can help. but
that as I have said before is very important. The strength of many
a man who is doing vigorous work in the world comes largely from
others who are engaged in radiating spiritual force in meditation.
<The wheel of duty to race & kin etc. does as a matter of fact offer
the best of opportunities for progress.. The Lords of Karma see to it
that each person is given the conditions which are suited to his
growth. .....
<The man who does his daily duties well will soon be
trusted with higher ones. Everyone who can be trusted to
do good & conscientious work is eagerly wanted by those who guide
the destiny of mankind.

<< = The Voice
< = CWL

Namaste
Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 04:00:13 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: p225 ff Talks on The Path of Occultism

Continuation from yesterday:

<<Act thou for them today and they will act for thee tomorrow.
<< 'Tis from he bud of renunciation of the self that springeth the
sweet fruit of final liberation.
<<To perish doomed is he who out of fear of Mara refrains from
helping man lest he should act for self. The pilgrim who would cool
his weary limbs in running waters yet fears not plunge for terror of
the stream risks to succumb from heat. Inaction based on selfish fear
can bear but evil fruit.
<<The selfish devotee lives to no purpose The man who does not go
through his appointed work in life has lived in vain.
<< Follow the wheeel of life: follow the wheel of duty to race &
kin to friend & foe and close thy mind to pleasure as to pain.
Exhaust the law of karmic retribution. Gain Siddhis for thy future
birth.>>

<There are people who feel that because they cannot do great things
or make rapid advance no effort is worth making. That is a great
mistake. At least they can live to help those with whom karma has
brought them into contact. They will never find themselves in a
better position until they make the most of their present environment.
If they will do this when the time comes for them to make the great
effort involved in taking the First Initiation loving friends will
be there to help. Real friends are those who are the friends of the
ego. THESE NEVER BIND ONE DOWN FOR THE SATISFACTION OF THEIR OWN
VERY LIMITED AND HUMAN AND OFTEN REALLY SELFISH EMOTIONS. THEY
ALWAYS GIVE ONE THE FREEDOM THAT IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE HIGHER
PATH.
<Some good people refrain from helping others fearing that they
themselves may be prompted by a selfish motive. Very often charity is
bestowed upon the unfortunate not really with the desire to help
them but to relieve the giver of the unhappiness that he feels at the
sight of suffering. Such a person would never go out of his way to
find people in trouble in order that they might be helped. Again
there are others who systematically give a portion of their large
incomes to charitable organziations so that they may enjoy the
remainder with no qualms of conscience. Knowing this a disciple
sometimes questions himself as to whether his own motive is pure.
But to refrain from helping because he doubts his own motive is
surely a form of selfishness. Whatever our motive may be we must
help though only that counts for real progress on the Path which is
done purely to help the sufferer without thought of self.
<IT IS NECESSARY TO USE DISCRIMINATION IN HELPING. As the Hindus say
help should be given to the right person at the right time and in
the right place. Yet the necessity for thought should not cause
hesitation. We may not always be certain which is the wiser of 02
courses of action but we must nevertheless decide upon one of
them so that the opportunity to do for goood may not be entirely
overlooked. Sometimes it is only by thought that we can help. but
that as I have said before is very important. The strength of many
a man who is doing vigorous work in the world comes largely from
others who are engaged in radiating spiritual force in meditation.
<The wheel of duty to race & kin etc. does as a matter of fact offer
the best of opportunities for progress.. The Lords of Karma see to it
that each person is given the conditions which are suited to his
growth. .....
<The man who does his daily duties well will soon be
trusted with higher ones. Everyone who can be trusted to
do good & conscientious work is eagerly wanted by those who guide
the destiny of mankind.

<< = The Voice
< = CWL

Namaste
Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 04:01:58 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: p225 ff Talks on The Path of Occultism

Continuation from yesterday:

<<Act thou for them today and they will act for thee tomorrow.
<< 'Tis from he bud of renunciation of the self that springeth the
sweet fruit of final liberation.
<<To perish doomed is he who out of fear of Mara refrains from
helping man lest he should act for self. The pilgrim who would cool
his weary limbs in running waters yet fears not plunge for terror of
the stream risks to succumb from heat. Inaction based on selfish fear
can bear but evil fruit.
<<The selfish devotee lives to no purpose The man who does not go
through his appointed work in life has lived in vain.
<< Follow the wheeel of life: follow the wheel of duty to race &
kin to friend & foe and close thy mind to pleasure as to pain.
Exhaust the law of karmic retribution. Gain Siddhis for thy future
birth.>>

<There are people who feel that because they cannot do great things
or make rapid advance no effort is worth making. That is a great
mistake. At least they can live to help those with whom karma has
brought them into contact. They will never find themselves in a
better position until they make the most of their present environment.
If they will do this when the time comes for them to make the great
effort involved in taking the First Initiation loving friends will
be there to help. Real friends are those who are the friends of the
ego. THESE NEVER BIND ONE DOWN FOR THE SATISFACTION OF THEIR OWN
VERY LIMITED AND HUMAN AND OFTEN REALLY SELFISH EMOTIONS. THEY
ALWAYS GIVE ONE THE FREEDOM THAT IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE HIGHER
PATH.
<Some good people refrain from helping others fearing that they
themselves may be prompted by a selfish motive. Very often charity is
bestowed upon the unfortunate not really with the desire to help
them but to relieve the giver of the unhappiness that he feels at the
sight of suffering. Such a person would never go out of his way to
find people in trouble in order that they might be helped. Again
there are others who systematically give a portion of their large
incomes to charitable organziations so that they may enjoy the
remainder with no qualms of conscience. Knowing this a disciple
sometimes questions himself as to whether his own motive is pure.
But to refrain from helping because he doubts his own motive is
surely a form of selfishness. Whatever our motive may be we must
help though only that counts for real progress on the Path which is
done purely to help the sufferer without thought of self.
<IT IS NECESSARY TO USE DISCRIMINATION IN HELPING. As the Hindus say
help should be given to the right person at the right time and in
the right place. Yet the necessity for thought should not cause
hesitation. We may not always be certain which is the wiser of 02
courses of action but we must nevertheless decide upon one of
them so that the opportunity to do for goood may not be entirely
overlooked. Sometimes it is only by thought that we can help. but
that as I have said before is very important. The strength of many
a man who is doing vigorous work in the world comes largely from
others who are engaged in radiating spiritual force in meditation.
<The wheel of duty to race & kin etc. does as a matter of fact offer
the best of opportunities for progress.. The Lords of Karma see to it
that each person is given the conditions which are suited to his
growth. .....
<The man who does his daily duties well will soon be
trusted with higher ones. Everyone who can be trusted to
do good & conscientious work is eagerly wanted by those who guide
the destiny of mankind.

<< = The Voice
< = CWL

Namaste
Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 04:05:25 GMT
From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: A New Publication

ANNOUNCING THE PUBLICATION OF THE SECOND EDITION OF *THE INNER GROUP TEACHINGS
OF H.P. BLAVATSKY*

The title page reads: The Inner Group Teachings of H.P. Blavatsky to her
Personal Pupils 1890-1891

2nd Revised and Enlarged Edition

Compiled and Annotated by Henk J. Spierenburg

With a Historical Introduction
by Daniel H. Caldwell and Henk J. Spierenburg

The book is published by Point Loma Publications of San Diego California.

In 1985 Point Loma Publications Inc. published the first edition of the
Inner Group Teachings. Using various published sources Dr. Spierenburg
tried to reconstruct a fairly "complete" text of the Inner Group Minutes.
Unfortunately a lot of material was lacking in the reconstructed Minutes
since Dr. Spierenburg did not have access to a complete copy of the I.G.
Minutes.

With the publication of this 2nd edition students of HPB's writings will
have for the first time the complete unabridged Minutes of HPB's Inner
Group Teachings. Nothing has been changed in the text and the layout
except the transcription of the Sanskrit.

A 22-page Historical Introduction gives an overview of HPB's Esoteric Section
School and of the formation of the Inner Group. The second part of the
Introduction surveys the E.S. documents issued by HPB and Instructions IV V
and VI issued after HPB's death.

In appendices the first edition of both Instruction IV and V are published.
Both instructions are signed by Annie Besant and William Judge.

The book is published in paperback and sells for $14.00 per copy.

Please include shipping charges as follows:

Domestic USA: Book Rate ->-> 1st copy $2.00 postage 2nd copy add 50 cents

California Residents please add 7.75% Sales Tax

Foreign outside USA: Surface ->-> 1st item $4.00 postage; 2nd copy add
$1.00 Foreign outside USA: Air Mail ->-> 1st item $15.00 postage;
2nd copy add $5.00.

Other Blavatsky related books available from Point Loma Publications include:

*When We Die: A Description of the After-Death States and Processes [as given
in the Mahatma Letters] by Geoffrey A. Farthing. Paper $8.50.

*The New Textament Commentaries of H.P. Blavatsky* compiled by H.J. Spierenburg
Paper $8.00.

*The Buddhism of H.P. Blavatsky* compiled by H.J. Spierenburg. Paper $12.50

*The Vedanta Commentaries of H.P. Blavatsky* compiled by H.J. Spierenburg
Paper$10.50.

Any of these books can be ordered from:

Point Loma Publications
P.O. Box 6507
San Diego California 92166

voice/fax: 619-222-9609

Information compiled by Daniel H. Caldwell for posting on theos-l. 11/9/95
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 04:45:23 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Appeal for clothes & shoes

Dear Theos-l

I don't know whether any of you are interested in helping with this but I
thought I'd try.

Willies Tembo the Secretary of a small about 12 year-old Study
Center in Zambia Africa with whom I've been corresponding for
about 04 years now & have also been mailing TS books has
asked me for clothes... any kind of clothes in good condition for
kids & grownups of either sex including shoes. He's never in 04 years
mentioned anything like this before because the correspondence is
meant to help the Study Center which incidentally has been visited by
Radha but now he tells me in his latest letter that his salary
as a teacher is just enough to buy food for his family of 07 or 08
and that if he had
some used clothes to sell it would supplement his income. He's
writtem something to me before re that new clothes are too expensive
where he lives. Apparently everyone lives in used clothing so
there's a market. He's also been growing vegetables in the garden of
his apartment house & that money hopefully is being set aside
to finance a
small business his wife & the wife of a fellow Theosophist are
hoping to begin one day which is to be an attempt at a TOS.
The fellow Theosophist who's an engineer in
the coppermine - they live in a mining town - is buying large
quantities of peanuts rebagging them & selling them in
small quantities. But if they're that poor that money probably isn't
being saved for very long. They can't. Willies Tembo also writes
that he couldn't correspond for a while because he had an attack of
malaria. I'm in the process of finding out whether something can be
done about that. Anyway ... clothes if anyone feels inclined to pay
the postage which may run about $10.- surface mail ... air mail
costs more like $25.- which is real crazy.

Address: Mr. Willies Tembo
Box 210462
Chililabombwe
Zambia Central Africa
On the customs form he asks to mark clearly
<2d hand clothes - gift>

I guess he must have considered whether to write me this for a long
time. He made this letter special. There's an OM on the back of the
envelope.

I know this isn't something Theosophists usually do but I thought
I'd ask anyway. Any help will be greatly appreciated. You can tell me
about it or not as you wish. When I write to him airmail I always
tell him what packages are on the way & what they contain so he can
expect them.

If anyone would prefer to mail me the package I'll send it on. Then
please ask me for my snail mail address.
Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 04:52:40 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re:Re: on pets

Ann:

>You haven't lived with many cats. One cat we owned used to
>wake my husband up by biting his nose.

It wouldn't work with me. Cats are banned from the house because
I'm allergic to them. It's not that I don't like them ... They
certainly do have intelligence of their own. If you decide to
move or give them away their lives are affected. They aren't
on an equal basis with you although they are sentient members
of your household.

>Also there is a certain amount of maintenance and service to a
>properly kept pet. Dogs return the favor by keeping watch and
>cats return the favor by ridding your place of rodents.

Yes they can provide useful functions. A dog is considered
the best burglar alarm and costs almost nothing.

>>But how does the nieghborhood compare
>>to a completely wild setting without human artifacts?

>Depends on the animal. Lions and tigers definitely belong in
>the wild but domesticated animals need to live in harmony
>with people.

This is the status quo. They are accustomed to being
domestic. The question of whether this is good for them in
the long one remains unanswered. I'd say that over time the domestic
animal population will die out but that may take millions
of years to happen. In the meanwhile we'd don't do them any
substantial harm.

>The native habitat of the domestic cat is Africa where it is
>warm. In Chicago many freeze to death in our cold winters.

Unless we provide the African animals with the cold of a
nuclear winter and set ourselves back a few hunderd thousand
years in our human evolution. <frown>

>Right now mine are huddled up against the heating vent
>since it was 20 degrees and snowing this morning.

They're nice to have around. If I wasn't allergic to them
I might have had one or two myself. But liking them and
wanting them around don't make the domestic life best for
them.

>I think the ideal environment for the domestic pet is a
>farm with lots of room to roam without getting knocked
>off by a car and a nice comfy home in the barn or house.

That would be a nice comfort zone for them but does not
provide the diversity and challenge that an all-natural
setting would provide to them. We might call the natural
setting "in the wild" but it's really a setting that the
animals themselves are fashioning.

Some animals have a miserable life on the farm. Consider
the cows that live their lives in stalls in order to
provide us with milk. Or the chickens that live an
overcrowded cage life before making their way to slaughter
and the marketplace. They certainly would have a different
view of contact with humanity that cats or dogs.

>The urban setting isn't the best but it is becoming
>more and more the norm. Farms are on the wane as
>opposed to what they must have been in Purucker's day.

And so it the "wild" portions of nature being developed
and subject to human cultivation. The natural habitat of
animals is rapidly declining on our earth Globe D.

>>Sad. Hopefully he'll find rebirth in a better environment
>>perhaps one day on Globe E with the rest of the animal lifewave.

>Maybe he wanted to have one wild Scorpion life before he became a
>home-loving tabby.. :-

He may be learning some tricks useful in a human home but
that won't do him much good when he's reborn later into the
wild.

>>[Blatavsky says:]
>>"People who bestow great affection upon animal pets are ensouling
>>them to a certain extent and such animal Souls progress very
>>rapidly;

This part we can agree on but may disagree on if it is
good and helpful to the animals.

>>in return such persons get back the animal vitality and magnetism.

This is found in magic and the occult arts. That vitality and
magnetism can be used to make things happen.

>>It is however against Nature thus to accentuate animal
>>evolution and on the whole is bad."

>Sorry. I just can't buy this.

On this last point we don't have to agree. In the short run of
a few lifetimes with pets it won't make much difference one way
or the other. And in the long run animals will stop being reborn
into circumstances that are non-productive to their long-run
evolution.

>>When we shift our attention away from animals and consider plants
>>there does not seem to be any prohibition against keeping house
>>plants.

>Don't have any. My cats destroyed them all. :-

How about elementals. They taste better than mice! <grin>

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 05:00:26 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Fwd Appeal for clothes & shoes

Dear Theos-l

I don't know whether any of you are interested in helping with this but I
thought I'd try.

Willies Tembo the Secretary of a small about 12 year-old Study
Center in Zambia Africa with whom I've been corresponding for
about 04 years now & have also been mailing TS books has
asked me for clothes... any kind of Summer of Fall clothes in good condition
for kids & grownups of either sex including shoes. He's never in 04 years
mentioned anything like this before because the correspondence is
meant to help the Study Center which incidentally has been visited by
Radha but now he tells me in his latest letter that his salary
as a teacher is just enough to buy food for his family of 07 or 08
and that if he had
some used clothes to sell it would supplement his income. He's
writtem something to me before re that new clothes are too expensive
where he lives. Apparently everyone lives in used clothing so
there's a market. He's also been growing vegetables in the garden of
his apartment house & that money hopefully is being set aside
to finance a
small business his wife & the wife of a fellow Theosophist are
hoping to begin one day which is to be an attempt at a TOS.
The fellow Theosophist who's an engineer in
the coppermine - they live in a mining town - is buying large
quantities of peanuts rebagging them & selling them in
small quantities. But if they're that poor that money probably isn't
being saved for very long. They can't. Willies Tembo also writes
that he couldn't correspond for a while because he had an attack of
malaria. I'm in the process of finding out whether something can be
done about that. Anyway ... clothes if anyone feels inclined to pay
the postage which may run about $10.- surface mail ... air mail
costs more like $25.- which is real crazy.

Address: Mr. Willies Tembo
Box 210462
Chililabombwe
Zambia Central Africa
On the customs form he asks to mark clearly
<2d hand clothes - gift>
Also if you could throw the stuff in the washer before sending would
be good. I bet the ladies wash by hand.
I guess he must have considered whether to write me this for a long
time. He made this letter special. There's an OM on the back of the
envelope.

I know this isn't something Theosophists usually do but I thought
I'd ask anyway. Any help will be greatly appreciated. You can tell me about
it or not as you wish. When I write to him airmail I always tell him
what packages are on the way & what they contain so he can expect them.

If anyone would prefer to mail me the package I'll send it on. Then
please ask me for my snail mail address.
Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 05:05:11 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Fwd p225 ff Talks on The Path of Occultism

Continuation from yesterday:
This is the 3rd time I'm trying to send this. So if you're all
getting it 03 times my apologies. My computer showed twice now that
the message got stuck.
<<Act thou for them today and they will act for thee tomorrow.
<< 'Tis from he bud of renunciation of the self that springeth the
sweet fruit of final liberation.
<<To perish doomed is he who out of fear of Mara refrains from
helping man lest he should act for self. The pilgrim who would cool
his weary limbs in running waters yet fears not plunge for terror of
the stream risks to succumb from heat. Inaction based on selfish fear
can bear but evil fruit.
<<The selfish devotee lives to no purpose The man who does not go
through his appointed work in life has lived in vain.
<< Follow the wheeel of life: follow the wheel of duty to race &
kin to friend & foe and close thy mind to pleasure as to pain.
Exhaust the law of karmic retribution. Gain Siddhis for thy future
birth.>>

<There are people who feel that because they cannot do great things
or make rapid advance no effort is worth making. That is a great
mistake. At least they can live to help those with whom karma has
brought them into contact. They will never find themselves in a
better position until they make the most of their present environment.
If they will do this when the time comes for them to make the great
effort involved in taking the First Initiation loving friends will
be there to help. Real friends are those who are the friends of the
ego. THESE NEVER BIND ONE DOWN FOR THE SATISFACTION OF THEIR OWN
VERY LIMITED AND HUMAN AND OFTEN REALLY SELFISH EMOTIONS. THEY
ALWAYS GIVE ONE THE FREEDOM THAT IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE HIGHER
PATH.
<Some good people refrain from helping others fearing that they
themselves may be prompted by a selfish motive. Very often charity is
bestowed upon the unfortunate not really with the desire to help
them but to relieve the giver of the unhappiness that he feels at the
sight of suffering. Such a person would never go out of his way to
find people in trouble in order that they might be helped. Again
there are others who systematically give a portion of their large
incomes to charitable organziations so that they may enjoy the
remainder with no qualms of conscience. Knowing this a disciple
sometimes questions himself as to whether his own motive is pure.
But to refrain from helping because he doubts his own motive is
surely a form of selfishness. Whatever our motive may be we must
help though only that counts for real progress on the Path which is
done purely to help the sufferer without thought of self.
<IT IS NECESSARY TO USE DISCRIMINATION IN HELPING. As the Hindus say
help should be given to the right person at the right time and in
the right place. Yet the necessity for thought should not cause
hesitation. We may not always be certain which is the wiser of 02
courses of action but we must nevertheless decide upon one of
them so that the opportunity to do for goood may not be entirely
overlooked. Sometimes it is only by thought that we can help. but
that as I have said before is very important. The strength of many
a man who is doing vigorous work in the world comes largely from
others who are engaged in radiating spiritual force in meditation.
<The wheel of duty to race & kin etc. does as a matter of fact offer
the best of opportunities for progress.. The Lords of Karma see to it
that each person is given the conditions which are suited to his
growth. .....
<The man who does his daily duties well will soon be
trusted with higher ones. Everyone who can be trusted to
do good & conscientious work is eagerly wanted by those who guide
the destiny of mankind.

<< = The Voice
< = CWL

Namaste
Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 06:41:54 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re:Re: on pets

Eldon:
>You have an advantage over your cats. In a relationship with them
>you can completely control their lives . . .

You haven't lived with many cats. One cat we owned used to wake my husband up
by biting his nose.

Also there is a certain amount of maintenance and service to a properly kept
pet. Dogs return the favor by keeping watch and cats return the favor by
ridding your place of rodents.

>Whatever environment we find ourselves in -- we adapt to it. The
>same for cats or animals. But how does the nieghborhood compare
>to a completely wild setting without human artifacts?

Depends on the animal. Lions and tigers definitely belong in the wild but
domesticated animals need to live in harmony with people. The native habitat of
the domestic cat is Africa where it is warm. In Chicago many freeze to death
in our cold winters. Right now mine are huddled up against the heating vent
since it was 20 degrees and snowing this morning.

I think the ideal environment for the domestic pet is a farm with lots of room
to roam without getting knocked off by a car and a nice comfy home in the barn
or house. The urban setting isn't the best but it is becoming more and more
the norm. Farms are on the wane as opposed to what they must have been in
Purucker's day.

>Sad. Hopefully he'll find rebirth in a better environment perhaps
>one day on Globe E with the rest of the animal lifewave.

Maybe he wanted to have one wild Scorpion life before he became a home-loving
tabby.. :-

>The idea about not keeping pets is also found in the writings of
>Blavatsky and not solely Purucker. In "The Inner Group Teachings"
>page 116 we find:
>"People who bestow great affection upon animal pets are ensouling
>them to a certain extent and such animal Souls progress very
>rapidly; in return such persons get back the animal vitality and
>magnetism. It is however against Nature thus to accentuate animal
>evolution and on the whole is bad."

Sorry. I just can't buy this.

>When we shift our attention away from animals and consider plants
>there does not seem to be any prohibition against keeping house
>plants.

Don't have any. My cats destroyed them all. :-

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 09:51:49 GMT
From: mauriced@cin.gov.au Maurice De Montaine
Subject: Re: "truth"

>
>>Dear Jerry HE
>>
>>What's your definition of "Truth"?
>>
>>Liesel
>
>JHE
> In context to my post concerning Mead CWL and being
>maligned? In this case the person only needs to speaking what
>they *believe* to be true about another person and it can no
>longer be called maligning. My authority for this is any
>dictionary but at the moment I'm looking at ~Random House
>Second Edition Unabridged.~ There is no reason to get into
>metaphysics here.
> If you want me to offer a definition of "truth" free of
>context then you will have to tell me what kind of "truth" you
>would like me to define e.g. "absolute truth" "personal truth"
>"relative truth" "universal truth" etc.
>
>Jerry HE
>
>------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins
> ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and
>CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org
>|------------------------------------------
>
Let us go beyond intellectualism which is quite prevalent in the world
today even amongst students of Theosophy and the like. When all is said and
done dear ones Truth is not subservient to human concepts.

It was wise indeed to differentiate between relative truth and Absolute
Truth for the former is distinct from the latter. In my many years of
membership of The Theosophical Society and numerous other genuine
organisations similar thereto I have found that there are few who have
really penetrated into the inner heart of Truth. One can argue and define
all one wants but is this really getting one closer to Truth. As far as I
am concerned my interest is in Absolute Truth. But even those who hold an
interest in these types of subjects often say that there is no such thing as
Absolute Truth. Poor deluded souls!

Let me say however that Universal Truth is equivalent to Absolute
Truth. There is no need to make a distinction between these two terms. Also
personal truth is equivalent to relative truth but can be different for
each individual.

MAGNA EST VERITAS ET PREVALEBIT

Dr Maurice de Montaine
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 09:59:40 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: re: "TRUTH"

Dr Maurice de Montaine:

MdeM
>It was wise indeed to differentiate between relative truth and
>Absolute Truth for the former is distinct from the latter. In
>my many years of membership of The Theosophical Society and
>numerous other genuine organisations similar thereto I have
>found that there are few who have really penetrated into the
>inner heart of Truth. One can argue and define all one wants
>but is this really getting one closer to Truth. As far as I am
>concerned my interest is in Absolute Truth. But even those who
>hold an interest in these types of subjects often say that there
>is no such thing as Absolute Truth. Poor deluded souls!

JHE
Sounds like you are a romantic and a neo-platonist if not a
platonist. Welcome to the club our kind have been disappearing
rather as of late under the pressure of the post modern movement.
Below is my favorite definition for Absolute Truth:

SAULINO. Deservedly oh Sophia for Truth is the most
sincere the most divine of all things. Rather Truth is the
divinity and sincerity the goodness and beauty of things
who is neither driven away by violence nor corrupted by
antiquity nor diminished by occultation nor dispersed by
communication. For sense does not confound her time does
not wrinkle her place does not hide her night does not
interrupt her shadow does not envelop her. Rather the more
and more she is impugned the more and more she is
resuscitated and grows. Without a defender and protector
she defends herself; and yet she loves the company of a few
wise men. She hates the multitude does not show herself
before those who do not seek her for her own sake and does
not wish to be declared to those who do not humbly expose
themselves to her or to all those who fraudulently seek
her; and here fore she dwells most high whither all gaze
and few see.

Giordano Bruno from: ~The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast~
~Lo Spaccio de la bestia trionfante~. 1584

It was around 1971 that I found a copy of ~Lo Spaccio~ in a
used book store and for some reason felt a deep need to read this
rather ponderous tome. When I finally came to the above passage
I found myself moved to tears by it. I believe that Bruno was
one of those rare people who as you say "really penetrated into
the inner heart of Truth."
I'm sure that you are aware as I later learned that it was
this passage more than any other that earned Bruno seven years in
the Roman inquisitor's prison and finally to be burned at the
stake in Feb of 1600.

MdeM
> Let me say however that Universal Truth is equivalent to
>Absolute Truth. There is no need to make a distinction between
>these two terms. Also personal truth is equivalent to relative
>truth but can be different for each individual.

JHE
I agree with you in principle. However I had an agenda in
mind that required a little preliminary hair splitting in order
to bring out some other ideas. The differences among individuals
concerning notions of truth as you mentioned above is one of
them.
One of the units I had developed for teaching theosophy is
called "truth" and the above quote is one that we use in those
classes.

Jerry HE

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 11:21:11 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: TMR

According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins:

Note-- I'll be fairly brief here and respond only to the
substantive points rather than differences in points of view
since those seem clear enough without hashing out more.
>
> JHE
> References to Shigatse doesn't help. You may as well have
> said Maryland. To much territory. The drawing doesn't help
But Shigatse is a *city*.
>
> She is not arguing against the existence of these Masters but
> telling of her efforts to keep Olcott from becoming carried away
> with his fantasies about them:
> don't see anywhere in the quote you gave that HPB is telling us
> "not to believe her on this subject" but if anything not to
> embroider upon what she does say.

A more relevant quote is "I saw with terror and anger the false
track they were all pursuing. The `Masters' as all thought
must be omniscient omnipresent omnipotent...I have desecrated
the holy Truth by remaining too passive in the face of all this
desecration brought on by too much zeal and false ideas." So
while she is not saying "I actively misled people about the
Masters" here although other evidence points in this
direction she is definitely saying that Theosophists have
developed a mythological view of the Masters she saw it
happening and did nothing to stop it. But she wasn't just a
passive nonentity in all this; in fact she fanned the flames
but later regretted it. This was more than she was
willing/able to admit.
>
> KPJ
> Actually I find The Durbar in Lahore to be much more valuable
> historically since it seems to be mostly if not entirely
> non-fiction and can be juxtaposed against the more fictional
> accounts in C&J letters to Sinnett etc.
>
> JHE
> OK. HPB's letters to Sinnett are "fictional"? That's a new
> one.

More fictional than the Durbar in Lahore. Theosophists have
privileged HPB's letters to Sinnett as an ultimate source of
information on the Masters ignoring their conflicts with other
sources. Yet she knew this was going to be published. Why
would she tell more of the truth to him than to others
especially knowing it would appear in a book? Will post
separately on this.
> "blinds": Dayal/Djual Endreinek Agardi/Agardi Metrovitch
> Ten-dub Ughien/Ugyen Gyatso Mulraj Singh/Lala Mulraj
> "Krishnavarma" no first name/Shyamaji Krishnavarma not to
> mention Gulab Singh/Ranbir Singh whose father was Gulab and
> Koot Hoomi Lal Singh/Thakar Singh.
>
> JHE
> You would have made a great English major. That is the fun
> of literary criticism techniques you can create patterns where
> there were no patterns before. It is just a matter of carefully
> selecting the evidence. Now lets see: Damodar is really Djual
> Kuhl; Morya is Metrovich; K.H. is really a blind for Katherine
> Hillard.... Give be a little time and I could find damn good

Certainly not obvious similarities of names comparable to those
I cite above.
> JHE
> And who created elaborate "disinformation." Don't you
> consider "disinformation" a deception?

Sure. But the point is that Meade explicitly and Campbell and
Washington implicitly assume that the Masters were entirely
fictional. If my work was not an unprecedented way of looking
at the subject it wouldn't have created the splash it has.
>
> KPJ
> But she sure as hell became one especially after death.
a religious leader
>
> JHE
> I don't blame her for that. Do you?

Partly. Creating the ES was an absolutely disastrous mistake
from which sprung almost everything harmful in Theosophical
history after that. Olcott was right on that one.

> KPJ
> Several others-- a Ph.D. historian a sociologist a
> biochemist-- people who are in the general populace but have
> academic credentials-- have indicated the same evaluation. The
> formerly universal outside TS circles consensus that the
> Masters were fictional simply has no leg to stand on anymore.
>
> JHE
> It is interesting that you even found "several" in the
> general populace even cares one way or the other.

I doubt that Theosophists account for more than a quarter of
the sales of TMR. But have no way of knowing for sure.
>
> JHE
> I find it extraordinary that no non-theosophist has misread
> your book.
I didn't say that. I said that the particular kind of
misreadings about my intentions outlook etc. described in the
passage came only from Theosophists.
>
> KPJ
> Don't have the sources in front of me but HSO called him "one
> of our Masters" as I recall.
>
> JHE
> Where?
ODL somewhere; can't find the passage offhand. But he speaks
of the Master of Ceremonies of the Panchen Lama being "one of
our Mahatmas"-- but does so after the death of the Sengchen in
question so may be talking about his successor.
>
> JHE
> From HPB's writings. Unless you establish your own
> definition I have to go by HPB's and HSO's usage of the terms.
> In my readings of HPB I have not experienced a blurring of
> "Adept" and "Mahatma." They mean different things. However an

But the emphasis in my book is on the inclusive term "Master."
Whether or not Sankaracharya was called a Mahatma by one of the
Founders if he was called an Initiate Adept capitalized that
makes him a Master. Fine points about Adepts vs. Mahatmas are
entirely beyond the range of confirmation historically;
"Masters" covers both.
> I don't involve myself with that crap. I don't accept the
> "spiritual authority" of anybody and theosophists with "received
> views" are no exception. For this reason I'm rejected by the
> inner circle just like you are. The difference is that I never
> wanted to be a part of that inner circle in the first place--

You assume something here that is quite untrue. I never wanted
to be part of the inner circle-- just to escape being molested
by it.
> in a way that made it seem false? Remember that HPB said that
> EVERY religions was false on its surface true in its depths.
> Why not apply this to the religion of Theosophy?
>
> JHE
> Because I don't regard Theosophy as a religion.

I doubt there's a sociologist or historian of religion who
would agree regardless of any Theosophists' protests. Quacks
like a duck...
>
> JHE
> What kind of "progress" do you expect? What was you goal?

Some response along the lines of "enough on that issue let's
agree to disagree but what about x?"

> To convince Dan that your thesis is right? Why not forget about
> "progress" and just defend your thesis against his questions and
> criticism until he runs out of questions.

Why not? The more relevant question is why should I? What is
to be gained? At what cost to me in time and energy? Who will
benefit? The overwhelming consensus of people who have advised
me in private email is-- forget it.
>
> JHE
> That is to be expected. But eventually he will run out.

It's been 02 and a half years. Again how much do I owe critics
of my work? A lifelong guaranteed instant response to anything they come
up with?
>
> JHE
> It isn't the words it is the context in which the words are
> used. Yes in another context these words may not be
> perjoratives. It is the context of Godwin's usage of these words
> that is the issue.

Actually I wrote the introduction Godwin the preface.
> > Nothing if you had taken the time to relate to the reader
> > HPB's explanation of how Mahatma Letters are transmitted.
> > Otherwise it appears that she was fabricating.

> your thesis concerning the Masters does not address my views as
> stated above one way or the other concerning HPB because my
> opinions of her in these areas do not depend upon the existence
> of the Masters under any definition. Do you understand what I'm
> saying now?

I guess. But do you not care whether she took the trouble to
seek out experts in the spiritual traditions she wrote about
to learn from them firsthand?

> JHE
> If she had perpetuated a fraud but never came clean with
> it than I would still consider her a fraud. Feeling sorry is
> not sufficient repentance. There also has to be restitution.

I see the vast majority of her writings that appeared after
her departure from India and after she started to downplay the
Masters as restitution.
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 11:34:54 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Regarding pets

eldon:
>It wouldn't work with me. Cats are banned from the house because
>I'm allergic to them. It's not that I don't like them ... They
>certainly do have intelligence of their own. If you decide to
>move or give them away their lives are affected. They aren't
>on an equal basis with you although they are sentient members
>of your household.

You or I may not think they are on an equal basis. Cats think they are superior
to us and have consented to let us have the privilege of living with them.
Abuse them and they'll run taking their chances elsewhere. One man I knew had
his male cat neutered and when he brought him home from the vet the cat jumped
out the window never to be seen again.

>>>When we shift our attention away from animals and consider plants
>>>there does not seem to be any prohibition against keeping house
>>>plants.

>>Don't have any. My cats destroyed them all. :-

>How about elementals. They taste better than mice! <grin>

Is that comment based on personal experience? What do elementals taste like and
would one be a vegetarian if one ate one? <hee-hee>

- ann

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 13:33:45 GMT
From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Re: Re to RJI - Fraud vs the Magical Imagination

On 09 199511 RIhle@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Greetings R I think I met you at a TS Annual Summer thing several years
> >ago ... good to see your inadvertantly enigmatic presence here on the
> >list -: ...
>
> I thought I should show up from time to time since I will be taking over the
> T.S. in a few years.
> Best wishes
> Richard Ihle

Good lord man why in the *world* would you want to do *that*? 'Sides I
hadn't remembered you as having nearly enough of the
buried-insecurity-sublimated-into-unconscious-hyper-authoritarianism
required to qualify. -: Tee Hee -JRC
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 13:55:51 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: regarding pets

Eldon:
>My thinking is that pets provide a partial substitute for the
>absence of human friendship and loving relationships but they
>just can't completely take the place of another human being.

I don't think anyone is arguing against this.

Eldon:
> the gap between the two Kingdoms
>continues to widen since the Manasaputras awakened the fire of
>mind in us in the Third Root Race some 18 million years ago. We
>will have less-and-less in common with animals in the distant
>future.

I could be wrong but I think that this "gap" is
because we are killing off all the animals so in the distant
future there will be no more wild animals left. Animals
domesticated for food or pets are all that will exist - and
this dismal future is not so far away.

Eldon:
>That's true. But it falls short of a relationship with another
>human where an equal amoung of love and time is invested.

Possibly. But human relationships build more
karmic attachments. Besides you can't show your friends
in confirmation or obedience rings :-

Eldon:
> We can give animals
>a sense of the feeling of what it's like to be a human but
>they can't do anything with that feeling.

Why do you automatically asume that they
would want to be human? My cats feel themselves
superior to humanity - and in a few ways I suspect
that they are.

Eldon:
>. And there is the idea
>that animals are best off in the wild. That is it's in a natural
>environment untouched by human hands where the Animal Monads are
>able to establish their appropriate ecosystems based upon their own
>evolutionary needs unbiased by human society. An animal is more likely
>to live a stimulating existence and to achieve future evolution in
>a natural setting than in a city part or human's home.

I don't think that anyone will deny that animals are
better off without us human beings encroaching on their lives.
All wild animals certainly would prefer to be left alone.
However there is the naive idea of animals living wild and free
and there is the dismal reality that such a dream cannot occur
in today's world. Too many people.

Eldon:
>We differ on this one. I'd say that with each evolutionary
>experience we are better off for having undergone the process.
>This is akin to our becoming better writers with each article
>that we write. There's always a deep part of ourselves that
>grows with each cycle of existence.

I don't disagree with you in principle. What I am
saying is that we are really unfolding rather than evolving. This
"deep part of ourselves that grows" is slowly returning to its own
natural state exactly the same as when it started out. If you
want to call this evolution then fine.

Eldon:
>From the standpoint of emptiness you can reject this. From
>the standpoint of fullness you are subject to evolution and
>karma. Pick your mode of consciousness and see it whichever
>way you prefer. Both aspects of life are real in their own
>right and continue regardless of *your* perception.

I reject it from any standpoint you want to make
full or empty. A circle is a cirlce not a spiral. I Jerry Schueler
am subject to evolution/growth and karma yes but the
Divine Monad within this Jerry Schueler is not.

Eldon:
> The limitations may be in our understanding of
>the ideas rather than in the ideas themselves.

I suspect that they are in both.

Eldon:
>I think that your reaction is to your seemingly being told what to
>do by Purucker and not liking what he says. But since you're
>not in a particular school with the requirement to not keep
>pets and since Purucker's statment was not made in regard
>to the partcular circumstances of your life you should not
>take it too personally.

Yes to the first statement. I do not take it personally.
My problem is that Purucker simply has not explained his
rationale sufficiently for me to accept his suggestion here. The
only reason that he seems to give is that any animal living
with humans will soon be ready to become an a human and
because the "door" has closed the poor animal must wait
until the "door" reopens. If there is another reason and the
excuse that animals are better off in the wild doesn't apply in
today's world because humans have eliminated the "wild"
to a few night-time center-city areas then I would love to hear
it. I simply am not convinced that animals want to become
human in the first place this notion smacks of human conceit.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 13:55:57 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: TMR

> JHE
> A blind is not a lie or a fabrication but are usually
> created by making generalizations in order to avoid giving
> specific information. HPB was consistent in how she created
> blinds going all the way back at least to ~Isis Unveiled.~

I think that "blind" goes beyond generalizations and does
enter into the area of fibs on occasion. For example HPB
says that all of the names of the Talas are blinds. Then says
"Rasatala is a blind within a blind for Rasa taste belongs
to the next Tala." Inner Group Teachings p. 58. This
looks like an example of deliberate distortion or
disinformation to me.

JHE
> And who created elaborate "disinformation." Don't you
>consider "disinformation" a deception?

It *is* a deception but a deliberately crafted
one that the "initiated" should be able to see through
while the "unititated" either become confused and give
up or obtain disinformation.

JHE
> IMO your thesis concerning the Masters does not address my views as
>stated above one way or the other concerning HPB because my
>opinions of her in these areas do not depend upon the existence
>of the Masters under any definition

I agree with you on this. If the Masters were somehow
proved to be fabrications or "blinds" as Paul would have it this
would not change my opinion of HPB or my view of theosophy at all.
My understanding and respect for the teachings of theosophy as
given by HPB does not hinge in any way on Mahatmas on Masters
on Initiates on Adepts or on anyone else who may have taught her.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 13:56:00 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: "truth"

Maurice:< Let me say however that Universal Truth is equivalent to Absolute
Truth.>

Welcome aboard Maurice. From a technical theosophical sense
there is a big difference between absolute truth and universal truth. In
theosophy our "universe" is usually considered to be our solar system
which is very much in space-time while absolute truth is beyond space-
time altogether. HPB and her Mahatmas only discussed principles
that hold within our universe solar system.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 13:56:05 GMT
From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Re: Dangerous TSA Bylaw Changes Part 01

Holy institutionalized Dogma Batman!

Proposals for changes in the TS motto to fit the New TS:

1. "There is no religion higher than truth ... which we'll tell you".

2. "There is no religion higher than our concept of truth."

3. "There is no truth higher than our religion."

4. "Read our books or you can't join our club."

5. "Hi! We're Theosophists and you're not!"

6. "It is our carefully considered opinion that despite the fact that
neither HPB nor the Masters ever *required* her books or any other
specific literature to be studied as a condition of either individual
membership or the formation of a Lodge nonetheless we knowing better
than that will take it upon ourselves to enforce such standards."

7. "Read this or we'll rescind your Charter and take your money and
sell your building. And stop complaining - we now have laws that permit
us to do it completely legally."
Chuckles -JRC
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 14:08:09 GMT
From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com>
Subject: Dangerous TSA Bylaw Changes Part 02

The following Part 02 is a Comment submitted to The American Theosophist by Sy
Ginsburg J.D. President of The Theosophical Society in Miami warning of the
dangers of certain proposed national bylaw changes. Part 01 is a cover letter
sent to Branches and Centers of the TSA urging members to vote no to proposed
changes #15 #16 #17 and #9.

The purpose of this posting Parts 1&2 is to reach as many members of The
Theosophical Society in America as possible to inform them of the dangers that
are posed. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this.
Sy Ginsburg President Miami Florida Branch TSA
Tel: 305-463-8900; Fax: 305-463-8989; E-mail: 72724413@compuserve.com

Proposed Bylaw Changes #15 #16 #17 and #9 Pose a Real Threat to the T.S.A.
by Sy Ginsburg J.D. President Miami Branch

When disputes arise in a spiritual organization between a governing body and its
constituent branches the courts have traditionally looked to see if the
organization is episcopal or congregational in determining who controls. From a
legal perspective an episcopal organization is seen as one in which control of
both assets and teaching emanates from the highest level and is in turn
disseminated through a hierarchy. The Roman Catholic Church with its hierarchy
of pope cardinals archbishops bishops and priests is an example of an
episcopal organization as is the Episcopal Anglican Church. In congregational
organizations on the other hand control over assets and teaching rests in the
assembly of each local congregation. Many protestant denominations are
congregational.

The Theosophical Society has historically been a congregational organization.
This is because the only membership requirement is to be in sympathy with the 03
declared objects of the Society which have stood for over 100 years. These
objects encourage complete freedom of inquiry and enable the Theosophical
society to exist without dogma. When members have banded together in a Branch
the Branch has historically had the same right of freedom as its members. Where
Branches are incorporated as is the Miami Branch these freedoms are
traditionally expressed in the Charter and Bylaws of the corporation.

Proposed Bylaw changes #15 #16 #17 and related #9 if ratified will change
all this. These proposals will completely alter the nature of the Theosophical
Society in America TSA from a congregational organization to an episcopal
organization controlled from the top.

The national Board of Directors in its genuine concern over loss of the Boston
Branch and its assets has approved these proposed changes to protect the
Society from such further losses. But in doing so they are unwittingly doing
far more damage to the TSA than would be caused by the loss of a Branch. While
these proposed changes #15 #16 and #17 are aimed at control over Branch assets
by TSA they will along with absolute control over membership granted the TSA
national Board by proposed Bylaw change #9 also allow TSA to exert its control
over what is taught. This is in complete opposition to the declared objects.
The TSA at present does not have control over what is taught at Branches.

In a recent article "What Do We Study What Do We Teach?" by President John
Algeo The American Theosophist Late Summer 1995 John wrote "if we are a
Theosophical group that group must also give time energy and attention to
studying Theosophy not just Sufism from a Theosophical perspective or The
Wizard of Oz as a Theosophical allegory but Theosophy itself."

I basically agree with John and at the Miami Branch we currently offer 04
Theosophical study groups including one on "The Secret Doctrine" another on
"Light on the Path" and yet another on "Theosophical History." In the past year
we have also offered study groups on "The Voice of the Silence" and "The Mahatma
Letters." These are among 24 study groups currently offered at the Miami
Branch. But what our Branch offers are decisions taken at the local level.
They are the will of the members of our Branch. Once the proposed Bylaw changes
are adopted it will be possible for a future President of TSA less
democratically inclined than John Algeo to say to a Branch "You not only
"must" study certain Theosophical teaching but you "will" study them. It will
be possible for a future President to say to a Branch "you no longer will offer
study groups on Astrology Gurdjieff Krishnamurti Tarot etc."

When I was first told of these proposed Bylaw changes at the national convention
in Jul I strongly objected. I assumed that my objection was based on the
desire as a Branch President not to want to cede control over our assets.
Although I have been trained in the law it was not until I examined the court
cases that I understood how these proposed changes will fundamentally change our
Society from congregational to episcopal.

These proposed changes are so opposed to the declared objects of the Society
that I do not believe the majority of members will want them once they
understand the issue. I question whether the national Board of Directors
realize the magnitude of the change they have approved.

The Miami Branch has had 03 lengthy meetings to discuss the problem caused by
these proposed Bylaw changes. On 192210 1995 the Miami Branch approved
the following resolution:

1. The Theosophical Society in Miami a Florida not-for-profit corporation is
opposed to the substance of proposed changes to the national Bylaws of The
Theosophical Society in America #15 #16 #17 affecting relationship between the
national organizaiton and Branches and #9 which bears on these others.

2. The Theosophical Society in Miami will not change its Corporate Charter nor
its Bylaws to accommodate the above proposed national Bylaw changes should they
be adopted.

3. The Theosophical Society in Miami fully intends to continue to be a Branch of
The Theosophical Society in America and to continue to present Theosophy in
accordance with the 03 declared objects of The Theosophical society.

If these proposed Bylaw changes are adopted the Miami Branch and no doubt other
Branches will be out of harmony with the national Bylaws. I do not wish this to
happen but our Branch finds itself put in this difficult position through no
fault of our own.

I have been delegated by the members of the Miami Branch to make our views know
to the membership of the TSA and to ask your support in not allowing so
fundamental a change in the organization to occur.

To this end on behalf of the members of the Miami Branch I ask my fellow
member of the TSA to carefully consider proposed Bylaw changes #15 #16 #17 and
#9 and to vote against them.

I especially ask the members-at-large who compose the majority of the TSA
membership to help those of us who wish to do Branch service by not allowing
the fundamental character of The Theosophical Society in America to be changed.

I ask the national Board of Directors to review their action and to rescind
their approval of proposed changes #15 #16 #17 and #9 in order not to change
the fundamental character of the TSA.

Finally I ask the national Board to convene a commission including
representatives from active Branches to more carefully construct Bylaw changes
should any be needed to protect Branch assets without destroying the
fundamental freedoms that we all presently enjoy as members of the Theosophical
Society. The Miami Branch has over 100 members and is the third largest Branch
in the United States yet we were never consulted about these proposed Bylaw
changes. We need to work together to help Theosophy grow.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 14:08:21 GMT
From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com>
Subject: Dangerous TSA Bylaw Changes Part 01

The following Part 01 is a letter mailed by The Theosophical Society in Miami
to other Branches and Centers of The Theosophical Society in America. Part 02 is
the text of a Comment on the proposed bylaw changes submitted to The American
Theosophist.

The purpose of this postingParts 01 &2 is to reach as many members of The
Theosophical Society in America as possible to inform them of the danger in
certain proposed national bylaw changes. Please feel free to contact me if you
would like to discuss this. Sy Ginsburg President Miami Florida Branch TSA
Tel: 305-463-8900; Fax 305-463-8989; E-mail: 72724413@compuserve.com

Proposed bylaw changes #15 #16 #17 and #9 pose a real threat to the T.S.A.
Please vote against them when you receive your referendum ballot!

Dear Fellow Members of The Theosophical Society in America TSA:

I am writing as a long time member of the TSA and also as President of and on
behalf of the members of the Miami Florida Branch. I want to call to your
attention proposed bylaw changes #15 #16 & #17 which give control of Branch
assets to national headquarters and #9 which gives control of Branch membership
to national headquarters because their ratification in the referendum will
change the fundamental nature of The Theosophical Society in America.

When I first became aware of these proposed changes during the national
convention in Jul I was immediately opposed to them. My reaction I thought
was natural as a Branch President not wanting to cede control of our Branch
assets away from our local Board of Directors. Although I have been trained in
the law I did not realize the far more serious ramifications to the TSA if
these proposed changes are adopted until I began to examine court cases on the
issue. Courts generally look at spiritual organizations either as episcopal or
as congregational. From a legal perspective an episcopal organization is seen
as one in which control of both assets and teaching emanates from the highest
level and is in turn disseminated through a hierarchy. The Roman Catholic
Church with its hierarchy of pope cardinals archbishops bishops and priests
is an example of an episcopal organization. In congregational organizations on
the other hand control over assets and teaching rests in the assembly of each
local congregation. Many protestant denominations are congregational.

>From this perspective I have always regarded the Theosophical Society as
congregational and we believe that the vast majority of members hold this same
view. The proposed bylaw changes if adopted will fundamentally alter the TSA
from a congregational to an episcopal organization controlled from the top.
With control of assets and membership goes control of the teachings. The door
will then be open to the danger of the dogmatism about which HPB specifically
warned. When this issue was examined at several meetings of our Miami Branch
and when the members fully understood the ramifications they voted unanimously
to oppose these changes and unanimously not to change the Miami Branch corporate
charter nor its bylaws should the national bylaw changes be adopted. In my
opinion this very serious issue will not be understood by most members unless
adequately explained. I question whether the national board members have fully
understood the fundamental change they have approved because even as a lawyer I
did not understand this until I began to examine the court cases.

Please make copies of this letter and Coment for discussion among your local
members. The enclosed Comment see Part 02 more fully explaining the issue
was submitted to The American Theosophist and I have been told it will run in
an abridged form. We have tried to send at least one copy to each Branch or
Theosophical Center but our resources are limited. If you are able to contact
any members-at-large this will also be helpful. Consult with your own legal
counsel on the matter. These changes have been approved too uncritically by the
national Board of Directors in their understandable concern over loss of the
Boston Branch but in so doing they are unwittingly causing far more damage to
the TSA than was caused by the loss of a Branch. The national Board has not
adequately consulted with Branches. The Miami Branch for example third largest
in TSA was never consulted. Thank you for your attention to this important
issue.

Sincerely
Sy Ginsburg J.D. Miami Branch President
If you would like to discuss this with me please call. My home telephone is
305-463-8900. Fax is 305-463-8989. E-mail is 72724413@compuserve.com
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 14:09:48 GMT
From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Re: Dangerous TSA Bylaw Changes Part 02

A prophecy:
Pass this stuff thus completeing the institutionalization of a
specific and to some very narrow view of Theosophy that began several
years ago and has now used manipulation of the by-laws to virtually lock
out anyone that would dissent from this point of view from holding
office and yet another schism ... that has been brewing beneath the
surface for awhile now ... will surface before long.

Funny that in a world that has seen a massive wave of
liberalization sweep through it ... that has seen business political
religious and social leaders forced to acknowledge that authoritarian
centralized top-down leadership is becoming less and less effective as
the days pass that the TS appears to be rowing like the devil upstream.
-JRC

PS. Say anyone for a palace coup? Or perhaps starting a new TS?
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 14:12:41 GMT
From: RIhle@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re to RJI - Fraud vs the Magical Imagination

> Virtually everyone holds some form of self-image within
>themselves and it greatly conditions the world they apparently live in
>.. it functions almost as a filter that determines what few aspects of
>the totality of the actual world will become apparent to waking
>consciousness.

Hi John it is good to hear from you. An individual old enough to have
passed into at least the sixth seven-year cycle and who has done enough work
to be able to recognize and keep the "Once-Removed-Vantage" on all the
varieties of undifferentiated consciousnesses those cycles are associated
with no longer has the fully operating type of "self-image" you may be
suggesting. At the least it rather *they* since we are really speaking of
predilection toward various patterns of "semi-Self opportunity" is fading
fast. "Fictionalization" of any sort is probably not something one should
get too serious about before finding the toe of the Buddha. . . .

>Greetings R I think I met you at a TS Annual Summer thing several years
>ago ... good to see your inadvertantly enigmatic presence here on the
>list -: ...

I thought I should show up from time to time since I will be taking over the
T.S. in a few years.

Best wishes

Richard Ihle
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 15:04:21 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: "truth"

Jerry HE

You spoke about *The Truth*. Glad to see you think after all
that there are different kinds.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 15:09:50 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: Dangerous TSA Bylaw Changes Part 01

Not having the AT in front of me I don't recall the numbers of
the amendments. Was #9 the one about expelling members? I
don't know what reason Radha et al gave for national sections
adopting such a policy. But it is alarming enough to have
weighed in my decision to exit.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 15:10:07 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: "truth"

Dear Dr. Mauric de Montaine

Exactly "relative truth .... can be different for each individual"
& it is an error to confuse relative truth with absolute truth. That
was my point.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 15:28:00 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Re to RJI - Fraud vs the Magical Imagination

Eldon:
>This image is the activity of mind in creating a notion of
>personal self.

Self-imaging begins with the separation of Purusha from
Prakriti and becomes more defined as consciousness
descends onto the lower planes.

Eldon:
>It acts as a filter in accepting some perceptions unaltered
>and in rejecting or altering others. But besides that aspect
>of filtering it further creates the illusion or false sense
>of an external objective world a world that exists apart
>from oneself.

This filtering is conducted in coordination with
others and this is how life-waves are formed.
I would not say that it "creates" the objective
world but rather that it helps define it. The objective world
and the subjective world come into existence together
simultaneously. Then consciousness i.e. the ray of the
DIvine Monad begins a process of self-imaging and
world-imaging.

Eldon:
> It is possible to achieve a pure state of
>awareness in which this activity ceases and we gaze upon
>the actual nature of life.

This state of awareness is called 'samadhi' in
the East and a 'mystical experience' in the West.

JRC:
>And it is usually almost completely unconscious ... and
>formed from a random and motley collection of inborn predilections
>childhood environment and chance events.
Eldon"
>Yes our self-image or personality is a fairly makeshift
>construct mostly build in response to external events in
>our lives.

Now we are talking about this self-imaging
process on the causal plane having to do with the
Reincarnating Ego. This Ego builds up an image
of the personality-to-be on the mental plane prior
to the next incarnation. It does not simply input new
data into the memory banks of the previous "ego"
which is now leaving its Devachan but builds a
whole new one based on the skandhas of the past.
The 'essence' of the old ego is absorbed/assimilated
into the Ego while the new ego forms. This imaging
process then produces the astral prototype which
is among other things an image of the new physical
body. Thus the original self-imaging process begun
at the highest level perpetuates itself down through
the cosmic planes until a new baby is born. In all
cases I see this imaging as having an originality
factor i.e. a certain amount of leeway that must work
within specifically set guidelines constraints. For
example the astral prototype's image is formed by the
Reincarnating Ego working with the genetics of the
parents. As we then go through life this process
continues. But it is not limited to ourselves or our
personalities but to our world as well.

Eldon:
>We do need to take responsibility for what our personalities
>have become. We start off growing and changing only in response
>to external stimuli. With foresight planning and self-direction
>we can enact changes in our lives that are not subject to external
>events but are directed from within. This is a higher form of
>taking charge of our lives.

To my way of thinking this is what real magic is all about.

Eldon:
>One technique for developing certain qualities is to picture
>oneself already having them then acting as those they were
>present in one's life and persisting until seeing them actually
>arise as living qualities. This applies to one's self-image as
>well and to the process of self-transformation.

Yes. This is exactly how magic works.

Eldon to JRC:
>You make the whole thing sound quite dramatic! But it does not
>have to be dramatic but can be as easy a thing as smiling back
>in response to a baby's smile.

I think that when we experience it for the very first time.
it often is very dramatic. However as we ajust and become used
to it we see our world in a new way and smile in response.

Eldon:
>We go back and forth between the notion of a personal self
>and a transcendent awareness. Both modes of viewing life are
>useful in their own respects. The Vajrayana school teaches that
>the two modes need to be balanced in our lives and I've also
>read the Dalai Lama writing to the same effect.

Absolutely. Balance is the key. Imbalance is a very
real danger.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 15:28:02 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Dribble box

Aki:
>I have not watched television for at least five years - I don't like to
>watch it and I never have time to sit and occupy my mind with that stuff.

Except for an occasional news show once or twice a week
I don't watch it either.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 15:48:01 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Dribble box

Re watching TV

My group at the local Library is just beginning to organize an event
for next Mar which is to be nationwide in Apr but March fits
our schedule better called TV -Off. We will contact families who
use the library scouting families & schools in our neighborhood to
participate in pledging not to look at TV for the 04 Thursdays in
Mar & do something else instead.

The literature we got from National TV - Off goes along with your
point of view Aki.

It says that TV can be addictive.
It states that some persons turn on the TV to make them feel better
& that TV does this for the moment but then makes you feel worse.
It says that TV impairs your imagination kids' social graces
reading abilities & attention spans.
Diversions during which one uses one's physical or intellectual
energy is much more satisfying than watching TV.

The mores kids learn from TV are horrendous.

American TV ads try to sell us something for every problem under
the sun. Advertisers aim more & more at children but with improbable
things like hotels & airlines. It seems children have a great deal of
potential influence over their parents' shopping habits.

I myself watch TV - the news & C-span which brings such things as our
Congress' Committee Meetings talks by notables of interest
Interesting press conferences & etc.
We also have 01 station that brings concerts & ballet. I watch that
sometimes. We also have a local station which I look in on that
discusses matters of interest to our town. Late at night when I want
to relax & have a laugh before I turn in I watch reruns of the old
sitcoms. That to me is constructive TV watching. The rest of it belongs
into the nearest garbage dump.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 16:07:02 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re:Re: on pets

>From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re:Re: on pets

Eldon:
>You have an advantage over your cats. In a relationship with them
>you can completely control their lives . . .

You haven't lived with many cats. One cat we owned used to wake my husband up
by biting his nose.

Also there is a certain amount of maintenance and service to a properly kept
pet. Dogs return the favor by keeping watch and cats return the favor by
ridding your place of rodents.

>Whatever environment we find ourselves in -- we adapt to it. The
>same for cats or animals. But how does the nieghborhood compare
>to a completely wild setting without human artifacts?

Depends on the animal. Lions and tigers definitely belong in the wild but
domesticated animals need to live in harmony with people. The native habitat of
the domestic cat is Africa where it is warm. In Chicago many freeze to death
in our cold winters. Right now mine are huddled up against the heating vent
since it was 20 degrees and snowing this morning.

I think the ideal environment for the domestic pet is a farm with lots of room
to roam without getting knocked off by a car and a nice comfy home in the barn
or house. The urban setting isn't the best but it is becoming more and more
the norm. Farms are on the wane as opposed to what they must have been in
Purucker's day.

>Sad. Hopefully he'll find rebirth in a better environment perhaps
>one day on Globe E with the rest of the animal lifewave.

Maybe he wanted to have one wild Scorpion life before he became a home-loving
tabby.. :-

>The idea about not keeping pets is also found in the writings of
>Blavatsky and not solely Purucker. In "The Inner Group Teachings"
>page 116 we find:
>"People who bestow great affection upon animal pets are ensouling
>them to a certain extent and such animal Souls progress very
>rapidly; in return such persons get back the animal vitality and
>magnetism. It is however against Nature thus to accentuate animal
>evolution and on the whole is bad."

Sorry. I just can't buy this.

Not mee either - Liesel

>When we shift our attention away from animals and consider plants
>there does not seem to be any prohibition against keeping house
>plants.

Don't have any. My cats destroyed them all. :-

- ann

My cat has 01 plant with which she can do whatever she wants. In
exchange she has to leave my other plants alone. She did ok except
for my Norfolk Island Pine so I just covered the soil of that with
newspaper to keep her off & she now does.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 16:11:01 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re:Re: on pets

Eldon:
>You have an advantage over your cats. In a relationship with them
>you can completely control their lives . . .

You haven't lived with many cats. One cat we owned used to wake my husband up
by biting his nose.

Also there is a certain amount of maintenance and service to a properly kept
pet. Dogs return the favor by keeping watch and cats return the favor by
ridding your place of rodents.

>Whatever environment we find ourselves in -- we adapt to it. The
>same for cats or animals. But how does the nieghborhood compare
>to a completely wild setting without human artifacts?

Depends on the animal. Lions and tigers definitely belong in the wild but
domesticated animals need to live in harmony with people. The native habitat of
the domestic cat is Africa where it is warm. In Chicago many freeze to death
in our cold winters. Right now mine are huddled up against the heating vent
since it was 20 degrees and snowing this morning.

I think the ideal environment for the domestic pet is a farm with lots of room
to roam without getting knocked off by a car and a nice comfy home in the barn
or house. The urban setting isn't the best but it is becoming more and more
the norm. Farms are on the wane as opposed to what they must have been in
Purucker's day.

>Sad. Hopefully he'll find rebirth in a better environment perhaps
>one day on Globe E with the rest of the animal lifewave.

Maybe he wanted to have one wild Scorpion life before he became a home-loving
tabby.. :-

>The idea about not keeping pets is also found in the writings of
>Blavatsky and not solely Purucker. In "The Inner Group Teachings"
>page 116 we find:
>"People who bestow great affection upon animal pets are ensouling
>them to a certain extent and such animal Souls progress very
>rapidly; in return such persons get back the animal vitality and
>magnetism. It is however against Nature thus to accentuate animal
>evolution and on the whole is bad."

Sorry. I just can't buy this. Neither can I - LFD

>When we shift our attention away from animals and consider plants
>there does not seem to be any prohibition against keeping house
>plants.

Don't have any. My cats destroyed them all. :-

- ann

Chouchou has one plant on the floor with which she's allowed to do
whatever she wishes. In exchange she has to keep off my other
plants. That worked out just fine until she decided to dig around a
bit in my Norfolk Island Pine so I covered its soil with newspaper
& that solved my problem.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 16:21:41 GMT
From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Re: Re to RJI - Fraud vs the Magical Imagination

Eldon...

> >Virtually everyone holds some form of self-image within
> >themselves and it greatly conditions the world they apparently live in
>
> This image is the activity of mind in creating a notion of
> personal self.
>
Actually I believe that to look at this in some greater detail
there are a number of partial self-images some created by the mind but
others not mental ... in fact some perspectives on the Jungian idea of
acrhetypes for instance believe that children are born with
predilections to recognize particular "catagories" - like "Mother" for
instance and activily seek to personalize or particularize these images
.. to find an actual person that fits the catagory - and even further
that several of these latent in-born catagories refer to the self as
well - and all this before a mind has even become functional.

> >.. it functions almost as a filter that determines what few aspects of
> >the totality of the actual world will become apparent to waking
> >consciousness.
>
> It acts as a filter in accepting some perceptions unaltered
> and in rejecting or altering others. But besides that aspect
> of filtering it further creates the illusion or false sense
> of an external objective world a world that exists apart
> from oneself. It is possible to achieve a pure state of
> awareness in which this activity ceases and we gaze upon
> the actual nature of life.
>
Don't quite follow you here - you don't believe there is an
objective world that exists apart from the perceiver? Didn't think you
were a post-modernist -:.

> >I believe what self-imaging magic attempts to do is to first
> >elevate this image from the unconscious up to the light of day that is
> >to take conscious control of what is generally an unconscious assemblege.
>
> We do need to take responsibility for what our personalities
> have become. We start off growing and changing only in response
> to external stimuli. With foresight planning and self-direction
> we can enact changes in our lives that are not subject to external
> events but are directed from within. This is a higher form of
> taking charge of our lives.
I suppose but this isn't the same thing as the specific magical
practices under discussion.

> There's a still higher form of self-direction one which retains
> control but yet takes others into account. This is the same
> initiative to grow and evolve unburdended with the notion of
> having a personal self. In this mode there's never the thought
> of "what's in it for me" but always of "what's best here" even
> if we personally do not end up better off.
Well I'm not sure by what line you are measuring "higher" here
as what you describe seems to be the basic ethics I was taught in
gradeschool - do what is right regardless of whether it causes personal
pleasure or pain etc. etc.

> >.. but ultimately to the point where the transformation itself shatters
> >even the glorified image - hence using an image to finally shatter Image
> >itself.
>
> The sense of "shattering" is a Western experience equalivent
> to the dark night of the soul. An Eastern approach has no such
> experience but rather as Naropa would describe it experiences
> a sense of "eternal delight". The shattering is the experience
> of the destruction of the apparently objective world that we
> thought we know. An Easterner would not have build into his
> psyche a strong dependence upon this illusory objectivity and
> not miss it when it vanishes before our eyes.
Well "Easterner" is a mighty broad term ... perhaps you mean
"some practitioners of some forms and branches of some of the spiritual
traditions" in the East? There are a good number of "Eastern" races that
are every bit as if not more materialistic as "Westerners" and if the
Eastern "psyche" doesn't contain a dependence upon the illusory objective
world Hindus & Muslims probably would not be slaughtering one another in
India the Chinese wouldn't be attempting genocide in Tibet etc. etc.

> You make the whole thing sound quite dramatic! But it does not
> have to be dramatic but can be as easy a thing as smiling back
> in response to a baby's smile.
Isn't this however a matter of style rather than substance?
What ultimate difference does it make whether it is dramatic or subdued?
Some like drama others like quiet contemplation and this may be nothing
but personality nuances that vary from life to life. The world is
currently in the midst of stunning and very rapid change and this has
produced as a natural reaction something close to a collective
obsession with security with minimizing risk with maintaining control
with keeping things quiet and calm.
Looking back through history many religious and spiritual
traditions as well as the type and stages of the "path" they each
describe are often if not usually at least partially *reactions* to
or perhaps vibrations generated to balance the world as it was when
they were born. Religions born in times wild and insecure often encourage
calmness and inner certainty as part of the "path". Religions born in
violent times encourage peace and love as parts of the path etc.

> >... and in
> >seeking and falling in love with *that* image ultimately again
> >bursting through the image - to surface again into the real world
> >outside of the pond.
>
> The sense of "surfacing" is the experience of nondualistic
> consciousness the experience of sunyata or emptiness the
> transcending for the moment of the sense of personal self.
> A "shattering" or "dark night" may be gone through if we're
> heavily attached to our ego our personality the activity of
> manas in creating a sense of self. It does not have to be
> that way thought.
I would say that the only ones that could know this are those
permanently free of form. Perhaps for some it *does* have to be that way.
Besides which whether it has to be or not was not really the discussion
here ... we were talking about the specific path described in western
magic - and by the way not one that I personally practice. In fact I
believe both what is commonly called the "Eastern" and "Western"
approaches are heavily tinted with anachronistic assumptions and could
use to be re-framed from the ground up. As is beginning to happen.

> The idea that the Western and Eastern psyches are different
> and therefore Eastern approaches won't work in the west is
> -- I think -- "sour grapes".
Well a growing body of psychological literature would dispute
this. In fact I've recently been reading a Freudian psychologist who was
western trained but had occaision to practice in India who goes into
great depth about the very profound differences between European and
Indian psyches. This might make an interesting discussion though.

> There have been gaps in access to the spiritual path in the
> West. The initial object of the T.S. was to bring Eastern
> ideas to the West. We also have certain biases that prevent
> us from flowering spiritually. These biases must be taken
> into account when working to bring others to the Path.
Again "East" and "West" seem very confusing and imprecise. Those
"Eastern" ideas are according to the masters not only not uniquely
"Eastern" but in fact are alledged to be behind every major religion
eastern and western in history. And even that "inner" religion that
stands behind all exoteric ones when spoken of by HPB is spoken of as
being present in countless forms all over the world and when she talks
about the different places it has appeared she mentions far more
*western* traditions than "eastern" ones ... in fact when she *named*
our Society she did not use the translation of an *eastern* term but
rather the translation of a *Greek* name that came from the Alexandrian
Philalethians. Even further this "ancient" wisdom was alledgedly present
during historical epochs when the continents themselves looked very
different - our current "east" and "west" would be utterly meaningless if
the landmasses alledged to exist in "Atlantian" times were present.
Any many of the traditions she mentions as definately being aware
of "inner" Theosophy most definately did not simply sit and meditate and
quietly reach the final transformation ... but engaged in all manner of
ceremony and ritual - often quite "dramatic".
-JRC
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 16:22:34 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Regarding pets

Eldon muses

"Is it possible for animals to be given an impulse towards the
human kingdom which they won't be able to fulfill & which takes
them away from their animal evolution"

Eldon I'm thinking hoping that maybe the same rule applies to the
animals as applies to us - the more we learn the better for our
evolution.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 16:41:40 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: TMR

Jerry S. *My understanding & respect for the teachings of theosophy
as given by HPB does not hinge in any way on Mahatmas on Masters
on etc. or on anyone elso who may have taught her.

Ditto - Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 16:46:57 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: TMR

Jerry S * My understanding & respect for the teachings of theosophy
as given by HPB does not hinge in any way on Mahatmas on Masters
on etc. or on anyone else who may have taught her.

Right on - Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 17:55:51 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: "truth"

>Jerry HE
>
>You spoke about *The Truth*. Glad to see you think after all
> that there are different kinds.
>
>Liesel

Liesel

I'm glad that you are glad that I think that there are
different kinds.
As for using the phrase speaking "the truth" about someone;
have you never said to someone who might be questioning your
veracity: "I'm telling the truth"? Have you ever served as a
witness in a trial? If so then you will know that the Bailiff
will have you raise your right hand and say: "I swear to tell
*the truth* *the whole truth* and nothing but *the truth*." The
court is not asking you to only speak when you can utter Absolute
Truth. It is only asking you to speak what you know to be true
based upon your experience and observations. When Mead or Godwin
speak "the truth" about CWL that is all that they are doing and
all that they can do--and I submit that is all you can do
either. To repeat myself again there is no reason to get into
metaphysics here.

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: 09 Nov 1995 17:58:01 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: TMR

JHE
> She is not arguing against the existence of these Masters but
> telling of her efforts to keep Olcott from becoming carried
away
> with his fantasies about them:
> don't see anywhere in the quote you gave that HPB is telling us
> "not to believe her on this subject" but if anything not to
> embroider upon what she does say.

KPJ
A more relevant quote is "I saw with terror and anger the false
track they were all pursuing. The `Masters' as all thought
must be omniscient omnipresent omnipotent...I have desecrated
the holy Truth by remaining too passive in the face of all this
desecration brought on by too much zeal and false ideas." So
while she is not saying "I actively misled people about the
Masters" here although other evidence points in this
direction she is definitely saying that Theosophists have
developed a mythological view of the Masters she saw it
happening and did nothing to stop it. But she wasn't just a
passive nonentity in all this; in fact she fanned the flames
but later regretted it. This was more than she was
willing/able to admit.

JHE
This quote doesn't do it for me either. Yes I see her
expressing regret for not doing enough "remaining too passive"
but I don't see that to mean that "she did nothing to stop it"
and I certainly don't see how you can read into this quote that
she "fanned the flames."

> JHE
> OK. HPB's letters to Sinnett are "fictional"? That's a
new
> one.

KPJ
More fictional than the Durbar in Lahore. Theosophists have
privileged HPB's letters to Sinnett as an ultimate source of
information on the Masters ignoring their conflicts with other
sources. Yet she knew this was going to be published.

JHE
Is this a supposition on your part or do you have a quote
from her or Sinnett showing that she "knew" these letters would
be published? Remember these letters were not published within
HPB's or Sinnett's lifetime. Of course I have heard the theory
that everything that a person writes--even the most private
things in their diaries are written with the unconscious
knowledge that they might be published but I have a hard time
with that theory.

KPJ
Why would she tell more of the truth to him than to others
especially knowing it would appear in a book? Will post
separately on this.

JHE
Because he unlike anyone else had a long term continuous
correspondence with the Masters. I think that would entitle him
to a little more information coming from a mutual friend.

KPJ
> "blinds": Dayal/Djual Endreinek Agardi/Agardi Metrovitch
> Ten-dub Ughien/Ugyen Gyatso Mulraj Singh/Lala Mulraj
> "Krishnavarma" no first name/Shyamaji Krishnavarma not to
> mention Gulab Singh/Ranbir Singh whose father was Gulab and
> Koot Hoomi Lal Singh/Thakar Singh.

> JHE
> You would have made a great English major. That is the fun
> of literary criticism techniques you can create patterns where
> there were no patterns before. It is just a matter of carefully
> selecting the evidence. Now lets see: Damodar is really Djual
> Kuhl; Morya is Metrovich; K.H. is really a blind for Katherine
> Hillard.... Give be a little time and I could find damn good
> arguments to support them.

KPJ
Certainly not obvious similarities of names comparable to those
I cite above.

JHE
Like the theosophical or anti notables: Helena
Blavatsky\Helena Roerich; Daniel Caldwell/Daniel Caracostea;
Mohini Chatterji/Jagadisha Chattapadhyaya; A.J. Davey/Ted G.
Davy; Samuel Dunlap/Daniel Dunlop; John Eglinton/William
Eglinton; Paul Fussell/Joseph H. Fussell; S.A. Gilbert/Robert A.
Gilbert; Richard Hodgson/Geoffrey Hodson; Paul Johnson/Charles
Johnson; Alvin Kuhn/Fritz Kunz etc.? Just think of how much
easier it is to do this with Indian names--they are some much
more common: Singh; Murti; etc. If they are Muslims then it is
even easier since almost everyone is named Muhammad.
I forgot to mention that the fatal flaw of the literary
critic is when they convince themselves that what they wrote is
the truth of the matter.

> JHE
> And who created elaborate "disinformation." Don't you
> consider "disinformation" a deception?

KPJ
Sure. But the point is that Meade explicitly and Campbell and
Washington implicitly assume that the Masters were entirely
fictional. If my work was not an unprecedented way of looking
at the subject it wouldn't have created the splash it has.

JHE
Spash? Probably the number of people in the world who might
care one way of the other are only a few thousand. But among
that audience I would say that you got the attention of many of
them.

> JHE
> I don't blame her for that. Do you?

KPJ
Partly. Creating the ES was an absolutely disastrous mistake
from which sprung almost everything harmful in Theosophical
history after that. Olcott was right on that one.

JHE
If it remained along the lines that she created it and died
with her I think it would have been OK. But I would not blame
the creator for the damage done by her supposed successors.

> KPJ
> Don't have the sources in front of me but HSO called him "one
> of our Masters" as I recall.
>
> JHE
> Where?

KPJ
ODL somewhere; can't find the passage offhand. But he speaks
of the Master of Ceremonies of the Panchen Lama being "one of
our Mahatmas"-- but does so after the death of the Sengchen in
question so may be talking about his successor.

JHE
Let me know when you run across it again.

> JHE
> From HPB's writings. Unless you establish your own
> definition I have to go by HPB's and HSO's usage of the terms.
> In my readings of HPB I have not experienced a blurring of
> "Adept" and "Mahatma." They mean different things. However
an

KPJ
But the emphasis in my book is on the inclusive term "Master."
Whether or not Sankaracharya was called a Mahatma by one of the
Founders if he was called an Initiate Adept capitalized that
makes him a Master. Fine points about Adepts vs. Mahatmas are
entirely beyond the range of confirmation historically;
"Masters" covers both.

JHE
Unless you define your terms your reader can't be expected
to know what you mean.

JHE
> I don't involve myself with that crap. I don't accept
the
> "spiritual authority" of anybody and theosophists with
"received
> views" are no exception. For this reason I'm rejected by the
> inner circle just like you are. The difference is that I never
> wanted to be a part of that inner circle in the first place--

KPJ
You assume something here that is quite untrue. I never wanted
to be part of the inner circle-- just to escape being molested
by it.

JHE
You are assuming something that is quite untrue in my
experience. One cannot be outside of the inner circle and make
unwanted by the inner group contributions to the TM without
being molested. You seem to have missed the dynamics here. To
not be molested you can: 1. be outside of the IC and do nothing;
2. be in the IC and make contributions while under their control;
3. Allow yourself to be co-opted by the IC. To be molested you
can: 1. Thumb your nose at the inner circle and continue to act
according to your conscience. 2. Act according to our conscience
and allow yourself to be hurt by their molestations.

KPJ
> in a way that made it seem false? Remember that HPB said that
> EVERY religions was false on its surface true in its depths.
> Why not apply this to the religion of Theosophy?
>
> JHE
> Because I don't regard Theosophy as a religion.

KPJ
I doubt there's a sociologist or historian of religion who
would agree regardless of any Theosophists' protests. Quacks
like a duck...

JHE
It never occured to me to ask nor does it matter. *I*
don't regard Theosophy as a religion nor was it intended to be
one. For those members of the TS who treat it as a religion the
majority I sometimes think that's their problem--and the
T.S.'s.

> JHE
> What kind of "progress" do you expect? What was you
goal?

KPJ
Some response along the lines of "enough on that issue let's
agree to disagree but what about x?"
JHE
You can't expect to make rules for these things. You had a
choice to respond or not to respond. But suddenly choosing not
to respond in the middle of a debate doesn't look to good.

JHE
> To convince Dan that your thesis is right? Why not forget
about
> "progress" and just defend your thesis against his questions
and
> criticism until he runs out of questions.

KPJ
Why not? The more relevant question is why should I? What is
to be gained? At what cost to me in time and energy? Who will
benefit? The overwhelming consensus of people who have advised
me in private email is-- forget it.

JHE
Those are great questions to ask *before* making the first
response.

> JHE
> That is to be expected. But eventually he will run out.

KPJ
It's been 02 and a half years. Again how much do I owe critics
of my work? A lifelong guaranteed instant response to anything
they come
up with?

JHE
You never owed them anything in the first place. It has
always been your choice.

> JHE
> It isn't the words it is the context in which the words
are
> used. Yes in another context these words may not be
> perjoratives. It is the context of Godwin's usage of these
words
> that is the issue.

KPJ
Actually I wrote the introduction Godwin the preface.

JHE
Fine. But this is not responsive to my point.

JHE
> > Nothing if you had taken the time to relate to the reader
> > HPB's explanation of how Mahatma Letters are transmitted.
> > Otherwise it appears that she was fabricating.
> your thesis concerning the Masters does not address my views
> as stated above one way or the other concerning HPB because
> my opinions of her in these areas do not depend upon the
> existence of the Masters under any definition. Do you
> understand what I'm saying now?

KPJ
I guess. But do you not care whether she took the trouble to
seek out experts in the spiritual traditions she wrote about
to learn from them firsthand?

JHE
No.

> JHE
> If she had perpetuated a fraud but never came clean with
> it than I would still consider her a fraud. Feeling sorry is
> not sufficient repentance. There also has to be restitution.

KPJ
I see the vast majority of her writings that appeared after
her departure from India and after she started to downplay the
Masters as restitution.

JHE
I don't. I see some as exposing the sham that was pulled on
her e.g. "Why I do Not Return to India" and her philosophical
writings e.g. the ~Secret Doctrine~ as perhaps showing the world
what she was really capable of.

My copy of your message broke off at this point but
hopefully this is food for thought.

Cheers

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: 09 Nov 1995 18:00:08 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: blinds

> JHE
> A blind is not a lie or a fabrication but are usually
> created by making generalizations in order to avoid giving
> specific information. HPB was consistent in how she created
> blinds going all the way back at least to ~Isis Unveiled.~

JS
I think that "blind" goes beyond generalizations and does
enter into the area of fibs on occasion. For example HPB
says that all of the names of the Talas are blinds. Then says
"Rasatala is a blind within a blind for Rasa taste belongs
to the next Tala." Inner Group Teachings p. 58. This
looks like an example of deliberate distortion or
disinformation to me.

JHE
Yes I remember reading this. However HPB was talking
about blinds used in Indian texts. My discussion with Paul
concerns "blinds" within HPB's writings. I don't believe that
HPB ever used the techniques that she attributed to the Indian
writings. I have seen no real evidence of it nor do I see any
reason for her to do it. If you look at her pre 1880 writings
and how she treated subjects that concern teaching that hadn't
yet been introduced e.g. seven principles reincarnation etc.
it has been my experience that she slides around them by
generalizing not by creating elaborate blinds as she says the
Indians did. I'm open to see any solid examples of such a thing
but haven't seen anything that looks like a consistent and
substantive pattern yet. I believe HPB wrote the ~SD~ to help
people to better understand the esoteric philosophy--not to
further obscure it.

JHE
> And who created elaborate "disinformation." Don't you
>consider "disinformation" a deception?

JS
It *is* a deception but a deliberately crafted
one that the "initiated" should be able to see through
while the "unititated" either become confused and give
up or obtain disinformation.

JHE
Now the question is does that kind of "disinformation"
exist in HPB's writings? I'm not convinced that it does.

JHE
> IMO your thesis concerning the Masters does not address my
>views as stated above one way or the other concerning HPB
> because my opinions of her in these areas do not depend upon
> the existence of the Masters under any definition

JS
I agree with you on this. If the Masters were somehow proved to
be fabrications or "blinds" as Paul would have it this would
not change my opinion of HPB or my view of theosophy at all.
My understanding and respect for the teachings of theosophy as
given by HPB does not hinge in any way on Mahatmas on Masters
on Initiates on Adepts or on anyone else who may have taught
her.

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: 09 Nov 1995 20:02:34 GMT
From: Aki Korhonen <akikorho@paju.oulu.fi>
Subject: Re: Dribble box

Hello Ann and the others.

On 26 199510 Ann E. Bermingham wrote:

> 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.

Television is a really sad phenomenon.

There are so many devious facets upon this matter that I won't even want
to mention them all.

1. But the most harmful effect in TV-watching is that it steals a person's
most valuable property - time.

Time is the only real material posession we have. Nowadays people are
very busy at managing their living; they work hard and take care of their
families. So they already are very occupied. When they would have some
time to develop their thinking psyche and spiritual consciousness - what
they do? Watch TV.

2. TV destroys Imagination.

Our minds have a capability to produce images from within - imagination.
When this apparatus is put against a machine which shoots rapidly
changing pictures at the speed of 25 pcs/second they are not moving
pictures only rapidly changing it can't compete with it. After years
of conditioning to this notorious habit our brains accustom to get
"images" from outside and after that the imagination is lost.

3. It is imbossible to think when watching TV.

I have noticed that there are two different things; observation and
thinking. So when we watch e.g. a tree we must turn our attention away
from watching when we want to reflect upon what we observed. In normal
life this occurs very fast and unnoticed but it is so. I think. When
you watch television the images change very quicly so you have to wacth
them continously. And there is no time for thinking. Have you noticed
how hard it is to follow some document program which would require thinking?
At least in Finland many people say that they go to wacth TV - to relax
so that they don't have to think. I think this is literally true.

On the other hand. Feeling emotions happen at the same time with
sensation - when we taste something tasty or bad see something beatiful
smell something - we instantly feel antipahty delight joy etc. When
watching television it is impossible to think but all emotions go
through! I think this is a very dangerous combination.

4. TV is a major part of mass-media mass-media is the major tool to
stupefy and control peoples.

- This would be an other issue.

5. People are 'unconsciouss' 'at sleep' to wake up is very difficult
and requires a lot of conscious effort. If a person is conditioned to
tv-watching from early age it will be quite a miracle if he/she ever wake up.

6. Some people are addicted to TV.

Virtual Reality is soon a Reality. I think that those people who are now
accustomed to TV have no hope after first contact to VR.

7. Radiation.

8. Nursing kids by tv.

9. Violence.

10. Bad collective consiousness.

11. Literal brain-damage.

Israelian scientist Moshe Aronson made a research in which he noted
that watching television may and probably will generate
Altzheimer-disease and to destroy some brains. The mechanism is
shortly; in television broadcasts the light entertainment and grave
matters and disasters change quite rapidly. A person watching them don't
react outwardily like shouting laughing or crying. This causes a
stress-hormon clycokorticostisteroid or something like that to appear
this stress-hormon affects a hippocampus in brains - damaging that. The
result: Altzheimer disease. I have the info of the original source if
somebody wants to check

Do you remember the 'Orwellian' dystopia in which people were
brainwashed by screens at their homes? Is it not the present situation?
But it has been done so cleverly that people do it voluntarily - in the
Orwell's book they were forced to it.

I have not watched television for at least five years - I don't like to
watch it and I never have time to sit and occupy my mind with that stuff.

I have not followed mass-media at general neither for some years.

Can or will you live without television?

Peace.
aki korhonen.
Oulu.Finland.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 22:49:41 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Dangerous TSA Bylaw Changes Part 02

JRC:

>Pass this stuff thus completeing the institutionalization of a
>specific and to some very narrow view of Theosophy that began several
>years ago and has now used manipulation of the by-laws to virtually lock
>out anyone that would dissent from this point of view from holding
>office and yet another schism ... that has been brewing beneath the
>surface for awhile now ... will surface before long.

The tendency is both in the right direction and wrong direction at
the same time. Theosophical groups need more clearly-defined focus
and yet need an broader appeal.

>Funny that in a world that has seen a massive wave of
>liberalization sweep through it ... that has seen business political
>religious and social leaders forced to acknowledge that authoritarian
>centralized top-down leadership is becoming less and less effective as
>the days pass that the TS appears to be rowing like the devil upstream.

The loss of centralized control comes with general education and the
ability of the common citizen member to think for himself. When
the leadership of a culture or organization has the power money
and education they call the shots. When there is a near-universal
access to education and training in how to think an hierarchical
approach fails to work except with the exertion of power.

On the other hand a hierarchical approach is fine with regard to
spiritual schools. The individual still has freedom to pick which
school to join so the sense of authority is granted by the followers
rather than demanded by the leaders.

There could be a generalized Theosophical Society with only the
requirement of universal brothernood but no specific teachings
or practices. Everyone in it would be recognized as part of the
theosophical 'sangha'. Apart from that T.S. there could be a
multitude of actual spiritual schools that evolve and specialize
over time each with their respective methods of training. Some
of those schools could be guru-based like Vajrayana Buddhism.

These specialized schools are comparable to SIG's special
interest groups but not under the official control of the
primary T.S.

Perhaps your objection is that the T.S. appears to be moving
in the direction of becoming a single specialized school rather
than retaining its broad approach with room for everyone to belong
and follow their own interests?

>PS. Say anyone for a palace coup? Or perhaps starting a new TS?

Not another T.S. per se but *several* theosophical schools.
There's no reason why one such school couldn't be formulated
along the lines that you perfer and another along lines I'd
find more suitable. Each school could specialized in its own
way. And our different paths could cross as members of a
generic T.S.

If we want this to happen we need to do two things. 01 Work
to keep the T.S. generic in nature not giving a strong slant
according to our individual preferences. 02 Focus our needs
to go further and to specialize theosophy into companion
organizations independent yet in respectful cooperation with
the overall theosohical community.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 09 Nov 1995 23:50:45 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Re to RJI - Fraud vs the Magical Imagination

JRC:

>>Virtually everyone holds some form of self-image within
>>themselves and it greatly conditions the world they apparently live in

>Actually I believe that to look at this in some greater detail
>there are a number of partial self-images some created by the mind but
>others not mental

Yes the idea of a consistent single self is an illusion.
There are many parts to our psyche. Normally they act in cooperation
through phase-locking? and we have a single personality. Sometimes
they don't and we have cases of multiple personalities or
schizophrenia.

>... in fact some perspectives on the Jungian idea of
>acrhetypes for instance believe that children are born with
>predilections to recognize particular "catagories" - like "Mother" for
>instance and activily seek to personalize or particularize these images

And this also agrees with the theosophical idea of Root Races and
subraces where there are patterns of consciousness that we are
born into. These patterns have a structure and manner of behavior --
as much so as our physical bodies themselves.

>.. to find an actual person that fits the catagory - and even further
>that several of these latent in-born catagories refer to the self as
>well - and all this before a mind has even become functional.

The tendency of our psyche to work in a certain way is like the
tendency of our physical body to work a certain way. In either case
we are subject to the structure and limitations of our constitution.
But it is possible to exist apart from the physical body just as it
is possible to exist in a higher center of consciousness than the
psyche. And I expect that it's just as possible to have a mind-born
body mayavi-rupa as it is to have a mind-born psyche.

>> it further creates the illusion or false sense
>> of an external objective world a world that exists apart
>> from oneself.

>Don't quite follow you here - you don't believe there is an
>objective world that exists apart from the perceiver? Didn't
>think you were a post-modernist -:.

There is one and there isn't. In an absolute sense everything
is unreal and subjective to the viewer. This is the viewpoint of
emptiness. In a relative sense taking the viewpoint of fullness
the external world exists and we participate in it according to
external law. From the former standpoint we can perceive life
without the bias of culture-specific archetypes. From the later
standpoint we are personalities subject to the archteypes of
our particular culture.

>I believe what self-imaging magic attempts to do is to first
>elevate this image from the unconscious up to the light of day that is
>to take conscious control of what is generally an unconscious assemblege.
> [this is a] specific magical practice

This is taking the standpoint of the personality the human
psyche and attempting to bring into conscious awareness other
psychological content.

The psychological model is one that describes the functioning
of consciousness in the West. It is easier to understand than
an approach that might discount the psyche and train one to
function apart from it. This does not mean a loss of consciousness
or control in one's life. It is the shattering of this false
sense of personal self the psyche that leads to pure perception.

The western psyche is rigid heavily formed and has a sense of
shattering when it is eliminiated for a time; this is the
"dark night of the soul" or the collapse of one's worldview.

The esatern psyche is more fluidic and can dissolve without
a feeling of collapse allowing the Easterner to more readily
move back and forth between a sense of emptiness and fullness or
a sense of absolute and a sense of relative reality.

>> There's a still higher form of self-direction one which retains
>> control but yet takes others into account. ... In this mode
>> there's never the thought of "what's in it for me" but always
>> of "what's best here" even if we personally do not end up better off.

>Well I'm not sure by what line you are measuring "higher" here
>as what you describe seems to be the basic ethics I was taught

In one case a student sees the emptiness in external life and
the illusory nature of the world and simply achieves liberation
for a time entering into a state of bliss. In the other case a
student also sees the emptiness in emptiness and has no reason
to leave the world before the manvantara is over. In this case
there is no real reason to leave so one remains here teaching
and sharing what one knows. Either type of person has compassion
but the first time cannot see that nirvana is no more real than
life in the external world and drops out.

>Well "Easterner" is a mighty broad term

Yes yes yes ... It's a generalization to contrast Westerners
with Easterners. But the contrast is useful for it shows the biases
and limitations in western thought.

>> You make the whole thing sound quite dramatic!

>Isn't this however a matter of style rather than substance?
>What ultimate difference does it make whether it is dramatic or subdued?

True achieving the goal is what is important. Depending upon
one's background the experience will be different.

>Some like drama others like quiet contemplation and this may be
>nothing but personality nuances that vary from life to life.

There are individual preferences between drama and low-key
experiences. But this is something different. The experience of
shattering that a Westerner may have is due to a pathological state
of mind that many Easterners may not share. The sense of "eternal
delight" is not particular to Easterners but is shared by anyone
having thrown off the burden of personality.

>The world is currently in the midst of stunning and very rapid
>change and this has produced as a natural reaction something
>close to a collective obsession with security with minimizing
>risk with maintaining control with keeping things quiet and calm.

There's a natural tendency for people to seek a comfort zone and
not grow in life. Entering the Path is the opposite of this. There
is considerable turbluence arising in one's life on the Path. The
sense of peace and unshakable calm is in one's consciousness not
often in the external circumstances of one's life.

>Looking back through history many religious and spiritual
>traditions as well as the type and stages of the "path" they each
>describe are often if not usually at least partially *reactions* to
>or perhaps vibrations generated to balance the world as it was when
>they were born.

Agreed. Public religions and spiritual traditions were customized
to their ages. But once an individual has awakened to the Path again
there were also Mysteries that went beyond the culture-specific.

>Religions born in times wild and insecure often encourage
>calmness and inner certainty as part of the "path". Religions born in
>violent times encourage peace and love as parts of the path etc.

True. But when someone goes beyond what is taught to the masses
the timeless truths and methods of training would be revealed.

>> The sense of "surfacing" is the experience of nondualistic
>> consciousness the experience of sunyata or emptiness the
>> transcending for the moment of the sense of personal self.

>I would say that the only ones that could know this are those
>permanently free of form.

We may disagree here. I would say that this experience is
available *in our consciousness* without regard for whether
we are embodied or not.

>In fact I believe both what is commonly called the "Eastern"
>and "Western" approaches are heavily tinted with anachronistic
>assumptions and could use to be re-framed from the ground up.
>As is beginning to happen.

The exoteric religions are anachronistic but the Mystery
traditions are not. But agreed that we need to reframe new
approaches for the West. And this is part of the theosophical
work. There may be several approaches that we establish
along different lines suitable to different types of people.
Perhaps you'll help frame one such approach and I'll help
frame yet another?

>> The idea that the Western and Eastern psyches are different
>> and therefore Eastern approaches won't work in the west is
>> -- I think -- "sour grapes".

>Well a growing body of psychological literature would dispute
>this. In fact I've recently been reading a Freudian psychologist who was
>western trained but had occaision to practice in India who goes into
>great depth about the very profound differences between European and
>Indian psyches.

It is not I think that the psyches are fundamentally different
but that there is a greater degree of rigidity in western psyches
making it different for Westerners to follow unfamiliar spiritual
techniques. It is the Freudian's personal limitations that prevent
him from undertaking an eastern practice and not a generic limitation
experienced by all Westerners due to having a different type of psyche.

>Those "Eastern" ideas are ... alledged to be behind every major religion
>eastern and western in history.

True.

>And even that "inner" religion that stands behind all exoteric ones
>when spoken of by HPB is spoken of as being present in countless
>forms all over the world

Agreed. I'm taking about the exoteric forms and attempting to outline
some of the limitations in the West. The purpose of the contrast is to
show *what is publically missing* not to deny the present of the
Masters and the Mysteries in the West.

>Any many of the traditions she mentions as definately being aware
>of "inner" Theosophy most definately did not simply sit and meditate and
>quietly reach the final transformation ... but engaged in all manner of
>ceremony and ritual - often quite "dramatic".

And perhaps some forms of Theosophy that we'll help specialize
will take one or the other approach. There is nothing wrong with
the dramatic per se nor with karma yoga. But sitting in zazen
can also be something highly profitable to oneself and others
even if there are no apparent immediate affects on the physical
plane.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 10 Nov 1995 02:02:58 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: How's this?

>
> AB
> Smile - you're on the internet <0 0>
> I
> <--->
>
> JHE
>
> How's this? <0 0>
> I
> *..*
>

A bit like your photo?

Alan
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 10 Nov 1995 02:07:02 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: on pets

I get on fine with my cat just so long as I do as I'm told.

I append a short verse of mine written in 1965 with apologies
to the ultra-sensitive:

A pupil of Madame Blavtasky
Encountered a cat with a ratsky;
She said "Find another
For that is your mother
>From the last life but one before thatsky."

<sheepish grin>

Alan
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 10 Nov 1995 06:17:13 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Re: Dribble box

>Re watching TV
>
>My group at the local Library is just beginning to organize an event
>for next Mar which is to be nationwide in Apr but March fits
>our schedule better called TV -Off. We will contact families who
>use the library scouting families & schools in our neighborhood to
>participate in pledging not to look at TV for the 04 Thursdays in
>Mar & do something else instead.
>
>The literature we got from National TV - Off goes along with your
>point of view Aki.
>
>It says that TV can be addictive.
>It states that some persons turn on the TV to make them feel better
>& that TV does this for the moment but then makes you feel worse.
>It says that TV impairs your imagination kids' social graces
>reading abilities & attention spans.
>Diversions during which one uses one's physical or intellectual
>energy is much more satisfying than watching TV.
>
>The mores kids learn from TV are horrendous.
>
>American TV ads try to sell us something for every problem under
>the sun. Advertisers aim more & more at children but with improbable
>things like hotels & airlines. It seems children have a great deal of
>potential influence over their parents' shopping habits.
>
>I myself watch TV - the news & C-span which brings such things as our
>Congress' Committee Meetings talks by notables of interest
>Interesting press conferences & etc.
>We also have 01 station that brings concerts & ballet. I watch that
>sometimes. We also have a local station which I look in on that discusses
matters of
>interest to our town. Late at night when I want to relax & have a
>laugh before I turn in I watch reruns of the old sitcoms. That to
>me is constructive TV watching. The rest of it belongs into the
>nearest garbage dump.
>
>Liesel
>
I remember reading a book called The Plug-in Drug a few years ago. Even then
it was saying the same thing. I wonder if the TV bosses give a toss what is
happening to the populace. Money talks louder.
Bee>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 10 Nov 1995 06:40:16 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Dribble box

Aki:
>Can or will you live without television?

In the early years of our marriage my husband and I did not own a television
but succumbed when science fictions shows began to appear.

In Chicago we are lucky to have a very good public television station and
channel 50 a UHF station that are alternatives to network TV. PBS runs a lot
of documentaries and children's shows and is supported for the most part by
subscriptions from the viewers escaping the trap of commercial television
where the sponsors call the shots.

I refer to Channel 50 as the "Hero With A 1000 Faces Channel" because they run
so many series that feature men with some special power or skill that they use
to defeat evil where ever they go. Our favorite is Babylon 05 a science
fiction series that is also popular in Europe. It's straight line story that
will unfold over five years time a novelty in US TV. Most series are episodic
with no real beginning or end. The scriptwriter Michael Stryczynski is taking
risks I have never seen before by being "blatantly spiritual" in his stories.
This mythic wonder is an example of what television could be if the networks and
sponsors weren't solely concerned with demographics and selling products.

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 10 Nov 1995 06:57:01 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Re: on pets

>
>I get on fine with my cat just so long as I do as I'm told.
>
>I append a short verse of mine written in 1965 with apologies
>to the ultra-sensitive:
>
>A pupil of Madame Blavtasky
>Encountered a cat with a ratsky;
>She said "Find another
>For that is your mother
>>From the last life but one before thatsky."
>
><sheepish grin>
>
>Alan
>--
>Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>-----------------------------------------------
>
I know that is so said the ratsky
And told this cat it was risky.
I wasn't a good mother
Got my son into bother.
This is my Karma he's come to fulfillsky.

Thanks for the laugh it really tickled my funnybone. I nearly parted
company with my chair.
Regards Bee.>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 10 Nov 1995 13:15:44 GMT
From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: TMR ------- A Question or two

KPJ writes: Don't have the sources in front of me but HSO called him "one
of our Masters" as I recall.

JHE: Where?

KPJ replies: ODL somewhere; can't find the passage offhand. But he speaks
of the Master of Ceremonies of the Panchen Lama being "one of
our Mahatmas"--but does so after the death of the Sengchen in question
so may be talking about his successor.

I will supply the exact source for this and then ask a question or two.

In ODL Fourth Series 1975 printing p. 06 Olcott writes:

"Leaving his home at Darjeeling Nov 7th 1881 he [Sarat Chandra Das]
..reached Tashi-Lhunpo the capital of the Tashi Lama whose Master of
Ceremonies one of our own revered Mahatmas is.

To rearrange the words: The Tashi Lama's Master of Ceremonies is one of our
own revered Mahatmas.

I would have thought Johnson would have regarded this piece of information
as DISINFORMATION. We'll see the future brings.

In TMR in the chapter entitled "Senghcen Tulku" Johnson writes in two places:

"It seems likely that her [HPB's] claim of a connection to the court of the
Paanchen Lama also called the Tashi or Trashi Lama is based on reality.
This is supported by Olcott who writes in Old Diary Leaves of `the Tashi
Lama whose Master of Ceremonies one of our own revered Mahatmas is....."
p. 198

"Olcott's allusion to the master of ceremonies in Tashilhunpo was made
several years later. This may be a posthumous reference to Sengchen but
it might also imply that at least ONE FRIEND of the T.S. escaped the
purge which cost Sengchen his life."

Who might this ONE FRIEND be?

We see that Johnson in TMR says that this "Master of Ceremonies" might be
Sengchen or might be "at least one friend of the T.S. [who] escaped."

In his theos-l posting on TMR Johnson also says it might be a reference
to Sengchen's successor.

Actually I like the one possibility: a "friend of the T.S.". Who could
that be?

Is Johnson saying that he is open to the possibility that the "Master of
Ceremonies" was a "friend of the T.S." who escaped from the Tibetan "authori-
ties"? That is that Olcott's reference to the "Master of Ceremonies" does
NOT necessarily refer to Sengchen or to Sengchen's successor?

Could Sengchen's position be truly described as the Tashi Lama's "Master of
Ceremonies" or could someone else have had that "job"?

I would have thought that Blavatsky and Olcott's references to Tibet Tashi
Lama and his "Master of Ceremonies" would have been interpreted by Johnson
as only "sand in their eyes" that is DISINFORMATION put out by Blavatsky
and Olcott ODL first appeared in "The Theosophist" a *public* journal to
obscure the true real origins of HPB's Teachers and Teachings. Distract
from India to mysterious Tibet seems to be the theme of Johnson's latest
two books.

This also brings up another of my pestering questions?

Johnson suggests in TMR p. 193 and elsewhere that Sarat Chandra Das
brought from Tibet from The Tashi Lama's own collections the manuscripts
of the Stanzas of Dzyan and The Book of the Golden Precepts and HPB was
secretly given these MSS which she finally published in THE SECRET DOCTRINE
1888 and THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE 1889.

WHEN did Das bring these MSS back to India? Date? And when did HPB possibly
get her hands on these manuscripts? Does any one have any thoughts
suggestions or dates on these.

David Reigle described in TMR by Johnson as "a student of Tibetan has
kindly given me his insights on Johnson's speculation that HPB got these
MSS from Das.

I am throughly enjoying this dialgoue between PJ and JHE and apoligize
for the interruption.

Daniel Caldwell
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 10 Nov 1995 13:54:59 GMT
From: RIhle@aol.com
Subject: JRC/RJI

JRC
Greetings R I think I met you at a TS Annual Summer thing several years
ago ... good to see your inadvertantly enigmatic presence here on the
list -: ...

RJI
I thought I should show up from time to time since I will be taking over
the T.S. in a few years.

JRC
Good lord man why in the *world* would you want to do *that*?

RJI
I didn't say I want to; I just said I will be. If the international
president feels it is appropriate to try to officially influence the
doctrinal tone of the Society by publicly praying to the Masters for their
help and blessings she shouldn't take it amiss when one or more actually
show up to straighten things out.

Intention is everything

Richard Ihle
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 10 Nov 1995 16:59:04 GMT
From: M K RAMADOSS <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Dangerous TSA Bylaw Changes Part 01

At 112700 PM 11/10/95 -0500 you wrote:
>JRC
>
>Chuckles back.
>
> Liesel

I did not get the full msg. Please check and resend the msg.
This is a subject on which many members are still in the dark
and do not fully understand the full implications of the proposed
changes.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 10 Nov 1995 18:26:56 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Dangerous TSA Bylaw Changes Part 01

JRC

Chuckles back.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 10 Nov 1995 18:31:58 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Dangerous TSA Bylaw Changes Part 02

Eldon

Dream on McDuff about your Sangha.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 11 Nov 1995 03:51:15 GMT
From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Initiate

Say has anyone read the "Initiate" trilogy _The Initiate_ The Initiate
in the New World_ and _The Initiate in the Dark Cycle_? It was
published anonymously but I think the author was Cyril Scott - who also
wrote _The Greater Awareneess_.
Comments on the books?
-JRC
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 11 Nov 1995 05:35:39 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: blinds

JHE:> I don't believe that
>HPB ever used the techniques that she attributed to the Indian
>writings. I have seen no real evidence of it nor do I see any
>reason for her to do it.

Agreed.

JHE
> Now the question is does that kind of "disinformation"
>exist in HPB's writings? I'm not convinced that it does.

Nor am I. However she deliberately held some
material back. Using the 7-Globe 4-Plane GV Model for
example when her figure in the SD clearly shows us that
there are more than 07 Globes and 04 planes. She also
deliberately IMHO avoided talking about the Abyss or
Daath which is a key issue in the Qabala. I agree that her
omissions are not not really the blinds used in many
ancient texts.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 11 Nov 1995 06:45:28 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Dribble box

Bee

If more people watch less of the garbage I think it'd have an
impact on the TV industry exactly because money talks. They bring
what sells which is what you were saying.

Dunno whether I mentioned it in my post but TV-Off is
going to be a national event in Apr. That should have an impact.
They're doing it during a week when our schools are on vacation &
since most of our mothers work & can't be with the kids that much
during the day
we're not having our TV-Off when the others are having it. We'd
never get
anyone to participate. Besides National says to involve the
politicians the newspaper & etc. Ours is going to be much smaller
for the first one. If it goes over well we'll expand next year.

I wonder whether TV in New Zealand is as commericalized as ours. I
was watching just now while I had my breakfast especially for the
commercials geared to kids. Disgusting! I turned to the news. That
was full of reports of genocide in the former Yougoslavia. Maybe it's
preferable to watch kids promote cereal with a lot of the
natural nutrients taken out & artifical stuff "additives" put back in.
That's only misdusing your body not torturing & killing it.

Your week-end is half over. Enjoy the rest of it. I've rented a car
& today will go to the art supply store & also get some slacks.

Loveya

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 11 Nov 1995 09:27:37 GMT
From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com>
Subject: Don2Leisel: Brains consciousness ect

Hi Liesel!

Sorry for the delay getting back to you but I've been very busy lately.

< I'm under the impression
that you're busy doing something like your PhD thesis. Are you?
What on?>

I'm getting my PhD at Wayne State University here in Detroit MI. My work is in
a field called "cerebral ischemia and resucitation". What we study is the kind
of brain damage people get after they have a heart attack. The work entails
mostly a lot of biochemistry.

I hope to have my PhD in about 4-6 months.

< I understand that you're interested in what you aptly call
altered states of consciousness>

unfortunately this is seperate from my PHD work. The study of ASC is still not
accepted in acadamia. I hope that once I get my PhD I will be able to somehow
move into the ASC field and do work in that area. Right now my research into
ASC is all done on my own time and is completely seperate from my acadmic and
professional life. Nonetheless I think the sciece I have done studying ASC is
better than the science I have done on brain biochemistry!

<I got the impression from Harry &
maybe from Serge too that we're dealing with faster & faster vibe
frequencies.>

With regard to ASC the traditional occult and theosophical idea is that these
are faster vibrations and frequencies. However though I acknowledge this
viewpoint it presents too many technical obstacles as a fruitful line of
inquiry. So instead I work with the idea that altered states result from
different actions or states of the brain. This line of thinking is much easier
to pursue experimentally. One can study their own dreams and as you mentioned
with LSD there are drugs that affect the brain and create altered states and
this makes studying the hypothesis that altered states come about from changes
in the brain much easier to study.

< What is a PET scanner like and a CT scanner & what other
technologies are
available today.>

Well given that you could go into our medical library at school and get about
10 books on each of these topics there is no way I can explain fully what these
technologies are so I'll give you a quick and simple idea.

CT is easy to understand. CTs are X-ray machines hooked up to fancy computers
that let you take 3-dimensional X-rays of the brain. So you can use CTs to see
if there are any abnormalitis in a persona brain like if there is a tumor up
there or something like that.

MRI is a lot more complicated to understand. MRI works on the principle that
atoms are like little magnets. And you know how magnets attract one another:
north poles repel north poles but attract south poles and vice versa for south
poles of a magnet. Well again atoms behave in exactly the same fashion. MRI
means "magnetic resonance imaging". What you do in an MRI is put a person in a
big magnet and this big magnet makes the atoms in the persons brain line up with
it. See normally we are not in a big magnet so the atoms of our brain kind of
just move along anyway they please. But when you apply the magnet it makes the
atoms move and line up with the direction of the magnet so that the north poles
of the atoms line up with the south pole of the applied magnet. And it takes a
ceratin amount of energy to cause the atoms to line up like this and an MRI
machine can measure that energy.

Well clever people have figured out how to use these energy measurements to
reconstruct a 3-dimensional picture of people's brains. And I'll spare you the
details cause I don't even know then that well!

So the bottom line is that MRI CT scanners and PET scanners all work to let
doctors see 03 dimensional images of peoples brains without having to cut the
person open. These are very very powerful tools.

<Well I think philosophers *did* take scientific info into their
philosophies. >

Sure they do Liesel. But the thing is science is always changing as new
methods and ideas are worked out. Philosophers take whatever is current and try
to build some kind of "absolute" viewpoint from the temporary notions of
science. And furthermore the distort the science very very badly in the
process.

Yes lets take the uncertainty principle. Most philosophers use this idea to
make vast generalizations about knowledge and about Nature. On the other hand
the simple truth is that the uncertainty principle is a consequence of certain
ideas in mathematics. To illustrate you know that if you mutliply 2x3 that
this equals 06 right? And also if you mutliply 3x2 that this also equals 6. In
other words changing the order in which you multiply two numbers doesn't affect
the outcome of the multiplication. Well this is true with numbers but it is
NOT true with another mathematical entity called a "matrix". I won't explain
what a matrix is but it doesnt have this same property. If you multiply two
matricies the order you multiply them in DOES make a different. Thus if you
have two matricies call them A and B then AxB does not equal BxA. This
mathematial idea is quite literally where the uncertainty principle comes from.
It is a consequance of the math used by physicists to make up mathematical
statements about their experiments. But you never hear this idea. Instead you
here all this two-bit drama about how we can never understand nature because of
this thing called the uncertainty principle. However such interpretations are
many steps removed from the math and the fact is its the math that is
important not the interpertation. Thus this is why I am critical of
philosophies built upon scientific ideas. Again to repeat the science itself
changes and second the philosophers take the science out of context. Its like
the phone game or something: by the time the message gets back around its
totally distorted.

<I don't know about posting my article on theos-buds>

If you are not comfortable with the idea then don't do it.

< More important
you're willing to take a bit of a risk to experiment around & I
think that's what's needed & good>

I don't think of it as taking a risk at all. The way I see it God gave us a
mind to use to explore things not to fill with a bunch of ideas that make us
feel smug and pompus.

<"To understand as much
about a thing as is
possible and not to close your mind to alternatives" can be rather
dificult. Because we're very used to hooking something new on to
something we're familiar with.>

Yeah I call this "complacency" and its a bad mental habit. People misuse
ideas. They use ideas as ego boosts and as tools to manipulate other people.
When I said I use yoga to purify my mind I mean that yoga teaches not to misuse
your mind in these fashions. Yoga teaches how to overcome the egotisitical
urges that drive people and it teaches how to use mind as an organ of truth.

<Also I once
read parts of CWL's description of Devachan to a friend. He said that
it was very similar to his good LSD trips taken years ago when he was
in college. Could you take that as some kind of a proof? >

Yes I take LSD experiences as proof of occult teachings in a way at least. I
too have done much experimenting with LSD and also discovered that LSD
experinces are very much like the things Leadbeater taught about. Studying LSD
is one of my major lines of thinking. I have some writing about this available
on the internet if you are interested.

<I wonder what your view of magnifying is because I've also heard of
that etheric tube & also that one can learn to make one that makes
things smaller. I think it's so without really having any proof
myself just trusting the source I heard it from.>

Again this goes back to what I said above about using the hypothesis that
altered states are due to changes in the brain because its easier to study the
brain than it is to say proove that an etheric tube exists. What I have
discovered is that LSD causes magnifying clairvoaynce. I have also experienced
magnifying clairvoance in my astral projections a couple times. Anyway I have
recently developed a theory about how changes in the activity of the brain could
lead to magnifying clairvoayance. Again I have a file of this availble which
I could send you if you wish to read about my theory. It is very erudite
however.

<I don't quite understand what you say about brain research. I think
the TS ought to incorporate all the new stuff in its thinking but to me
whatever the brain does is not the highest
function>

Well what I am saying is that this remains to be seen. What kind of proof is
there one way or the other that the brain is not the highest function? If
someone is going to make this claim they better have some kind of evidence to
back this up. And the truth is Leisel there is good evidence to support the
idea that the brain is the highest function. One line of evidence is LSD. LSD
changes the brain and in doing so it gives people mystical insight under the
proper conditions it is not quite so simple as this in practice. So in this
case the proof is readily available: eat the LSD and see for yourself. On the
other hand if you take the opposite viewpoint you have to find some way to
demonstrate it some way to show that you can have "buddhic consciousness"
without having the brain involved. This would be a very tough thing to
demonstrate. Now if people want to go around and say that the brain is not the
highest function and just believe it without trying to demonstrate it well
that is there buisness and its not something I want anything to do with because
its simply dogma and talk.

<ness life whatever you
wish to call it which is much more than the brain. I can sometimes perceive
it in another person's eyes and mopvements & in my little cats eyes & being.
To me there is spirit & it's not just the brain. It activates the brain & the
rest of the
body. & not all the experiments in China can convince me that the
brain is all there is.>

Well if you don't want to look at the evidence of experiments then you have
closed your mind and nothing I can say can convince you otherwise right?

See to me such an attitude is not only a misuse of the mind it is also
callous and insensitive. Do you have any idea what doctors have to deal with
when they deal with a person with brain damage? I mean serious brain damage
that messs up a persons mind not simple brain damage that just paralyzes a
person. When a person suffers serious damage to the frontal lobes of their
brain that spark that you see in the eyes dissappers. But you don't know this.
When have you ever had to deal with a person with damage to the frontal lobes of
their brain? Or when people are made vegatables because of damage to their
brain. How can you be so insensitive to not try to put yourself in the shoes of
the doctors and scientist who have to deal with these kinds of realities every
day or their life? which you and most other theosophist don't. You and other
normal people take your normal life completely for granted. Go spend some time
with people with Alzheimer's disease or people who have had very serious brain
damage and then come back to me and spout your cute little myths about souls
and spirits and "buddhic consciousness".

I'm sorry if I sound angry but I am. People take so much for granted and they
never stop and think about what they are saying. Doctors and scientists that
talk about what the brain does are not just running off at the mouth. They have
every good reason for making the statements they do: their ideas are a
reflection of their direct experience. I wish I could say the same for
theosophists but I can't. Most theosophists have no experience at all with
altered states though they act like experts know nothing whatsoever about the
experiences of brain doctors and brain scientists though like John Algeo in
his AT article they act like experts and most theosophists just sit around
and run off at the mouth with all their cute and pretty and completely
unsubstantiated little myths.

Of course this absudity makes me upset! How do you expect anyone with any
intelligence or any sensitivity at all to take theosophy seriously when it acts
so smug popmpus and uncaring?

So again Liesel I apologize for my tone. However someone has to say these
things and it looks like I'm the one. I'm always open to alternative viewpoints
and new ways of looking at things. However I expect the same from other
people.

I will close here.

My best wishes to you

Don
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 11 Nov 1995 10:50:12 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: blinds

JHE:>
>I don't believe that
>HPB ever used the techniques that she attributed to the Indian
>writings. I have seen no real evidence of it nor do I see any
>reason for her to do it.

JS
Agreed.

JHE
> Now the question is does that kind of "disinformation"
>exist in HPB's writings? I'm not convinced that it does.

JS
Nor am I. However she deliberately held some
material back. Using the 7-Globe 4-Plane GV Model for
example when her figure in the SD clearly shows us that
there are more than 07 Globes and 04 planes.

JHE
Either that or she died before she had an opportunity to
get into this. Her pattern was to give out doctrines one section
at a time. I think she did this because one doctrine necessarily
builds upon another. For instance she could not discuss the
after death states and reincarnation until she got across the
seven principles. In 1877 she was talking about body soul and
spirit and ignored after death states and reincarnation
doctrines. The seven principle doctrine was introduced in 1880
and reincarnation shortly thereafter. Between 1880 and 1890 HPB
expanded upon and went more deeply into the seven principle
doctrine and the after death states was not really discussed in
detail until 1889. I suspect that if HPB had lived she would
have expanded the seven globe teaching to twelve and as a result
would have been able to develop the inner rounds doctrine and
who knows what else.

JS
She also deliberately IMHO avoided talking about the Abyss or
Daath which is a key issue in the Qabala. I agree that her
omissions are not not really the blinds used in many ancient
texts.

JHE
You are more knowledgeable than I concerning Kabalism so I
doubt if there is much that I could say that would be of help. A
friend told me once 25 years ago that he saw a compilation of
all of HPB's writings on the Kabala and that the compilation made
an entire book in itself! Have you given any thought about the
eighth sphere doctrine in relationship to the Kabalistic Abyss
concept? Any ideas? But alas the eighth sphere is another one
of those doctrines that was never developed. Actually one could
make a rather impressive list of doctrines that were touched upon
that HPB and the Mahatmas never went into.

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: 11 Nov 1995 10:51:07 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: re TMR...

Dan Caldwell quotes:

>KPJ writes: Don't have the sources in front of me but HSO
>called him "one of our Masters" as I recall.
>
>JHE: Where?
>
>KPJ replies: ODL somewhere; can't find the passage offhand.
>But he speaks of the Master of Ceremonies of the Panchen Lama
>being "one of our Mahatmas"--but does so after the death of the
>Sengchen in question so may be talking about his successor.
>

DC interjects:
>I will supply the exact source for this and then ask a question
>or two.
>
>In ODL Fourth Series 1975 printing p. 06 Olcott writes:
>
>"Leaving his home at Darjeeling Nov 7th 1881 he [Sarat
>Chandra Das] ..reached Tashi-Lhunpo the capital of the Tashi
>Lama whose Master of Ceremonies one of our own revered Mahatmas
>is.

JHE
Paul is this the quote you had in mind? Please let me
know.

Thanks Paul
Thanks Dan

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: 11 Nov 1995 11:54:18 GMT
From: M K RAMADOSS <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Theos-L

I am glad to know that this forum is available for in the cyberspace
for use by theosophists. Was this forum formally approved or supported
either administratively and/or financially by the Theosophical Society in
America? I am sure all other subscribers may be interested in this information.
*************** **** *****************************************
M K Ramadoss 4203 Gardendale Ste 226 San Antonio TX 78229-3137
210 615-7373
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 11 Nov 1995 17:38:20 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Theos-L

Participants in Theos-l are members of all the different factions.
John Mead the manager can best tell you about how it was founded.
jem@vnet.net

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 11 Nov 1995 18:29:55 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Theos-L

On 11 199511 Liesel F. Deutsch wrote:

> Participants in Theos-l are members of all the different factions.
> John Mead the manager can best tell you about how it was founded.
> jem@vnet.net
>
> Liesel
>

I will be looking forward to hear from John Mead. thanks for msg.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 11 Nov 1995 18:49:50 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Dangerous TSA Bylaw Changes Part 01

Thanks for forwarding the msg. When I finally got to join the
newsgroup your msg had already appeared. I also received the copy of the
msg you had mailed by snailmail.

You have done a great service by bringing up the important issues and
also for suggesting how a commission can be appointed to carefully look
into the changes needed inthe bylaws. Since the moment I saw the changes
published in the American Theosophist I thought there are several other
issues which have not been fully and carefully addressed. Though the
immediate issue that may have precipitated the changes was the "loss" at
the Boston Lodge there is no need to to hurry up and come up with
changes which may do a lot more damage to TSA in the long run. This is
the first time I am seeing the Boston Lodge being mentioned in a public
forum. More later.

..Doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 11 Nov 1995 19:40:11 GMT
From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com>
Subject: Keith2Don

Hi Don. Thanks for the e-mail on lucid dreams. You seem to emphasize like Jung
that we must be very careful about the explanations and interpretations we put
on things like lucid drams visions obe's nde's close encounters and all
things we might lump under spiritual experiences. Yes this is true but the
experience is so powerful it creates its own importance in the mind of the
person. It's very Gnostic in that there is a big difference in analyzing
Blavatsky vs. Purucker vs. Leadbetter vs Bailey etc and having the same kind of
experience they claim to have had.

You say:

. Most theosophists have no experience at all with
altered states though they act like experts know nothing whatsoever about the
experiences of brain doctors and brain scientists though like John Algeo in
his AT article they act like experts and most theosophists just sit around
and run off at the mouth with all their cute and pretty and completely
unsubstantiated little myths.

Of course this absudity makes me upset! How do you expect anyone with any
intelligence or any sensitivity at all to take theosophy seriously when it acts
so smug popmpus and uncaring?

clip

I think we are heading toward what I want to call a neo-neo-theosophy or a
post-theosophy in that most people do not want to read what others wrote in
1888 but want to travel the spiritual path for themselves. We are moving from
a quaint romantic Victorian discussion of states of consciousness and human
evolution to practicing and taking conscious control of the process. Things
like modern brain research and genetic engineering to mention but two offer
possibilities that even Blavatsky didn't directly forsee. Thus we should not
look back but move forward with the wisdom of the past as our guide but not
our limitation.

Namaste

Keith Price
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 11 Nov 1995 20:09:14 GMT
From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com>
Subject: Karma and Personal Responsibility

Thanks for the thoughtful words and concern related to my accident. Don
DeGracia Liesel KPaul Eldon Jerry and others have been most kind.

Paul wrote:

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. . . .
clip

Keith:

Ideas about Karma often appeal to our idea about "fairness" in the world
process. Although Blavatsky decried anthropomophism at every turn of the page
I wonder sometimes if karma as often portrayed is a projection of our need for
good to rewarded and evil to be punished. Karma is portrayed as a balancing
machine but with a human face. The Lord Yama and St. Peter at the Pearly Gates
demand a life review scales in hand. But the relativistic problem of good for
you and bad for me always arises. Other factors such as chaos fate and
randomness are discussed also because we all know that on the surface life is
not immediately or superficially fair.

Synchronistically I think Dianne Dunnigham the secretary of the Theosophical
Order of Service led a discussion on karma at the Houston Lodge. She is quite
an interesting speaker and well worth inviting to
your lodge I think. The topic was "is there unmerited suffering?" She talked
about beliefs about karma as popularly held in theosophical and new age circles
such as: what goes around comes around we draw people and events into our life
for lessons we are working out realtionship problems from past lives with the
same people again soul-mates and on and on.

She noted that most of our ideas about karma are based on the individual. This
seems somewhat grandiose and self-contered in some ways. She suggested that
karma moves with a much borader brush. That is group national and geopraphic
karma far outweighs the individual in explaining events like accidents
hurricanes being born rich or poor etc.

She placed great emphasis on our society as a measure of our karma that is
racial problems religious wars pollution and poverty call us to a response that
has little to do with our individual karma. As we examined individual issues
such as abortion euthanasia suicide and other issues we reiterated that
"motive is everything" in trying to see an action as good or bad. Her activity
in the TOS evidences her view that social action is necessary as well as
meditation etc. for personal growth.

Also our positive response to a stressful event is probably more important than
the fact that it happen that is everybody suffers but handling it with
equanimity seems to say more than just being "lucky" and never having to face
suffering.

I'm not doing justice to her ideas but karma has often seemed to me to be a
zero sum game that is karma is impersonal and seeks homeostasis or even stacic
non-action rather than being a tool of evolution. I mean to be karmaless is
to be desireless and harmless. The pendulum seeks not just to balance the swing
but to come to rest in stillness. Karma seems to wind down in a kind of total
entropy of the entire system. Thus karma may be a tool but it is not the
motive behind life consciousness and evolution.

Negative entropy or negentropy seems to be necessary for life. A system must
pull energy or more exactly "information" from the environment to stay
organized. This requires massive expenditures and consumption of energy for
complex systems. Thus the more organization the more entropy.

I wouldn't be the first to say that this has lends a type of dog-eat-dog or big
fish eats little fish quality to the entire world process. We may even love
conflict for its own sake - if we didn't why all this expenditure of energy
about Masters and Monads Blavatsky vs Purucker etc.?

I love conflict. It tends to energize me and focus my attention. Love isn't
called warm and "FUZZY" for nothing. Love seems to dissolve barriers and
conflict tends to define the barriers and make them rigid. Thus maybe it is
part of our desire body to love fighting and fight loving or being loved even
while talking about spritual matters.

Even our physical body evidences this. When we are angry our eyes dilate
bringing the target of attention into clearer focus. When we are in love or
sexually aroused the eyes dilate adding a fuzzy quality to the desire object
an invitation to romantic fantasy. Perhaps analysis kills love. This is a
lesson I am learning. My venus in VIrgo is not about fun but service

Sending out love

Keith Price
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 12 Nov 1995 05:37:15 GMT
From: "Lewis Lucas" <LLUCAS@Mercury.GC.PeachNet.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dribble box

> I myself watch TV - the news & C-span which brings such things
as our
> Congress' Committee Meetings talks by notables of interest
> Interesting press conferences & etc.
> We also have 01 station that brings concerts & ballet. I watch that
> sometimes. We also have a local station which I look in on that
> discusses matters of interest to our town. Late at night when I
> want to relax & have a laugh before I turn in I watch reruns of
> the old sitcoms. That to me is constructive TV watching. The rest
> of it belongs into the nearest garbage dump.
>
> Liesel

Lewis:

I recently watched a program with my daughter called "The
Sword in the Stone" which was an animated film about Merlin
schooling a young Arthur with the aid of magic...something the
fundamental christians in our community abhore to the point that some
refuse to allow their children to participate in Holloween
celebrations which "honor" the devil in their estimation.

I see TV as a leavening influence which keeps such narrow minded
colloquial views from being inculcated into the children of our
community without question.

Railing against TV and casting the medium as some sort of "evil"
seems to me similar to the above views on Holloween. We humanity are
developing the faculty of discrimination at this time. The simple act
of choosing what we watch can be an important part of a spiritual
discipline. The Mahatmas in their letters advocated we work things
out for ourselves thereby gaining much more than we would from
simply following directions they could give. The later giving only
the benefit of the good karma which flows from obedience.

As Liesle point out the chocie of programming is wide and
varied. If the intellectual and cultured classes of our society
abandon the medium others will rush into the void this creates and
fill it with much less desireable programming. It is our duty to
support the more postive aspects recognizing the great potential for
good which lies in mass media.

News of the Vietnam war piped into the living rooms of Americans
during the 60's played an important role in awakening us to its
horrors and bringing it to an end. Releif efforts for victims of
natural disasters are often greatly aided by tv's coverage of these
events. When the horrid conditions of orphans in Romania was
broadcast thousands responded and much good was done as a result of
tv bringing it to our attention.

Not watching tv to me seems ostrich like behavior. In another ts
classic we admonished not to wipe the tear from our eye until it had
been wiped from our brothers. Recently JRC asked we send our
thoughts of peace to the middle east after the assasination of Rabin.
Being aware of problems is the begining of their solution according
to modern psychology. Informing ourselves of atrocities and
remembering the victims as in the Holocaust is the LEAST we can do.

Timothy Leary led millions to "tune in turn on and drop out" in
the '60s and he wasn't talking about tv but the debate continues
as to whether or not tv is the opiate of the masses or a grand
leavening agent. I suggest that it is a little of both at the moment.

Lewis

llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 12 Nov 1995 06:04:14 GMT
From: "Lewis Lucas" <LLUCAS@Mercury.GC.PeachNet.EDU>
Subject: Re: Liberalization

> Funny that in a world that has seen a massive wave of
> liberalization sweep through it ... that has seen business political
> religious and social leaders forced to acknowledge that authoritarian
> centralized top-down leadership is becoming less and less effective as
> the days pass that the TS appears to be rowing like the devil upstream.
> -JRC
>
Lewis:

Love your post and print many for my wife who keeps saying she
must write you a note of thanks for sharing with her your views.

I don't believe I have ever related the world "liberalization" or
any derivative of it with the business political religious and
social changes I have witnessed over the past several years. In fact
it seemed to me those leading this movement eschew the word "liberal"
and all its derivatives!

It has been a rise in conservatism has it not? We are constantly
buffeted from all sides with calls to return to "fundamentals" to
return to the past as if it the past were some grand elixir capable
of dispelling all our business political religious and social
ills! In the forefront of this movement have been the most narrow
minded and intolerant leaders of our time.

Government like tv has been cast as the great evil in our
lives or is it "new age" religions or maybe "magic" oh and of
course let us not forget "DRUGS"! Now that the "evil empire" has
crumbled under the weight of the arms race we must look elsewhere
for our devils. Business is hampered by lazy workers who want all
kinds of unreasonable benefits like child care and maternity leave
and equal pay for the sexes. If we could only get rid of those
"liberal" labor unions and all those "liberal" lobbyist--Senior
citizens groups et al. ...oh well enough.

So you see the events of the past few years as a
"liberalization" huh?

Lewis

llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 12 Nov 1995 06:21:31 GMT
From: "Lewis Lucas" <LLUCAS@Mercury.GC.PeachNet.EDU>
Subject: Re: Initiate

> Say has anyone read the "Initiate" trilogy _The Initiate_ The Initiate
> in the New World_ and _The Initiate in the Dark Cycle_? It was
> published anonymously but I think the author was Cyril Scott - who also
> wrote _The Greater Awareneess_.
> Comments on the books?
> -JRC

Yes I have read at least one but many years ago. I had posted a
comment sometime back about it being another view of the Krishnamurti
thing. As I recall it was his thesis that Krishnaji had returned to
the religious doctrines he had learned in a former life as a Hindu.
Something about avichi? and denial of everything leading to
recognition of the absolute. I probably have this all messed up.

Lewis

llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 12 Nov 1995 10:15:04 GMT
From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com>
Subject: Ken Wilber in QUEST

Ken Wilber wrote an interesting article for the current QUEST magazine Winter
1995. Neither Ken Wilber or QUEST magazine magazine seem to be mentioned much
on this newsgroup in my recollection. I wonder why?

I have always been a "fan" of Ken Wilber. His modus operandi seems to me to
reformulate many of the ideas of Blavatsky and others modernize and
psychologize the vocabulary and use a lot of helpful charts. He resystematizes
the 07 level idea and cross tabulates it to other systems from Vedanta to Freud
to . . .

I really like his approach. Many would find it perhaps dangerously close to
imitation or not-quite-plagerism but he offers a lot of original analysis and
criticism. His "Spectrum of Consciousness" has done a lot to make discussion of
theosophical ideas in philisophical and psychologica circles again worldwide
with nary a mention of Blavatsky et.al. The term "transpersonal psychology"
is used and many admirers seem to feel that these ideas sprang new blown from
his head and that he alone can clarify them I'm exagerrating to save time and
bandwidth.

The problem is that he rarely gives public appearances or replies to letters. I
know I have written to him several times and he has never replied and doesn't
have many personal appearances to offer.

The article is an explanation that his reclusiveness has led to a lot of
projections such as arrogance from the public but that the role he chooses is
intellectual and theoretical spokesman and not a famous personality.

He brings up some interesting reflections about EXPECTATIONS OF SPIRITUAL
TEACHERS. He does not want to be the Elvis of the new age. If you remember one
of my false expectations about spiritual teachers is that they have a desire for
fame fortune and an adoring public. He had to choose between writing and
speaking. My hat is off to him!

He also clarifies the role of think and feeling. Much of what one thinks is
spiritual or of the spiritual path may be based on feeling and the desire to
bypass the intellect to instant nirvana.

Also he notes the limitations of the intellect and the trap of thinking the map
- kaballatarot astrology texts etc - is the territory or the
transformational and evolutionary upward sprititual practice.

Namaste

Keith Price
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 12 Nov 1995 14:56:08 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Dribble box

Dear Lewis

You've got a point there because the way I watch TV & the way you
describe that your family watches TV it's an enrichment in our lives
rather than a detriment. Maybe it's if kids do nothing but watch TV
& stupid programs at that that it can become deleterious.
Our Head Librarian was just telling me via e-mail
that our children's libarian was on TV told a story did some
handicrafts as she does in the library recommended books & we all
agreed did a good PR job for the library.
I myself got a real boost to my somewhat crushed Jewish Ego
while I watched Rabin's funeral even though I also grieved.
Many world leaders were there to pay homage to
Rabin... Many whom my husband Fred fought against when he was in the
Jewish Underground before WWII. Hussein of Jordan gave a most moving
speech the Prime Minister of England & Elizabeth's husband were
there. Fredi would have flipped if he could have seen them smile a
friendly smile & shake hands with Leah Rabin. During his times the British
looked down their noses at the Zionists & mismanaged Palestine For
instance they restricted the flow of Jewish refugees from Nazi
Germany. The Jews tried to keep order & protect
themselves mostly against Arab terrorists but sometimes also
against some stupid things the British did They organized the
Haganah among others. Fredi became a Captain. Even Arafat came
a few days later because of security but
he came ... I think Fredi wouldn't have believed that at all .. he
was an arch enemy. And to top it all off our President wore a
Yamulka to pay his respects & ended his eulogy with the last
sentences of the Kaddish the Jewish prayer for the dead.... All that
on TV for all the world to see after having been mostly kicked
around for over 1000 years. I cried for Rabin but the scene of
everyone coming together for his funeral was very healing.

You know from all this chatting on theos-l especially what you
just wrote I've gained the good idea that TV isn't in fact all that black
& white & since I'm co-chair of our local TV-Off Days this is going to
reflect on how we conduct the event.

Thanks pal
Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 12 Nov 1995 14:56:25 GMT
From: Richtay@aol.com
Subject: Re: Karma and Personal Responsibility

Keith wrote

"But the relativistic problem of good for
you and bad for me always arises."

Well evil and good certainly seem relative for human beings and good in one
culture may be evil in another and good in one circumstance might be evil
for the exact same person in another circumstance.

But the doctrine of karma doesn't judge ACTS as much as MOTIVE. And that is
not relative for one who knows the exact motive could be seen and judged.
In any case nature doesn't need to judge because the exact quality of the
motive- or thought-energy will very naturally draw to it an equal and
opposite reaction.

We are told that in spiritual yoga no effort is wasted. Bhagavad-Gita.
Likewise physics teaches us conservation of energy.

That alone should serve to thwart anthropomorphism and self-centered ideas
that karma is about US. IT is about energy and nature and we just play our
little part and we play is badly or well according to our awareness and
motive.

Rich
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 12 Nov 1995 15:18:41 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Keith2Don

>From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Keith2Don

Hi Don. Thanks for the e-mail on lucid dreams. You seem to emphasize like Jung
that we must be very careful about the explanations and interpretations we put
on things like lucid drams visions obe's nde's close encounters and all
things we might lump under spiritual experiences. Yes this is true but the
experience is so powerful it creates its own importance in the mind of the
person. It's very Gnostic in that there is a big difference in analyzing
Blavatsky vs. Purucker vs. Leadbetter vs Bailey etc and having the same kind of
experience they claim to have had.

You say:

. Most theosophists have no experience at all with
altered states though they act like experts know nothing whatsoever about the
experiences of brain doctors and brain scientists though like John Algeo in
his AT article they act like experts and most theosophists just sit around
and run off at the mouth with all their cute and pretty and completely
unsubstantiated little myths.

Of course this absudity makes me upset! How do you expect anyone with any
intelligence or any sensitivity at all to take theosophy seriously when it acts
so smug popmpus and uncaring?

clip

I think we are heading toward what I want to call a neo-neo-theosophy or a
post-theosophy in that most people do not want to read what others wrote in
1888 but want to travel the spiritual path for themselves. We are moving from
a quaint romantic Victorian discussion of states of consciousness and human
evolution to practicing and taking conscious control of the process. Things
like modern brain research and genetic engineering to mention but two offer
possibilities that even Blavatsky didn't directly forsee. Thus we should not
look back but move forward with the wisdom of the past as our guide but not
our limitation.

Namaste

Keith Price

Keith I like your last paragraph. Those are my sentiments exactly.
We should be building on the material written 100 years ago with the
advances in our presentday knowledge. I find continually digging in
the past & especially not applying it to what is today very unproductive.
I know that my Teacher Harry believed in living in
the "now". Serge King stated this to us in the workshop I went to very
emphatically. The past is what
you remember of it *now* the future is what you *now* think it's
going to be and the only time you can effectively work with it & do
something about it is *now*. For instance you can take a negative
memory from your past and reinterpret it now maybe adjust you
child's memory to one that gives a different interpretation from the
point of view of the adult you now are & it will then mean to
you whatever you decided to reinterpret it as.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 12 Nov 1995 16:08:35 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Karma and Personal Responsibility

Hi Rich

Where have you been?
I missed you.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 12 Nov 1995 16:38:16 GMT
From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Re: Liberalization

Lewis...
> So you see the events of the past few years as a
> "liberalization" huh?

Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes! In fact I believe contrary to the
overwhelming weight of current popular opinion that we are living in
rare and wonderful times ... an era in which the fifth dimension the
axis of probability as the physicists say ... but it might also be
called the axis of *possibility* is on the the verge of being
discovered - and even more important the means by which to achieve
volitional movement upon it. But I need to write a longer post to answer
yours ... and maybe a discussion about this would be a great idea. If
there is any single most important thing I've taken from Theosophy over
the years it is that a single human consciousness is capable of holding
firm to a clear vision of a healed world ... and relating to the current
world as though that vision is *already a fact* .... and that this tends
to encourage others to believe it as well; and that *groups* of such
people even very small groups can effect *large* populations if the
vision is clear held by powerful minds charged with elevated and
disciplined emotions and persevered in over time.
Yes! I am full of hope for this world ... and believe I see the
first surfacings of a sort of harmony that is difficult to see only
because so few yet believe it is even possible so unprecedented is it.
But I'm ferociously busy just now -:. I'll write soon.
-JRC
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 12 Nov 1995 18:24:41 GMT
From: RIhle@aol.com
Subject: To Eldon and Masochists

ET
If 20000 years ago someone killed us we can change ourselves today so that
the
event of being killed is not the same and therefore *for us*
the past has changed. The person that killed us though remains
unchanged regarding that "past event" until or unless we interact
with that person.

Between us and our killer we have the totality of our shared
past stored in our karma with that person. The karma is not a
fixed quantity of reward/punishment but is rather a living
connectedness a living dynamic relationship that we have with
the other person.

RI
Practically speaking perhaps karma need only be regarded as uncorrected
tendencies for specific types of semi-Self indulgence. Genetic twins born at
the nearly the same astrological moment could thus be regarded as starting
out with roughly the same "karma." The only difference--and it is a big
one--between the twins would be in their degrees of Self-awareness. This
would change the level animating physical desire-feeling desire-mental
mental Spirit-mental and Spirt at which Self Undifferentiated
Consciousness will become completely transformed into semi-Self delusion
differentiated consciousness. One of the twins might regularly lose all
Self-awareness when he or she started to eat a bowl of ice cream; the other
not until he or she started to share an idea. In the former case the
temporary egoic delusion is of the nature "I *really am* the taste of
chocolate chip"; in the latter "I *really am* what I think I know about the
subject of reincarnation."

Naturally complete semi-Self indulgence at any level usually brings negative
consequences and of course Self-awareness is never so perfect as when we
are suffering. Increased diffidence because of learned lessons may be the
mark of the "older soul"; kamikaze-like boldness in semi-Self adventure the
"younger." Shit like "bad" karma may be found everywhere and in many
disguises; however perhaps it is not really necessary to think that it
"belongs" to you--no matter who killed whom 20000 years ago. Undoubtedly
the important thing is to become the more Self-aware twin who egoically steps
in less shit and thus *becomes* less of it.

However if we get rid of the idea of trans-personal karma we would still
need some explanation or mechanism for how/why a particular Chunk of
Atma-Buddhi in a particular Degree of Self-awareness would stay together for
another lifetime--and certainly all of the foregoing pretty-much flies in the
face of what many theosophists have said about the "Causal Body" etc.
doesn't it? It also comes very close to suggesting that an
increasing/decreasing "Degree" of Self-awareness is the only thing which can
be carried into a new life and out of the old. There is not very much homey
trans-lifetime romance or "connectedness" to be found here is there? But
on the other hand it would ease our burden of having to seek out and
interact with every unperfected "soul-bundle" we have encountered in past
lives in order to consumate some sort of karmic zero-sum game. Who knows?
Perhaps in the short- as well as the long-haul karma can't come Where we're
going. . . .

Best wishes

Richard Ihle
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 12 Nov 1995 21:31:14 GMT
From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com>
Subject: Don2Liesel: Mag Clairvoyance paper - description

Liesel:

I am posting my short paper which presents a theory of Magnifying clairvoyance.
Included with this is a figure. The figure is in uue format which means it
must be decoded to be converted into a GIF image.

You'll see that I am trying to tie in traditional clairvoyant topics with modern
brain science the the bridge I use to do this is chemicals like LSD. Whether
you agree with the approach or not I believe this is a worthwhile avenue to
pursue.

Again I hope the paper is at least somewhat comprehendable to you!

Good luck with it!

Don
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 12 Nov 1995 21:31:25 GMT
From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com>
Subject: Figure to go with Don's paper in uue format

section 1/1 file degfig.gif [ Wincode v2.3 ]

begin 644 degfig.gif
M1TE&.#=A@`+@`8```````/___RP`````@`+@`0`"_HR/J8O@#Z.<M-J+L]Z\
M^P^&XDB6YHFFZLJV%0/'\DPO0WG^L[W_@\"H?$HO&3"J73..MJ7Q"I]2J
M]8K-:K?<KM?V[4G#Y++YC$ZKU^S8NUXP^?TNOV.SU/E=+[^#Q@H.$CXY0=W
M6*BXR-CHZC%OE66EYB9DUJ;:9Z?D&BJJTE6.HJ:JKJ*=VKFRAHK.TMK
M!4MV6ZN[R]M;DVOH*SQ7P`[5LOS<S*C!>T\35V-J"=MK;W-K96MV1TN
M/OZ*37Z.GC[UC<6N_@Y_[FX;7V]_[V:.O\\?/U_UKY_`@:L"KB."$U@U`8
M*GP49%#AC6KQXIV4_HP<.XK2F`2DQY$DMX@\<K*DRI44];%\";-.RBS
M8]J\B:/F$TX>_ILX/*GT*$-@Q]BI0SR!+DSKEV/1'U*=4'TX54S6KUGQY
MKF[]:L_K#K%@RZ8CFP.MV;7AU/YB"_>H6QISX]IE5E=&WKM\A>V%\;>OX%J!
MP0P^3+P*<2.RJ.TSBRQ<=`5M.2/E`YLN<%VT.\+FSZ$"?0RU/1JET;92
M'S2`HGU1L\4>+Q0*GML;ANR=T\KC<X!$-]+?3N!!RT<;KE_MPSCQ2[^35
M@.#_FMW<>I4`.FCOV[E/!IN>L/]U[L*[RR+O1'LW\\4:YW9"+_]Y_NS2
M_O<O7+W-#?8=H]QX]S7G&H+"I1<';`8:!MR3T#XVGCX+0B;=@P:1YR`YM6'
MX8<4JF*=.!XBV%S#3Z8HH%GGBB9BVRR!ZO+EHFXR/DBC9J^Q^&*!/^7
MYXZ"KFC<L64VV%P+0H84]NADCT@JB>2:4EHI6X12"GE&--E>:&0#$X9
M8I=C$LD-U5B-2685IQH=GAL1EE^7Y@6."8HXXT9'OGBG&KZUTN;`4X`
MIZ!RIME@H!J266.>5^XIGI@:OG%GAX%>2BF@S2AJ#:?<N6>JIC/:*6F9=W9G
M*8B;8+=II+9>Z>FAJ>HZ*H#51?JF7K<F2:BHH:+Y_BFL]!6+ZGXIKGAKC?V
M!N275DI;*VA+^NJBQ+H>>.I=*8G[IPPBEH;GK0Q^N<QWP[7[B%%NFHD>.&
MR&Z];'*;FE+7445JOS0UN2#`_`KD`@JSZ9PPR-LR]YD#I.P&$37\P!Q*T
MO2-'$MU\?/B8Q*P"2#?'HJ<<<N?K.SREC%G`O/=-F2<TX<[4S3KW
M;!C0D0L]&%TT?TT3XJ[5G23'O-\11RTLU83\/-*[59=C]2!8[9T1EU[
M[33885?&"3[6S@#UU65GC7;<INQC$8?0VWU&;ZJ6V9[=!]-F1WO^V1MSX^
M2VW=]*@=MJL>:@LDX%/[_C0AH`5+K3B6B]]C..2>PYYVWT0[MC2GIN>I17
MB#Y'Y?K6[;J6VN!=..IHN]YWX`<Q_KG1H?.>UBD0P64@5'BKCJB%=<#N][-
MY^ZY\/?M+:U^*:X>IJ$RENH8_CZ_P/;-^-.U"DU^T^4"C?[[X.[._OOLX
MPS^^_#;3_[[]^_O_XQ\W\__[D@/L3H-G60$`['!CTS.8"ZR0+$U\"E[
MB6#K2C=!IU00@AADH%8V.D.2O"#;;#@-8B7P:2`"F'%T*3U-"#J+0@UE9
M41:>$7RB6&9SA"&O0Q:*4%?L:%5ABB3@;QADAT0D?V/!Z9`H1E0
M_@Y/2.J5!$S3<SA$Q$H0REFT8%@C&8?ZC%1[1AT3<RA81<D4UM&-<N0B
M&^?XQ;29<8]X!"4A7A'_JQC`4QKJ="GK&-`L7US#CR#6.\321Q55
M*FG'252?&6XRO6IDA&-I*3EKPD*3-Y2!6"\I&0/"4<#>@85Z['EI#&"QC
M6<MHL%!VX9NB4'BY!XEYI&I5&5>AOE9[-ES\!YNYNFM^J"\F;R2I>I
M2176\96!].+8?/?-6PDG$$C9S:W^<UK=F::^3G['ISNC%4Y"B=*<Z.<-.
M:\IR++J<9SW["!-W1'-Y_D2G00]H-YEY`Q[.C!<__O+3<#PTR2]Y%E.I"E.
MSH5K0UCBVT9RK:2NZ<"'6>XNJ3I^^@P]'0E#HJ?1=QIR6%IKU]]`*KC8
M84ZG\I0>2?.VO#+7L4Q6FTZJ4JO?'NI[7[4>2BZ:4@L.HM@M>[W[WTSZ
M%'I^LE!E&CJ<BG5<V0MZSV#*=-=O@M2WAO206E#JT-*G*RVF=PMJQLUH&
MH@4L*#T!:DZ]2H:O__/K7P\;3L%&AK`N]S-F*]?S@VI!E'EZ-^M:+EG^
M*Y6JOS;KILO&57"<:UJ.BNWG224-6G=@UV5ZHE#<.^I5-+<L]!4VAS9QX*R
M]>IM]V9;VAU0*=&6Q5_HN+X7I%CEJ?&<AU7DHJRG0O!*9DW+-]^:M:QC
M!=YQ?U/<1OU#+#5];.J$VMR<GO=P8-6=2>;W->:]J7HY:GMZO>Z_*"L:=]
MJ7\[JKHPN515NU8NBA[WZK"%GG1#?#`PKK3_[KT7F2JUG>[<V`$<U?!\F2P
MATT47MT2*;T6YG#LOO>==G4/71C8&HE[-S#0;?`T]4/B+9;8AR?F#NTM2?
MI4!#=LWQB].GHRIVZT0BS2Z64KPJ9"Z86CI:<7:G&FG+JW-3G*7-42*%.^
M*B<G1[5]AV6YG#5O0WH955_FV0N$Q@Q9Y'R7.^[Y"/JZ.1QG+T_QBR_P
M_KOVYF[!<[SZ9BLXJ1.&4:WH6-KT4KH2$-5QSAN0J-!`8TQ/^]YE9Q0S
M%O[2Q'H7&M3C#D77[.G72^T%A#+66FI#^0W`N%WUGEIM$U&/"IER?NI==$VR
M7B&VP+UGN&1QCIYB/B"WFU[!F%7-[429;8W7X>:+/R+#"UJ"2+Z>SF
MGAJEJ;:MK5O6V1T3RJMQ-A9JF8K"`%>.P9Y&=$MP*F_O7I7-/[7H]>8;^A]
ME5K_'2>^]]U3*E5VM%]P'KF_`%*_7<2SY+2N=MM$/[^=T.!RK"Z<WO"ZN+
MX\T#>:<9#F%X0S#;;WY3N:0%:6YG;J[74A7.?Y/_G*BO"_$_MC.^=+SO!KV
MVH#5^="QV/'M4?P//]>7$O_MIDL'VB\66$O0]VOECV`]ZV6Y^BX`?6]"JSJ
M8;=I5J%>'5"/'-FT'O9W6U+M"\$DW!E>]OIWE^SCS3I[9'OM/_X]?VKM
M#]\JWPY/PLPKYM8N_$J'R_C$ST+PEB;\0?T]DVJRHM^!]7954ZYRW]>[TOE
M^R]%OW>X8U3NRUBZH4N"]>G?%%OX[L:YP&=>*Z4;1OMK^+"OM81*7I!@=]
M3S0?=S.OWO@X0?[R21]3YG=K*L['=!A8>OM?L9Y-V3=N\$E$?<L#/MFSM'O
MNN_]WA.=@J@O?>/;G_;R_N=^\NCGO>I'G_-Q[-[^DD_%_OGO>:E7>R82?N'
M?@6H?/@W@&V!@.8W"O^';NKG>+8W?/"7PWX?@9@<E@@9<`@74F*>W5?D'
M8O+7?_YW?15">9:U?5F#=UU`?"'!+B]520X%&J7@E8T@RO@M+W&SS!@QRH
M>-Y0/4%8@PO@$`H@CE?R8!2DLX@DC@$[H=S=%?SI14U#8@Z9W?%5HA3JX
M*?6'%W0V$%X86;0$+#'X63XX=T1X3%CGA@<245RX*&+-G:XAG>'A?+Q@:U'
MA@5!A1HH?&8@`+H>SLDB-:T6LE'A\?7@6%;8:X?I+5=L.`AP'UA\WB2U8
M_@E]BF<V"N>12\:-E\.8J7V&OLIH*:!5I2YFNO6L2#8]6#@]%T.@7?
M$HD`&'&V&N-V'>I]0U\XHMEH>6^&SNQ8MTTHI-DHF6F'&.TV4`=FIX=BUG
MGMJRQH-F[?LRKN%/SMG':XL6!QDA1U>]0V_%PUZ5AGMC>Z=UE'J"%WQ
M"#Q$1H[`"D"W$SME[6^%SA*`W:N!B'UCA'AE\`B9`*5RK/Z!<%.5\G18]7
MQ8[Z9F_OZ?V&#@2&9#=EF^<-CL.^9`F1F@8IV\>.9$OAI$9>7+7!&II`6
M66;@!8KZQV:IHX59FH"9FS9.#LW28WWJ.&\F=P_K>-".2YJB/K427O=\
M4CA:V:4P;B44:>&*E65[71TWS>Z;25B?B\?.5#AB6]3.6\U>3W.55C>5
M@[&69N&4H_&67=>66XB6H00N"GB5%2645F[@>5IP>6C'A_DCB!&M272BF!
MB=F4C"D/XL>5VC283XF7>WF#COE[T!>%EBF8D5F&-S*'-HBGDF8>6F8F!EN
MDZF7WR::?*F:IQF:@=EJ/F+&4B:KGF;>NF&I.54OF:@!F`P-F5/2;T:>9
M=BF;H5><F\F:R>FRXF<326D"F$E=F<G#F;T+F/P6F<K7F9VGF$WF<ARF9
MN6FN[DOT]E-G;28L8F=_LIIGLI176YG=LVGY:CA3CGGU'FTSI/>B9*/0I
M<_D?'"T@P3JE[WI;#18H/H$:PBJF-Y.1`Z56!85P`:H.HI3!@:@0;:V:H
M?PZH$>9?AX:AG.YDN112!:?!9J<RA:HON9:QS:H2::AHJHH<$GG'%AR0Z
MDN6X$C1:HQXJAS@*I"HAI!772D7ZF3EJF]4IG<4F_$GV19FB+7G3JEF<9
M;2J%S#J:$=:6%S:I4[:+V":1Q+Z-&1:IFZ0&QJG^]9/G#*GF::&F@Z2`I*
M4I!I-P"]WW<[/&%'Z:\YHI\8`CJ^7=W\'CU@ZI`W7D>Z-TV>[FEJA*
M_JDI>JGYJ*8@A3P3QF-0-7*4B5$]62UZ>?"CJ7LW&*YBVJYF8H&I<0`Y%
MIVKNB'">MHZ02JL-ERA.I.;MEV[&JEN2ES=Q61#EF<567#BEJDQFIZU&CS*
M6FC[IFEJ8JC&&I+IN&'HRRC2E;$NJGI.8_=VI:Z6<F^:RAJ*W%ZJN35F\L
M!6;I:Z5RILF1Y7>:WT6H_'VJYS=UM!:LAR=%:3DMQPZ!FFUUK#_Z3M$
MN640ZZZ=.J=TRH1Z.J86"Z44FSX::XRVK$>"X->&A=XFD:2BDIW&:7Z<5<H
M>Z4JZY[0&EHN2YE6*I^/ZJ\8NRBT9F$WUFZ+IY;_LM]/MC/FNJKPHZ0:5N
MR=*H.KNSY0JL"R>/2=N@D\JM42MN4YMCQ/QCNH+LTJNU;-@!%=O*EFA+"FV
M'4:V^#B3*9F3G*JECPF+5F60;+MG9XBVVVB0]7AG]A:0#1:#8N5^NMZ&BV
M7XBIA'MRAMNV*ER7INA__H?`U9A%V=N#%N-9XNH1*MEP15K-9>Y?0-S#/JU
M%LRO!JW*ZFEJ;J1NBC"JY'KBZIN9'MLF>:C=3>IN#NN:NZ-+M7CNR
MP#M8PMM/L2MT>$D.=B;U&SP]DU32<=D`N"38J\`B.]53/JND-L^O:**
M62NPH8J309EC2=JILL6_M[/'R+.B`'DQ_&7+6:L[:[I1GY*2:GMR8EOQ^'
MIH[&=F+K/J;<5HKD9\#HP`<O*$HK>Z+KW9[P/2[K==[IKOFC=?C-7X+:0:
M9Z-[/:WKO?=KO'AKOV8YPHCKN@%TPB@<PB:\PBU:PB^\P@HLP_Y$PS4<3S>
MPX&EOCLLPBGLPQ:KPT$\-D-Q%9CQ$<<-4FLQ$K#Q$T<LA0Q?;4PU.<D]L
MQ5KIM%GL5UCQ7TEQ5\<O54LQMA+QF5\IV>QJ+AQ6L<;&KLQ@$QW%<O1+
MQV"\Q7<\QG:LQRS3QGTLEWR&XIR/<X5LR+^&RE<LHOR.OKR\EY$L
M_LFA1LF5'*9YCG]P\>;O$Z7[F%.A'6:3I^#JG3QAKIIWFMS!A_
M#N-_JS3BU;N'CNYKB[SNTSJ_O%BI+RY1LS%_G!CR'<O+G*>C
M[SJ\S1#'3'3TE!<37S;6KW4";/=[+0#[XQWC_*3?;YX+[I/R^
MSZC:<KOWO3+]IFLWU?OTC^B?_[7U=@3$!+=`#3=`%;=`'C=`K=`+
M_3#^[-`/#=$1+=$33=$5W5@["!`0@H/5=7N>V%#9QZ.YUH&JAKQK39L1/;
MZ[OBX24L#8N/<*HK?5TCIE#'UKPV;6"#BAMG=AZA_CMX+YW2V'@*-%T>TU5_
M*[UL/8W32.V$N_AINB&*I.@N4IW444!>N$O"5LT;10W4G><$5Z%?B+4AL!Y
MZW473W5=[AF.3$18YW6K6$+&I$?;T74Z]#68/VGR\M;JJJ"7RKE]M;4"U<
M+_>?-U=J^.ETAU=;//VAWJWVB4LN9F!TO9B[V*2'6TW0@O!$O8P-5C&1PO
M/4K3V"BD&+9K^-#G+:HQB"!^LIK[V3FW8WK9S*^GW:3`T:Y9EN6]W3
MK]K;O[7;NJV*Q/W2DDTLB%.J[*8CHWUB3+7Z;HJOLVS'H7<O6UNR8U;#E77
MVQW<S!VKFNW=E.O<Y3MB_N/RJ[<HW&^+P$%YWK?UWMD]C<\PK>"-W;-U#.-
M?>5[<>%MBO%-M$Y%WO"-WCS]W?TMW<>=X`:.9<8-+;O=WQ%>W?LMWP_.^M]
MWR*BW?]=W`0^V&GM*B`>+!Z%W_+MX+16WC!=WQL^W_M++`0W1^>WE16A/CI
MX=R]WJI=X"]WXTMWPR^8A`N92?.XB\JX1.NX.EMX3=JXO[=X.'MLTV>X3$N
MU$C6XMKE60.NXX-MV=TM$12.VKZFX6M]UDMN+`!^X$J^X6;>W3TZXSU>VFGN
MBD3.X?<MYPNX72.W50>Y!@>X&/.N7XNY0'N>5>^;'$.*F/>YH*NY&YMU]1-
M_N%41EMOS>"NR.+EMYW?CRP]F:GCHN">!X'F%;HJD_M9Z?NXKL$WSN?A
MN^:F3N2&]N.!+KI%/ND&#N'^0=YJ7JZB+F'%7>'+>C5/2"ZQQI"4G8:=WM?W
M`MH3BX$Z^S+#B\0V]BN;>P[J><++&CF.T7?MC<+MD9[-C?'MN;S=KE7MCX
M`NUGSF47ZEMU%;''7CQN_MDVQV>@Z\$\#MJFIFPO8X06G;Y5?=IR[VA/%FE
M/M4%/QPA#?"NM;HX>@-+_$33_$5;_$7C_$9/^PIL=$HG4PMW6-13=V84EEL
M31$1G]P3G$H?X<JR6O`O^4Q->[O&?5*A'4VK_I;SA"KRHX9.KE[S?3JN
M*+&ND*7S0%_F*AX;]TX:>8W3CWZ3YV2*_6PWORRFCR<W6:_T[6`JA1#6
M>AW7.SWV"'3A/?_T2V]IRL[5++OU5;\L&P+=I?WL:4_:DUEN$[LX/OE/+N
MY@ZT98L?-_<CXW8M=;9?IWXS/O9]F+NJ_V@]O[XA%];=+]1+%;;A7]EI*;Y
ME0[N0OML]W9X'ZA@`_<XID1.?[K`@[?9&[K<6+>"\[Z7!M</^O9I![?Y4WO
MM^_@3[H-$[@/JVTF+_GP]7[K3_[^;W<KU[\\@;GC-_K/W[=9O[GP9]P"7[\
M:V[<YTT;O-[B_.WZGL[F_K*O_>72WM2?_9C>X3COYZG^]3C^Y'.Z7;^YJ]?
M+!^]L4_MXP.__3?9P00`RX#U0U&MN9[K4J;\_X4`MXS:/3-65;=UUM+HH
MGBC5+$JU^7Z]#U>+>9`A$38G%8&II82J=M-M4^*2R>D#LT6=+GHS*.F\
M9&IJ/?%.6T8^W_`P>PVNRR1#[-0N[2JO:^SE$#$QL<T2*S/S4H2K%#O$8_/
MT&9R\JRSBLX3D[*$3NZ\AQ]!-5+R\#K]$N]I04AK;R;I5JC10SK16%VW0
MMO7V+BA2L=GY1=CU`W2%[E6]8HK-_5"6B293:--1J8SMHG]WS\=SI9<*-8
M_EX<V]3=8YW^6E?8[3P?O2VCXG'#QFE<PEWZPE1A]@QB1"MK8E18PA6#D"%
M*&JJTZ118L39T$*F>\DR8N/G$B9CTUF8L:DLIE+TT=3X*$N8=F4[
MY53@69/-S$LJ_XSQ*+0="!*F5[RS68QY975%2M2G1+%CR6XD>Y9IR4-%
MT;9U^W817"B`Y-:U>Q=O7KU[^?;QVW?M7W0X4``V?C+WD:&3=V_!CRXR^1
M96E\6HPM9<UH\.=O!ET:-&C29<V?1IU:M6K6;=V_1IV;-FS:=>V?1MW;MV[
M>??V_1MX<.'#B5-^J.BRW.3;1$Y\]V8DM5YO+Q5_MM9UARQY%SQ[M<>'/G
MIL$W\YX=\?FUV"4:\]6C4D:.%C1GP\MZ^!G[#FIGSL6%+?XXV.V`8TJ!2'2
M_..0/QL6]"\!-<C+&`GCM&OZ3N<^$?`R?\\"##`FS+0`C0X09]\CS4/V
M6%3P11157*2H+O[Z`IY<&0POK.*G%$$8L"\C;_O$#]1S/"]OLRR"2;+
M1!&/D"8P&T'*&K5L1`=HPNJ*;!ZTA$C*TDZ\2EIG2*S2BELN<SZQ$4\VG
MJ-2IJVVL%"ERK+<@Z?LL+J3P<`E>]0-@.E12B.AFESJDT.35.Y$-KQQ<*&
M'"*SQ"ONM33+1SU$M__AA-\L`&/5$TFW<Z#`=+F9Z++YYRYE3'4F4>=!4
M0]EI<]>#>I6T04W_ZZ56YVIU"MDY!T4%50E=8C1[U9EZ-6HCGT6H6$Q[%:K
M\8X95EI<506%W'+1!<@OK#-K]7X-"J6E3[H3:37T^M5E=+D&2G/F^_`=B5
M;+-M15J=^+VKS&%:'@Z6[A%AQ$\CQULD'@7DK<JA4-99RLFO[AV!F8_3N=@
M+T:^R+K!JY28GVKBEFE?+==.%B6W0%U%6Y7]A+*87YV<E;]80WWYTG3D44
MH&?4Z%N4\14:SG-/!A4]@QG:N&IY_Y4F5QS5CKEHVEFM."U4H[37N'=+C?
M_F>7%G9MGJ=><CM?]Z&Y55?KL8H6T&5["]KUZV'<3\ECJ4/RVFFNNS=Z%
M2Q14E@?@D@@6O2^+[\0GGH+0^;KS&7E9_.S59<0'63G;LNGO@L]*/:->2
MT.1RQRDMES>L>@H2IW3T!E5VI/PWL/:_A]P[J]=&"1.OK@I>:SD][?:9>
M*IN&HHM'JY;;/:6AD+_]3.XWPM[/#I[763PAXRSNNAA/PSNO^FO?__^&2[<
M?Q&QWXE&LY@`;F>`!U3@7JSP#@H%ZF9\#.=1`"EX0@QG4X`8YV$$/?A"$
M13A"$E80A.>$4I5.$*6=A"%[X0AC&468DB#_K_C0&?^*30Y=%'N5&X]
M/E1.$/53'5X@9X8`"I]G$M@T9T20ATQBSPX8Y]B50JH`-:690HHPQIK8M
MSL4J=-$6[5$44/ZL2"G8$>-`'RBA[A3/0"=\87JLDL.XWA%P/212-:Z
MF!O3"$<\^O&!7MS&%LH1O!-#V;DHTJ5:D<Q7UO49D2WI>:SNN3$M[OH3
M:.BO4>&"2G3@Q69M&P29DOE:0$"BAY]Z]/JO.Z>G5JBG2]@G9PNB4@
M-Y@N91FD'GU+YKOT9K<X:+G[B$&MD'.<0E+E.Q2H<R6<6WKS4+;*W29NX
MUJ]490.;J%OFX;@Y-;ZI_MSB&PAX]RV#6M:W3C$AW</D<<]XS/N$$G#%9
M-Z^MJ>Z`F6:.]46M=?AC'&DJUO%+D8O6"W6S=98AZ=UT\GF*QFI"K5RFZ
M.<M=!X!*NGO`HRB!6Q*=M$*$1AYC27WLMF^B2G]T+%MLG-LFT9:^A.U5G*
M@!RGD@;VTD7`I\1971S%EH0%M9S9YB#6[@UL[K4G3HMXLI\QTYE`=&E4J
M1JQ"`R'951_*0'FRT@$BV8W;4YI:ZNZ[SJN-F.M"M[3.9K=.'S/Q:DR8
M3GEJ]<9.L:33I!5I."81LH\QZZN;C57T8#A*EV%+_V\DJQS*4GU3?!6XZ4
MAE";7_O8FG1+D63?4'=$X5;OX44]<E05QZI0_']E2=3.5O7[BT#J
M?+7<:`J*4#C]%9AQRD!IL;F>K64S+S5\^TRC'%3%NKFY[AM?$U[J6A"\
MYNWA>&.'7@2R5S;QHXUZ_Y==^]X7O_G5[W[YVU___A?``1;P@`E<8`.GI@``
"`#L`
`
end
sum -r/size 43062/7562

section 1/1 file degfig.gif [ Wincode v2.3 ]
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 12 Nov 1995 21:31:31 GMT
From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com>
Subject: Don's theory of Mag. clairvoyance

LSD Hallucinations as a model for Altered States of
Consciousness

Don DeGracia
email: 72662.1335@compuserve.com

Copyright 1995.
All rights reserved by the author

Hallucinations are perceptions of things not presented
to the senses. Hallucinations play a critical role in
altered states of consciousness ASC. Some hallucinatory
states are natural including dreams hypnagogia lucid
dreams and synesthesia. Hallucinations can also be induced
by methods including yoga brain injuries and by drugs.
Hallucinations of all sensory modalities occur. Here we
shall focus on visual hallucinations caused by psychedelic
drugs such as LSD. Since psychedelic drugs cause the
predictable formation of waking hallucinations the study of
the mechanism of these drugs could illuminate the nature of
hallucinations and such understanding could presumably be
carried into the study of other ASC in which hallucinations
play a role.

Examples of psychedelic hallucinations involve
perceptions of moving colored imagery behind closed eyes
seeing patterns of color and light perceptions of lace
ribbons geometric patterns rainbow effects flash bulb-
like after images all seemingly filling the air around the
subject [2 4]. The central questions are: what is the
nature of and mechanism behind these hallucinations?

Data from animal experiments with LSD indicate that
post synaptic activity at the relay between the optic nerve
and lateral geniculate nucleus LGN is suppressed [1].
However only 10-20% of presynaptic connections to the LGN
are from the retina; the majority of LGN afferents
nonretinal afferents come from other brain regions
including the brain stem reticular formation and the
occipital cortex [5]. Nonretinal afferent connections to
the LGN are thought to be feedback connections that regulate
the flow of visual information from the retina to the
cortex.

Given this data one could hypothesize that the
mechanism of formation of hallucinations during psychedelic
experiences involves a bleed-through of the nonretinal
feedback signals to the LGN into the normal routes for
transmitting retinal signals Figure 01 which is the file DEGFIG.GIF
in the SMN library in the New Abe B forum on CompuServe.
In the non-drug state feedback signals to the LGN serve merely to
regulate retinal input but do not enter into the information
stream which will ultimately be converted to visual
perception Figure 01 A. However during psychedelic drug
inebriation these same feedback signals may actually become
a part of the retinal signal flow and are transferred to
higher visual centers which interpret them as visual
perceptions along with retinal input Figure 01 B.
Therefore the nature of the hallucinations perceived under
the influence of psychedelic drugs is that these images are
visual representations of signals entering the LGN from
nonretinal afferents. In the simplest of terms current
evidence indicates that one is literally watching the
internal "talk" of their own brain when hallucinating under
the influence of psychedelic drugs. Other authors have
presented this view without however a clear model of the
underlying mechanism [7].

How might this model of psychedelic induced
hallucinations be related to other ASC? It is known that
psychedelics exert their major influence in the brain stem
[4]. Presumably drug induced changes in the brain stem are
responsible for altering the activity of the LGN. It is
interesting to note that changes in brain stem activity
occur during REM sleep [5] and also probably during yogic
breathing exercises. Yogic breathing exercises alter
activity of brain stem breathing centers which in turn
could affect ascending brain stem pathways Both REM sleep
and yoga practices lead to the formation of visual
hallucinations. Thus changes in the brain stem cause
changes in higher visual centers leading to the formation
of visual hallucinations. Variations of imagery perceived
during various ASC probably reflect subtle differences in
brain stem changes and brain stem effects on higher brain
centers.

The above model also suggests a mechanism for a little
known psychic ability called variously "anima" "micro-psi"
or "magnifying clairvoyance" [36]. The nature of this
psychic ability is such that it allows one to perceive
minute objects such as cells or atoms objects far too small
to be perceived with the naked eye. It is conceivable
that the bleed-through of the nonretinal feedback on the LGN
during ASC could amplify if concentrated upon. By
concentrating or focusing on details of the hallucination
this will alter the signals moving through the feedback
loop amplifying magnifying the images focused upon and
damping out the remaining hallucinatory imagery. Thus
initial perceptions of the macroscopic structure of the
brain will give way to perceptions of individual nerve
cells. These in turn will give way to direct perception of
subcellular components. These in turn will give way to
direct perceptions of molecules and atoms and so on. Thus
by such a mechanism is it possible to perceive objects that
the retina itself cannot discern. This suggests that our
ability to perceive is not limited by the physical limits of
the senses and that there are mechanisms in the brain that
allow us to directly perceive the components out of which
our body brain and cells are constructed.

The models presented above are empirically testable.
They make specific predictions about the behavior of the
brain. Use of current brain imaging techniques such as
magnetic resonance imaging could confirm or refute the model
presented above.

In conclusion psychedelic drugs can be used as a model
system for the study of altered states of consciousness.
The above discussion focused only on visual hallucinations.
Other aspects of altered states are also amenable to this
model treatment such as for example the mystical
experience which can be induced by psychedelic drugs.

References:

[1] Aaronson B. and Osmond H. Psychedelics. New
York: Doubleday & Co. Inc. 1970.

[2] Asaad G. Hallucinations in Clinical Psychiatry.
New York: Brunner/Mazel 1990.
[3] Besant A. and Leadbeater C.W. Occult Chemistry.
London: Theosophical Publishing House 2nd edition 1919.

[4] Hoeffer A. and Osmund H. The Hallucinogens. New
York: Academic Press 1967.

[5] Kandel Schwartz and Jessel. Principles of Neural
Science 3rd ed.. Norwalk: Appleton and Lange. 1991

[6] Phillips S.M. Extra-Sensory Perception Of Quarks.
Wheaton IL: Theosophical Publishing House 1980.

[7] Watts A. The Joyous Cosmology. New York: Vintage
Books 1962.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 12 Nov 1995 21:31:39 GMT
From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com>
Subject: Don2 Liesel

Hi Liesel:

<I still think layman's opinion the the changes in the brain are
due to the altered states that they bring about the changes & not
vice versa.>

Well I don't have the time or energy to convince you otherwise Liesel.
However by failing to appreciate what I am saying you shall not be able to
appreciate many things that exist now and many more things that will come.

< your statement that science has "temporary notions" is new
to me... welcome news.>

One of my loves is to study the history of science. Believe me the ideas
change.

< I wonder whether you disagree
with "as aboive so below">

Yes I agree with this notion very much. It has become an accepted scientific
and mathematical idea in the past two decades having returned under the name
"fractal geometry".

<I didn't know that the uncertainty principle came from a mathematical
idea...I need a translation>

Yes many lay people do not know this. It is one of the inner "secrets" of
physics. Actually it is a technical detail when one learns quantum mechanics.
The point of mentioning that the uncertainty principle is deerived from a
mathematical statement is to point out that such mathematical statements are
open to many interpretations. The uncertainty principle as it is presently
interpreted has much practical use but from a philosophical view it os only
one of several possible interpretations.

<So why shouldn't someone take chances to explore
with LSD? I just would rather not know about it.>

Thanks for not being judgemental. Different strokes for different folks.

<All you yourself can perceive is that LSD changes the brain. Have you
ever asked a competent clairvoyant whether it also changes the aura?>

This is a very good question. I am sure that LSD would change the aura but I
am not aware if a clairvoyant has observed this.

< Did
you ever look at the pictures in Dora Kunz's "The Personal Aura"? The
thing is that if you're clairvoyant audient or etc. you can perceive
& study scientifically things that ordinary people can't>

I am very familair with Dora Kunz's work as with her predecessors Geoffry
Hodson and C.W. Leadbeater.

You are also correct about clairvoyants being able to study things that ordinary
people cannot. This issue of the nature of claivoyant perceptions is something
I am very interested in both from an occult and a scientific viewpoint.

<but I really don't think it's all simply dogma & talk.>

No neither do I Liesel. I hope you appreciate that I play the devil's
advocate very strongly. On the otherhand many people do talk much more than
their personal experience merits.

<if you
can get hold of more than 01 efficient clairvoyant you can see
where their perception overlaps or doesn't. >

This is precisely the kind of work that needs to be done. Besant and Leadbeater
did it in their day but their work needs to be verified and extended upon.

< I have seen people
in the last stages of Altzheimer's. I still tried to treat them with
the love & respect I think is due from 01 human being to anothe>

That is right. Such people definately deserve such treatment as do their
families. Such circumstances are extremely trying for all involved.

< They may be smug but Don I don't think
they're uncaring>

I would have to suggest the two go hand in hand. True understand brings with it
compassion and humility.

< But Don
I really think that *you're* the one demonstrating "Kastengeist" boxed in
spirit by not dreaming that there might be something more. it isn't
all stupid dogma.>

Again Liesel let me assure you that I don't believe this either. Like you I
accept that transcentendal realities exist. I have percieve them. I know they
exist. So it is not even in question in my mind. Where the problem lies
again is in the issue of talk verses experience. When you percieve and feel
the presence of God it is much different than our ideas of what God is.
Christianity for example was always embarassed by its mystics. God far
transcends any ideas about the nature of God. When ideas prevent a person from
experiencing God directly then the ideas are not worth keeping around. This is
the nature of dogma and the unthinking acceptance of ideas. Religion is
ironically the worst offender of all.

< I don't understand that
you can't see it since you talk about astral travel & clairvoyant
magnifying & LSD trips.>

I do see it. I just try to help others see it by helping them to liberate their
minds. For some people this strategy works for others it is inappropriate.
Furthermore since I have seen these realities I have seen how poor words are
at capturing the essence of these realities.

Nonetheless this is all very tricky business because each of us unfolds in our
own way and by our own internal schedule. I fully recognize that what I say may
be inappropriate for where other people are at. On the other hand what I say
is appropriate for some people. And what I say also reflects where I am at.
None of this is simple. Understanding means appreciating the complexity of
life. Appreciation goes hand in hand with sensitivity. Dogmatically clinging
to ideas is essential at a certain stage of intellecual growth. However as
with training wheels on a bike we eventually can outgrow the need to cling to
ideas and learn to be more flexible with our minds and with this flexibility
comes heightened perception and heightened sensitivity. But it all goes in
stages and different people are at different stages.

My personal sense is that the world on average is at a different stage now.
It needs to mix science and occultsim. Maybe 100 years ago they could stand in
contrast if not be antagonistic to one another. Needs are different today.

<And let me tell you over the years I've found that the theosophical
model often turns out to be correct. >

It is a very powerful model. I want to see if updated and survive into the
future and do more than survive but gain the intellectual respect it deserves.

I'll close now.

My best wishes

Don
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 12 Nov 1995 21:31:44 GMT
From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com>
Subject: Don2Keith

Keith:

Very powerful words:

< most people do not want to read what others wrote in
1888 but want to travel the spiritual path for themselves.>

I think that reading what others wrote is an important first step for
afterall you have to get the ideas from somewhere. But it is a first step.
Reading what people wrote then stopping there and deifying the people is IMO
bad news. One has to take the next step and learn to do for themselves what
they have read about. And not in secret either. The world is different today.
There can be no more "secret societies". There is no need for them. Occult
knowledge is now so widely available that the idea of keeping anything a secret
is an absurdity.

And after one learns to do it for themself the next step is to build a
reliable science of these altered states. Like any science this will be a
group process. Not a democratic process for we do not vote on the laws of
nature but a community process where the efforts and trails and errors of all
participating will lead to the construction of reliable knowledge.

< We are moving from
a quaint romantic Victorian discussion of states of consciousness and human
evolution to practicing and taking conscious control of the process.>

Yes you are exactly right.

<Things
like modern brain research and genetic engineering to mention but two offer
possibilities that even Blavatsky didn't directly forsee>

Exactly. The world is vastly different than it was 100 years ago. The world is
now interconnected. We are drowning in information. Things are more decadent
than ever before. There is a deep need for spirituality but a rational and
reasonable spirituality and one that has organically evolved. You cannot
create a paradigm. Paradigms evolve. The best we can do is contribute to this
process for it is occuring whether we want to admit it or not or whether we
are aware of it or not.

<Thus we should not
look back but move forward with the wisdom of the past as our guide but not
our limitation.>

Very wise words.

<there is a big difference in analyzing
Blavatsky vs. Purucker vs. Leadbetter vs Bailey etc and having the same kind of
experience they claim to have had. >

You are exactly correct. And you are also correct that these are dramatic
experiences full of deep meaning to the indivdual. But in time the initial
thrill fades and it is then that the mind takes over and tries to make sense of
the happening. I know this was the case with me. In some cases it took me 2-3
years to "come down" from some of the things I have experienced. The
experiences are so shattering that it takes time for the intial "blast" to fade
but fade it does sooner or later. And when it does and things are again
quiet one can then ponder even deeper and even further on their significance.
I guess this is very much where I am presently at and why I am so cautious and
conservative in my views presently. I have not always been this way!

So I'll clos ehere. Thanks for the insights!

Best

Don
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 12 Nov 1995 22:20:39 GMT
From: Richtay@aol.com
Subject: Re: Karma and Personal Responsibility

Dear Liesel and anyone else who is interested

Where have I been? Right here.

I have been in that particular Hell called PhD work simultaneously serving
as a teaching assistant for another university an hour away.

Dec 15th I'm released in to Devachan.

For a while.

Rich
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 12 Nov 1995 23:58:03 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: To Richard I in the Pursuit of Benefical Karma

Richard I:

The best way to sell a book is with a catchy title. And
to get someone to read an email message ...

>Practically speaking perhaps karma need only be regarded as
>uncorrected tendencies for specific types of semi-Self indulgence.

Or that every action produces changes in oneself and the rest of
nature. The part of us that is subject to time undergoes perpetual
change.

>Genetic twins born at the nearly the same astrological moment
>could thus be regarded as starting out with roughly the same "karma."

As *human personalities* newly minted that would be true. The
"memory" of previous experiences is carried deeper within than the
personality has ready access to.

>The only difference--and it is a big one--between the twins would
>be in their degrees of Self-awareness.

Not just self-awareness but *inner resources*. When two people of
different skills sit down to write an article each may start with
a blank mind and intent to write something. One draws upon a rich
experience of previous writing; ideas readily occur to this person
and the words quickly take shape on paper. The other draws upon almost
no experience and sits staring off into space wondering what to
write.

>From the standpoint of the human personality we're in the same
position as the writer attempting to produce another article another
attempt at self-expression in a particular media. And we start off
with a blank sheet of paper the newly-minted personality. But we
draw upon a different skill set and a have different talents which
quickly become apparent when we start fashioning our lives.

>This would change the level animating physical desire-feeling
>desire-mental mental Spirit-mental and Spirt at which Self
>Undifferentiated Consciousness will become completely transformed
>into semi-Self delusion differentiated consciousness.

I'd consider the world as both absolute reality as well as complete
illusion. That is viewing it from the standpoint of emptiness of
undifferentiated consciousness it is illusory and unreal. And viewing
it from the standpoint of fullness it is a vast creation of astounding
beauty and magnitude with well-defined laws that we live our lives by.
The two modes of experiencing the essential mystery of life need to
be balanced so that neither gets the upper hand.

>One of the twins might regularly lose all Self-awareness when he or
>she started to eat a bowl of ice cream; the other not until he or
>she started to share an idea. In the former case the temporary egoic
>delusion is of the nature "I *really am* the taste of chocolate chip";
>in the latter "I *really am* what I think I know about the
>subject of reincarnation."

There are different experiences in which we momentarily forget the
sense of personal self and experience life in total enjoyment. That
sense of enjoyment can progress I suspect from a temporary
infrequent pleasure into becoming a permanent background melody that
becomes the theme song for our entire experience of life.

You're talking here about our interests and desires. What we want
and are attracted to and occupy our consciousness with makes us
into the type of people that we are. We make ourselves out of the
things we do. We are fashioned out of the activities of our lives.
Our personalities are formed out of the contents of our lives.

>Naturally complete semi-Self indulgence at any level usually
>brings negative consequences and of course Self-awareness
>is never so perfect as when we are suffering.

The pursuit of pleasure at any level leads to suffering. This
is due to the failure to recognize the impermanence of life.
Suffering is self-imposed. There is no notion of suffering in
life it comes from not getting what we want. And the sense of
wanting something that we don't have at the moment is really
a denial of life. We want to be rich for instance and let
ourselves suffer due to the thought of not having enough money.
The suffering is not so much due to unfulfilled desire as it
is due to our *denial of life*. We deny that we are poor and
that puts us out of harmony with life as we find it at the
moment and that denial or lack of harmony with surrounding
life is the cause of our suffering.

>Increased diffidence because of learned lessons may be the
>mark of the "older soul"; kamikaze-like boldness in semi-Self
>adventure the "younger."

The sign of intelligence is forethought and planning. We
premeditate then we act. But with further increase in
intelligence we premediate *in the very moment* rather than
having a Hamlet-style period of worry and inaction. And even
with direct insight when the action of mind no longer creates
the illusion of an objective world we still use our mind and
insight skillfully to seeing into what we are doing. The only
difference at this point is that the false notion of personality
is gone and we see things purely without any bias in the
direction of personal benefit.

>Shit like "bad" karma may be found everywhere and in many
>disguises; however perhaps it is not really necessary to think
>that it "belongs" to you--no matter who killed whom 20000
>years ago.

True. Since *everyone* has free will and anyone could choose
to give you some undeserved evil. Someone else through their
free will could decide to harm you and you'll suffer and it
would be undeserved since you had never done anything to warrant
it. And then your relationship with that other person has changed
and you have control over your response to the injustice suffered
both in this and future lifetimes.

>Undoubtedly the important thing is to become the more
>Self-aware twin who egoically steps in less shit and thus *becomes*
>less of it.

In one sense karma is like a cycle that happens over time. There
is an action then after a delay in time the affected person
responds with his reaction. And the cycle goes back and forth
until one of the parties breaks out of the cycle.

In another sense karma is like a dynamic relationship with its
own living content. In this view karma can be changed by one or
both of the parties changing themselves internally.

>However if we get rid of the idea of trans-personal karma we
>would still need some explanation or mechanism for how/why a
>particular Chunk of Atma-Buddhi in a particular Degree of
>Self-awareness would stay together for another lifetime

I'd say that we could not possibly exist were we not rooted in
the ulitmate divine the unknowable mystery that transcends both
time and space. And in coming into existence we experience the
same series of emanations or stepping down of beingness as that
mystery does itself.

There is a timeless eternal unchanging part of ourselves that
is yet *uniquely us* and that does not participate in evolution.
That is the Monad and it overshadows the part of us that actually
steps into the turbulent swirl of material evolution.

The Monad persists because it is beyond time as we know it.
Its emanation clothed in the seven principles is subject to
time and evolution. When we clothe ourselves in the seven principles
and step into material existence we find that we have established
relationships with others in life. These relationships are our
karmic content and it is through these relationships that we are
able to exist and cooperate in creating the objective world.

>--and certainly all of the foregoing pretty-much flies in the
>face of what many theosophists have said about the "Causal Body"
>etc. doesn't it?

I'd say that both viewpoints are true from a certain perspective.
>From a pure conscousness unstained by the baggage of the past
we can see what is right to do at this very moment in time and
truly enjoy life. Yet we are drawing on both *inner resources*
as well as outer resources. And those inner resouces are the skills
evolved talents and faculties of consciousness that we have
developed over time.

As beings that are subject to time we grow and evolve. That means
over time we move from less advanced states to more advanced states
and have increased powers and faculties.

On the other hand we have immediate access our personal
timeless nature and can see the pure perfection behind life
and the emptiness of outer activities.

Both modes of experience are true valid and available to us.
It's really a skillful balancing act between the two that makes
a healthy life.

>It also comes very close to suggesting that an increasing/decreasing
>"Degree" of Self-awareness is the only thing which can be carried
>into a new life and out of the old.

We can look at life in terms of *process* or *content*. When we
take the viewpoint of process we'd describe things in terms of
the living awareness that we bring to manifest life. How awake
are we even when in our physical forms? When we take the viewpoint
of content we'd describe things in terms of an accumulation of
merit capabilities powers etc.

Even your "degree of Self-awareness" is a form of content in
terms of a quantity how much of applied to pure consciousness
and indicates the accumulation of something.

>There is not very much homey trans-lifetime romance or
>"connectedness" to be found here is there?

The living spiritual realities that all of us are seeking for are
not found in fairy tales nor in pious but uninspired observation
of some rigid code of conduct nor in paying lip-service to some
set of ideals. The living reality is something that is earth-
shattering in its sweetness in its thundering presence in the
sense of amazement and awe that it brings. Yet it comes as quietly
as one's breath and is always at hand in our lives whether we
notice it or not.

Romance and inspiring tales can though have a valuable
place in our lives. It can inspure and enrichen. It is as
important as art and music in bring the joy of the higher
planes into our mundane world.

>But on the other hand it would ease our burden of having to
>seek out and interact with every unperfected "soul-bundle" we
>have encountered in past lives in order to consumate some sort
>of karmic zero-sum game.

When we step into existence we take up anew our karmic bonds
with other lives in that world or universe. The karma exists
in living relationships with other lives. When we step out
of existence we leave aside those bonds. The feeling of "unfinished
business" or desire to continue our existence in that world tanha
draws us back into incarnation and continuation of our evolution
in that particular world.

I don't expect it is ever possible to achieve "zero-sum karma"
where all beings exhaust all possible karma with the reset of
all other beings. Rather we have karma waiting for us in every
possible world that we could come into existence in and that
karma involves living links with the beings of those worlds.
Out of existence we are temporarily karmaless not being in
dynamic interaction with other paricular beings.

>Perhaps in the short- as well as the long-haul karma can't
>come Where we're going. . . .

It *stays behind*. It is found in our Shandhas for a particular
world and in established relationships with the beings on those
worlds. If there is a person that you know a friend you have
a living relationship. When you meet and interact with that
person your relationship is consciously activated and you're
in karmic interaction. When either you or that person is out
of existence there is no possible interaction since one of
you no longer exists. But there can be a feeling of unfinished
business between the two of you that draws both of you back
into life at the same time...

Best wishes and good karma

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 03:38:24 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Dangerous TSA Bylaw Changes Part 01

On 11 199511 Sy Ginsburg wrote:

> The purpose of this postingParts 01 &2 is to reach as many members of The
> Theosophical Society in America as possible to inform them of the danger in
> certain proposed national bylaw changes. Please feel free to contact me if you
> would like to discuss this. Sy Ginsburg President Miami Florida Branch TSA
> Tel: 305-463-8900; Fax 305-463-8989; E-mail: 72724413@compuserve.com
>
> Proposed bylaw changes #15 #16 #17 and #9 pose a real threat to the T.S.A.
> Please vote against them when you receive your referendum ballot!
>
> Dear Fellow Members of The Theosophical Society in America TSA:
>
> These changes have been approved too uncritically by the
> national Board of Directors in their understandable concern over loss of the
> Boston Branch but in so doing they are unwittingly causing far more damage to
> the TSA than was caused by the loss of a Branch. The national Board has not
> adequately consulted with Branches. The Miami Branch for example third
> largest in TSA was never consulted. Thank you for your attention to this
> important
>
> Sincerely
> Sy Ginsburg J.D. Miami Branch President
> If you would like to discuss this with me please call. My home telephone is
> 305-463-8900. Fax is 305-463-8989. E-mail is 72724413@compuserve.com
>
All of us owe a debt of gratitute to you for taking the time and
trouble to research the issues and informing the members of the gravity and
potential future problems with the proposed changes in bylaws and also
for suggesting the setting up of a commission to look into the bylaws.

It is very surprising that no lodge was consulted. I wonder why no one
who was involved in the revision and approval of bylaws thought it wise
to get some feedback from the lodges. After all these changes are
supposed to protect the lodges. Much good can come out of such
consultation. Even now it is not too late to put the whole revision in
hold.

Does anyone know when the bylaws committee was appointed and what are
the credentials - professional or otherwise of the committee member? Has
any one seen the report of the bylaws committee?

-- end of msg --
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 04:00:48 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Theos-L

On 13 199511 John E. Mead wrote:

>
> >Was this forum formally approved or supported
> >either administratively and/or financially by the Theosophical Society in
> >America?
>
> hi -
>
> the answer is basically "NO".
>
I am very glad to know this. As they say he who pays the piper calls
the tune the independence from any administrative or financial support
can only help free and open discussion of all topics of common interest.

> I started these lists around 1993 after getting luke-warm responses from
> TSA regarding the establishment of a TSA-Internet presence. I think
> that their lack of interest was due to computer-culture ignorance I don't
> mean that to be negative; they were just "unaware" and I could not seem
> to communicate to them what I was trying to do.
>
I am new to Internet. But have been an active participant in local
discussions on local BBSs and I have been very impressed with the speed
and freedom with which information can be disseminated and ideas exchanged.

> there were really two reasons I started the discussion-lists:
>
> 01 The Theosophical Movement "moves" regardless of the various societies.
> Hence it was important to get theosophy into Cyberspace to balance the
> "stuff" which was already appearing there alot of New-Age etc. groups were
> already in Cyberspace. Basically the societies were "missing" all of the
> younger generation of active thinkers. Also the members-at-large are
> the largest group within the TSA and this allowed them to have a "lodge".
>
Amen.
Cyberspace allows fast and free exchange of information and views.
You are right about the members-at-large. At this time they have no
formal means of getting involved in a discussion on items of interest to
them. Moreover with the aging of population there are going to be
members who may not be able to physically go and attend a local lodge
meeting. If the present plans of coming up with a "computer" at $500
price range we will find more users getting on line.

> 02 I decided that the best way to get the TSA interested was to show
> by example what they needed to be doing.
>
Even after TSA has its own WWW home page I think that you should
continue this forum as it can maintain its total independence.

> The TSA has now begun to make plans to get their own internet/server
> WWW pages etc. Fortunately John Algeo has seen the importance of this.
> They ideas are on paper and are pricing various options. They already
> have an e-mil address theos@netcom.com. We have a small advisory commitee
> now working with TSA.
>

I have seen some of the home pages of other "spiritual"
organizations which are doing a very good job of providing information
and enabling users order publications and other related material.

> > hope that this helps explain a few things. >
> peace -
>
> john e. mead
>
> p.s. currently the Theos-L members like the unaffiliated status
> since it gives a neutral politically forum to discuss ideas. It assures that
> no single organization can dominate/dictate/censure the topics etc.
> Also I personally hold freedom of thought/speech/religion as the primal
> directive. I just ask that people try to respect their differences :-

See my comments above.

.. MK Ramadoss
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> John E. Mead jem@vnet.net
> [Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 04:12:14 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: TMR

According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins:
>
> JHE
> This quote doesn't do it for me either. Yes I see her
> expressing regret for not doing enough "remaining too passive"
> but I don't see that to mean that "she did nothing to stop it"
> and I certainly don't see how you can read into this quote that
> she "fanned the flames."

I don't. That's what I see in history.
>
> JHE
> Is this a supposition on your part or do you have a quote
> from her or Sinnett showing that she "knew" these letters would
> be published? Remember these letters were not published within

Not published as is but used for the writing of "Incidents in
the Life." So the information in them would be published; HPB
alludes to this in the letters.
>
> 3. Allow yourself to be co-opted by the IC. To be molested you
> can: 1. Thumb your nose at the inner circle and continue to act
> according to your conscience. 2. Act according to our conscience
> and allow yourself to be hurt by their molestations.
and 03 eventually realize the worthlessness of their approval
and get over the hurting.

> JHE
> You can't expect to make rules for these things. You had a
> choice to respond or not to respond. But suddenly choosing not
> to respond in the middle of a debate doesn't look to good.

But once I respond the "rules" are made by my antagonist and
all I can do is play by them and look good?? or decline and
not look too good?
>
> KPJ
> Why not? The more relevant question is why should I? What is
> to be gained? At what cost to me in time and energy? Who will
> benefit? The overwhelming consensus of people who have advised
> me in private email is-- forget it.
>
> JHE
> Those are great questions to ask *before* making the first
> response.

20/20 hindsight. If I had realized the long-term nature of
that interrogation/debate whatever I wouldn't have started.
But of course this was not clear at the outset.
>
> KPJ
> I guess. But do you not care whether she took the trouble to
> seek out experts in the spiritual traditions she wrote about
> to learn from them firsthand?
>
> JHE
> No.

Even though if she did not do so this renders her a liar on a
much bigger scale than my books suggest?
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 04:15:03 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: re TMR...

According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins:
> DC interjects:
> >I will supply the exact source for this and then ask a question
> >or two.
> >
> >In ODL Fourth Series 1975 printing p. 06 Olcott writes:
> >
> >"Leaving his home at Darjeeling Nov 7th 1881 he [Sarat
> >Chandra Das] ..reached Tashi-Lhunpo the capital of the Tashi
> >Lama whose Master of Ceremonies one of our own revered Mahatmas
> >is.
>
> JHE
> Paul is this the quote you had in mind? Please let me
> know.
>
> Thanks Paul
> Thanks Dan

Yep.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 04:16:29 GMT
From: jem@vnet.net John E. Mead
Subject: Dribble box vs. Cyber Dump

hi --

I couldn't help but point out that that Internet and TV are
very similar.

My wife would probably argue that TV-junkies and Cyber-junkies are
no different. However I do have problems typing letters and reading
articles when both hands are filled with popcorn beer and a pipe/cigar;
watching Duckman on TV avoids these difficulties. :-

peace -

john mead
-------
John E. Mead jem@vnet.net
[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 04:34:14 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: TMR ------- A Question or two

According to MGRAYE@ccit.arizona.edu:
>
> In ODL Fourth Series 1975 printing p. 06 Olcott writes:
>
> "Leaving his home at Darjeeling Nov 7th 1881 he [Sarat Chandra Das]
> ..reached Tashi-Lhunpo the capital of the Tashi Lama whose Master of
> Ceremonies one of our own revered Mahatmas is.
>
> To rearrange the words: The Tashi Lama's Master of Ceremonies is one of our
> own revered Mahatmas.
Yes.
>
> I would have thought Johnson would have regarded this piece of information
> as DISINFORMATION. We'll see the future brings.
Would have until I uncovered the story of Das Gyatso and the
Sengchen.
> In TMR in the chapter entitled "Senghcen Tulku" Johnson writes in two places:
>
> "It seems likely that her [HPB's] claim of a connection to the court of the
> Paanchen Lama also called the Tashi or Trashi Lama is based on reality.
> This is supported by Olcott who writes in Old Diary Leaves of `the Tashi
> Lama whose Master of Ceremonies one of our own revered Mahatmas is....."
> p. 198
>
> "Olcott's allusion to the master of ceremonies in Tashilhunpo was made
> several years later. This may be a posthumous reference to Sengchen but
> it might also imply that at least ONE FRIEND of the T.S. escaped the
> purge which cost Sengchen his life."
>
> Who might this ONE FRIEND be?
His successor.
>
> We see that Johnson in TMR says that this "Master of Ceremonies" might be
> Sengchen or might be "at least one friend of the T.S. [who] escaped."
>
> In his theos-l posting on TMR Johnson also says it might be a reference
> to Sengchen's successor.
>
> Actually I like the one possibility: a "friend of the T.S.". Who could
> that be?
What I meant was that if Olcott is not referring to the Master
of Ceremonies of 1881 but to his successor then that
successor if called by HSO a Mahatma was also a friend of the
TS.
>
> Is Johnson saying that he is open to the possibility that the "Master of
> Ceremonies" was a "friend of the T.S." who escaped from the Tibetan "authori-
> ties"? That is that Olcott's reference to the "Master of Ceremonies" does
> NOT necessarily refer to Sengchen or to Sengchen's successor?
>
> Could Sengchen's position be truly described as the Tashi Lama's "Master of
> Ceremonies" or could someone else have had that "job"?

According to the Das manuscript the Sengchen was the only
other Tulku around who had the authority to perform
ceremonies: from TMR p. 200 "Throughout this period he
completely ignored his usual duties of receiving pilgrims
blessing images and amulets and conducting ceremonies. In an
ordinary two-week period [the] Sengchen would have given six
thousand benedictions which only he and the Panchen as
avatars were qualified to perform."

My basis for thinking HSO must be referring to this or another
occupant of the same position. As his responsibility for the
library would have made him the only possible person to whom
HPB refers as "Chief of the Archive-Registrars of the secret
libraries of the Dalai and Tas-shu-hlumpo Lamas Rimboche." But
maybe alternatives could be suggested?

> Johnson suggests in TMR p. 193 and elsewhere that Sarat Chandra Das
> brought from Tibet from The Tashi Lama's own collections the manuscripts
> of the Stanzas of Dzyan and The Book of the Golden Precepts and HPB was
> secretly given these MSS which she finally published in THE SECRET DOCTRINE
> 1888 and THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE 1889.

I suggest this as a possibility. What I suggest as a
probability is that the material left unpublished at her death
and now published as "The Mystery of Buddha" came from the
Tashilhunpo library since she refers to it therein.

>
> WHEN did Das bring these MSS back to India? Date?

Two trips. The first in 1879; the second in 1882. His return
from the latter to his Darjeeling home was delayed by
the death of the Panchen in Sep and then by other
problems and he and Ugyen did not get back to Darjeeling until
Christmas as I recall 1882-- well after HPB had left the
place. But the facts that a Das and Gyatso intended to get
back in early fall b HPB went to Darjeeling and stayed at a
Tibetan Buddhist monastery nearby that fall c The names
Chandra Cusho and Ten-dub Ughien are floating around at the
time the former as a pseudonym for Keshava Pillai the latter
described as traveling companion to "our Mahatma" all suggest
that there was some connection. Anytime from 1883 through
Olcott's second trip to Darjeeling in 1887 some material could
have been transmitted to HPB.
And when did HPB possibly

> get her hands on these manuscripts? Does any one have any thoughts
> suggestions or dates on these.

Since she couldn't read Tibetan I would suspect rather that
Das would have translated parts for her and mailed them or
otherwise transmitted them.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 04:40:36 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Karma and Personal Responsibility

Keith:

>Ideas about Karma often appeal to our idea about "fairness" in the
>world process.

Fairness implies that we all play by the same rules that no one
is able to cheat and gain an unfair advantage. In this sense life
is universally fair.

>Although Blavatsky decried anthropomophism at every turn of the
>page I wonder sometimes if karma as often portrayed is a
>projection of our need for good to rewarded and evil to be punished.

We feel that need because that represents justice. And life is
just. The problem is that we don't see the big situation and
expect justice to be served on our own terms according to our
immediate liking. Life doesn't respond in that manner and so
we're dissappointed and may complain that it's unjust when it's
only our limited perception that makes it appear that way.

>Karma is portrayed as a balancing machine but with a human
>face. The Lord Yama and St. Peter at the Pearly Gates
>demand a life review scales in hand.

And at the end of our lives or near-death experience we do
see our lives in review and ourselves judge what we've done.
This is also indicated as a possible spiritual practice where
either at the end of the day just before falling asleep or
at the first waking moments in the morning we review the day
that has passed and judge where we've succeeded or failed and
plan for the morrow.

>But the relativistic problem of good for you and bad for me
>always arises.

But not if each of us stands judge over our own lives.

>Other factors such as chaos fate and randomness are
>discussed also because we all know that on the surface life
>is not immediately or superficially fair.

The feeling of unfairness is similar to the feeling of
suffering. It is self-conferred. We let ourselves be
disappointed in our lives seeing a gap between our
expectations and the actuality of the moment and feel
let down. We don't have to feel that way. Life can be
amazing through both the pain and joy that arises often
beyond our apparent control.

>[Dianna Dunningham] talked about beliefs about karma as popularly
>held in theosophical and new age circles such as: what goes
>around comes around we draw people and events into our life
>for lessons we are working out realtionship problems from past
>lives with the same people again soul-mates and on and on.

In a way the idea that "we draw people" is a form of arrogance.
The draw has to be mutual. Everyone else is the world are also
agents of free will and not the puppets of our personal karma.
We rendezvous with others based upon a mutual attraction based
upon unfinished business between us. But that unfinished business
does not have to be karma to be worked off. It could be a living
relationship that is ripe for further interaction.

>She noted that most of our ideas about karma are based on the
>individual. This seems somewhat grandiose and self-contered in
>some ways. She suggested that karma moves with a much broader
>brush. That is group national and geographic karma far
>outweighs the individual in explaining events like accidents
>hurricanes being born rich or poor etc.

We *participate* in a group; we are not *caused by* the group.
We are within bounds masters of our own destiny and not ants
in an anthill subject to the commands of some "group soul".

The group national and geographic karma represent general
conditions in the world that we participate in. In a sense
nothing can come to us unless we deserve it. In another sense
there is free will of individuals that can make new karma with
us. Regarding groups there is no specific intent of a group
to do something to us. An earthquake meant for Los Angeles does
not itself single out individual victims. We *position ourselves*
for the things that happen to us. Like someone knowing not to
be on that plane that's going down or to stop for a snack on
the way to a train station that's going to be blown up -- there's
an interaction between us and the group event that happening.

>She placed great emphasis on our society as a measure of our
>karma that is racial problems religious wars pollution and
>poverty call us to a response that has little to do with our
>individual karma.

Such things are our individual karma as we make them so.
The responsibility to the needs of the world comes not from
our group karma I'd say but due to our responsibility to
all of life. The fulfillment of this responsibility is found
in the Bodhisattva vow that of harmlessness and of seeking
to end the suffering and misery of others.

>As we examined individual issues such as abortion euthanasia
>suicide and other issues we reiterated that "motive is everything"
>in trying to see an action as good or bad.

Motive is highly important but not I'd say everything. The
Inquisition brought thousands to torture and death due to good
motive but bad ideas. We have to know what we're doing and act
in the most intelligent responsible insightful manner in order
to achieve the best results. Greater harm is caused at times
by well-intentioned people that don't know what they are doing
than by people of ill-intent.

Motive relates to what part of our nature is involved in
the decision-making process and is affected. I'd place
motive and ethics with Buddhi and it respresents the essence
or aroma of actions that which is retained from one life to
the next. From this point of view motive is the part of the
action that persists to cause future causes and effects.

>Her activity in the TOS evidences her view that social
>action is necessary as well as meditation etc. for personal
>growth.

Karma yoga is important but there are other paths. Regardless
of path we must give tangible expression to the spiritual
in our lives or we're just making a long devachan for ourselves.
That tangible expression though doesn't have to come out in
the form of social work.

>Also our positive response to a stressful event is probably
>more important than the fact that it happen that is everybody
>suffers but handling it with equanimity seems to say more
>than just being "lucky" and never having to face suffering.

The sense of suffering does not have to be there. Handling
an event with equanimity still represents a sense of separation
between oneself and the other. When that is let go of there
is simply a sense of eternal delight throughtout the appearance
of pleasure and pain.

>I'm not doing justice to her ideas but karma has often seemed
>to me to be a zero sum game that is karma is impersonal and
>seeks homeostasis or even stacic non-action rather than being
>a tool of evolution.

That's because you need to refine your model of karma to
make it better explain the actual process of life. Karma itself
is not flawed just the models of karma that you're examining.

>I mean to be karmaless is to be desireless and harmless.

But we don't become karmaless. To be totally karmaless is to
be completely absorbed in nirvana without any active attraction
to any other being in life. This is an ultimate goal but not
before all Seven Rounds are up!

>The pendulum seeks not just to balance the swing but to come
>to rest in stillness.

Although life has many attractive sources so the pendulum
is swinging around in an chaotic manner totally unpredictible
according to some strange attractor!

>Karma seems to wind down in a kind of total entropy of the
>entire system. Thus karma may be a tool but it is not the
>motive behind life consciousness and evolution.

That model of karma needs to grow to better suit life. Karma
is much more than that.

>Negative entropy or negentropy seems to be necessary for life.
>A system must pull energy or more exactly "information" from
>the environment to stay organized. This requires massive
>expenditures and consumption of energy for complex systems.
>Thus the more organization the more entropy.

But we also have the sense of continuous creation. At every
moment in time there is an outpouring of new energy from the
Monad that allows us to continue to exist. And the same for
the world that we live in at a bigger scale from the greater
being whose body it represents.

>I wouldn't be the first to say that this has lends a type
>of dog-eat-dog or big fish eats little fish quality to
>the entire world process.

Not true. At least as I see it. The dog-eat-dog view is one
mode of viewing life but there are other modes. We pick
the mode that we experience life in. Paradoxically all the
modes may be true simultaneously but *for us* we're responsible
for the channel that we tune in to.

>We may even love conflict for its own sake - if we didn't
>why all this expenditure of energy about Masters and Monads
>Blavatsky vs Purucker etc.?

Another story ... Regarding conflict for its own sake we
are faced with it in every moment of life. We have conflicting
ideals that come into play in each choice that we make and
it requires skillful ethics and insight in order to make good
choices.

>I love conflict. It tends to energize me and focus my attention.
>Love isn't called warm and "FUZZY" for nothing.

But there are different opponents. The biggest is *ourselves*.
Self-genesis is the biggest battle that we face.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 04:58:09 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: One Week to Go

Hey gang--

This week will be the last that I respond to any questions on
the list about my Theosophical books. Some reasons:

1. I turn 42 and think a 7-multiple birthday is a
good time to declare a phase over especially since my research
got underway in earnest in 1988.

2. The 24-volume Edgar Cayce Readings Series just arrived and
I must focus all my attention on research for my next book.

3. Enough is enough as a friend recently advised.

So for the rest of this week Dan Jerry H-E anyone else ask
for all the explanations you like. Not defenses. If the
message is "I blame you for this or that shortcoming of your
book-- defend it and yourself" my response is "forget it." But
if the message is "I don't see what you meant by x or on what
basis" then an explanation will be attempted. I cannot
promise lengthy detailed responses however especially if the
demand is high.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 05:28:02 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: Liberalization

According to John R Crocker:
>
> Lewis...
> > So you see the events of the past few years as a
> > "liberalization" huh?
>
> Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes! In fact I believe contrary to the
> overwhelming weight of current popular opinion that we are living in
> rare and wonderful times ... an era in which the fifth dimension the
> axis of probability as the physicists say ... but it might also be
> called the axis of *possibility* is on the the verge of being
> discovered - and even more important the means by which to achieve
> volitional movement upon it. But I need to write a longer post to answer
> yours ... and maybe a discussion about this would be a great idea. If
> there is any single most important thing I've taken from Theosophy over
> the years it is that a single human consciousness is capable of holding
> firm to a clear vision of a healed world ... and relating to the current
> world as though that vision is *already a fact* .... and that this tends
> to encourage others to believe it as well; and that *groups* of such
> people even very small groups can effect *large* populations if the
> vision is clear held by powerful minds charged with elevated and
> disciplined emotions and persevered in over time.
> Yes! I am full of hope for this world ... and believe I see the
> first surfacings of a sort of harmony that is difficult to see only
> because so few yet believe it is even possible so unprecedented is it.
> But I'm ferociously busy just now -:. I'll write soon.
> -JRC
>
A few words of support for JRC's optimism from the perspectives
of astrology and Cayce.

The triple conjunction of Saturn Uranus and Neptune in
Capricorn which attained its tightest orb in 198911
was an event of millennial magnitude not having occurred since
1307. It signified the shattering Uranus and dissolving
Neptune of structures of authority and tradition Saturn
especially in the realm of governmental and economic power
Capricorn. Although the obvious explicit fulfillment was in
the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Empire I
think that the same energies have acted throughout the planet.
Could go on about this but will instead comment that Edgar
Cayce predicted 1998 as the real beginning of the New Age.

Some quotes:
"Remember that those principles inculcated in the Declaration
of Independence are eternal and in them lies the hope of the world
politically. All men must recognize them if they are to
remain together as brethren; in that they all need not be of
one mind but they must all be of one purpose one hope" based
on equality fraternaity understanding."

The transition "will begin in those periods in 1958 to 1998.
When this period has been accomplished then the New Era the
New Age is to begin. Will you have a part in it or will you
let it pass by and merely be a hangeron?"
A good question for organized Theosophy.

"In Russia there comes the hope of the world not as that
sometimes termed the communistic the Bolshevistic; no. But
freedom freedom in that each man will live for his fellow
man! The principle has been born. It will take years for it
to be crystallized but out of Russia comes again the hope of
the world. Guided by what? That friendship with the nation
that hath even set on its present monetary unit In God we
Trust."

The New Age will be world-wide and will involve peaceful trade
throughout the world. As for political values "with the
changes that will be wrought true Americanism the universal
thought that is expressed and manifested in the brotherhood of
man as in the Masonic order will be the eventual rule in the
settlement of the affairs of the world. Not that the world is
to become a Masonic Order but the principles that are embraced
in same will be the basis upon which the new order of peace is
to be established."

All from "Edgar Cayce's Story of the Origin and Destiny of Man"
by Lytle Robinson final chapters.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 06:57:39 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: TMR

>>In ODL Fourth Series 1975 printing p. 06 Olcott writes:
>>
>>"Leaving his home at Darjeeling Nov 7th 1881 he [Sarat
>>Chandra Das] ..reached Tashi-Lhunpo the capital of the Tashi
>>Lama whose Master of Ceremonies one of our own revered
>>Mahatmas is.
>
> JHE
> Paul is this the quote you had in mind? Please let me
> know.
>
> Thanks Paul
> Thanks Dan

PJ
Yep.

JHE
Paul I had to go back into our former dialogues in order to
reconstruct this part. This is what I have:

JHE 11/8
For Sengchen Tulku you have an enigma but very possibly a
person whom HPB gained information. But Does HPB or HSO
call him a Mahatma?

KPJ 11/8
Don't have the sources in from of me but HSO called him
"one of our Masters" as I recall.

JHE 11/9
Where

KPJ 11/9
ODL somewhere; can't find the passage offhand. But he
speaks of the Master of Ceremonies of the Panchen Lama being
"one of our Mahatmas"--but does so after the death of the
Sengchen in question so may be talking about his successor.

JHE
I'm really confused here. In Olcott's parenthetical phrase:
"whose Master of Ceremonies one of our own revered Mahatmas is"
I understand you are reading to say that this Master of
Ceremonies of the Panchen Lama is one of our Masters. But since
Sengchen Tulku was dead Olcott may be talking about his
successor.
OK now my original question was whether or not HPB or HSO
called Sengchen Tulku a Master. Your original answer was yes
but with the addition of the idea that Olcott might be talking
about Sengchen's successor your answer becomes a maybe. Now
what confuses me is why would Olcott publicly identify Sengchen
Tulku or even his successor in ODL as a Master if he and HPB
were trying to keep these identities a secret? If you had found
this statement in a diary or in a confidential private letter
then I would understand it as being some privileged information.
But you are quoting from Olcott's quotation from Sarat Babu's
"Narrative of a Journey to Lhasa in 1881-82. The parenthetical
phrase appears to have been added by Olcott. If you are reading
this correctly then that makes a very public proclamation of the
identity of a Mahatma to me. Why the reversal of policy in this
case? Perhaps because he is dead? This is a very intriguing
passage but seems to simultaneously help and hurt your case.

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: 13 Nov 1995 07:34:09 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: blinds

JHE:
> Have you given any thought about the
>eighth sphere doctrine in relationship to the Kabalistic Abyss
>concept? Any ideas? But alas the eighth sphere is another one
>of those doctrines that was never developed.

Not myself. But Kenneth Grant wrote THE
NIGHTSIDE OF EDEN in which he proposes the theory
that the shells of the Sephiroth the Qlippoth can be entered
via what he calls The Tunnels of Set whose entrance is
somewhere in the Abyss. Alan disputes any substance to
this and Grant is Outer Head of the OTO in Europe and
so is a questionable source. But the idea of the "eighth
sphere" in relation to the Qlippoth is intriguing.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 08:57:05 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: To Eldon and Masochists

RI:
> Shit like "bad" karma may be found everywhere and in many
>disguises; however perhaps it is not really necessary to think that it
>"belongs" to you--no matter who killed whom 20000 years ago.

This is what I have called the Chaos Factor.

RI:
>... But on the other hand it would ease our burden of having to seek out and
>interact with every unperfected "soul-bundle" we have encountered in past
>lives in order to consumate some sort of karmic zero-sum game

I don't believe that we need to do this. I believe that past karma
can be consumed in a specific stage of samadhi. This stage corresponds
to the 6th Aethyr Maz in Enochian Magic but is not defined so specifically
in Eastern texts. It has to do with an indepth perception of non-duality. To
physically/mentally "undo" all that we have karmically generated to date
would probably take forever because every such action would automatically
generate new karma.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 08:57:10 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Suffering

Eldon:
>The pursuit of pleasure at any level leads to suffering. This
>is due to the failure to recognize the impermanence of life.
>Suffering is self-imposed. There is no notion of suffering in
>life it comes from not getting what we want. And the sense of
>wanting something that we don't have at the moment is really
>a denial of life. We want to be rich for instance and let
>ourselves suffer due to the thought of not having enough money.
>The suffering is not so much due to unfulfilled desire as it
>is due to our *denial of life*. We deny that we are poor and
>that puts us out of harmony with life as we find it at the
>moment and that denial or lack of harmony with surrounding
>life is the cause of our suffering.

I would like to offer an alternate view here. I see
suffering in quite another way. To me pleasure and pain are
two sides of a duality and the pursuit of one always brings
the other to us.
Suffering is associated with the "denial of life"
yes but also with its acceptance. Pain is inherent in
mortality. The very fact of our mortality is painful. Not
only for ourselves but we also experience suffering when
we see little children hurt our friends accidently hurt
themselves or family members die - all normal events
of life. Even when we act in harmony with nature and
accept life on its terms we still suffer. Suffering lurks
even in the midst of our joyous moments. This is why
Buddhism calls suffering one of the four nobel truths.
As we tread the Path we are told that we
must "die daily." This act serves as a reminder of our
mortality and the suffering it brings serves to increase
our compassion for others.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 09:16:42 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: Ken Wilber in QUEST

It is an honor for the TS to have published Wilber in book form
The Atman Project and in the Quest. He is the most respected
thinker of his generation in the areas he has chosen to write
about.

As to his borrowing too heavily from HPB or others I don't see
it. His distinctions between authenticity and legitimacy or
prerational and transrational consciousness seem genuinely
creative. But perhaps I'm missing some antecedent formulations
that he could have borrowed from?

Don't know why neither he nor the Quest gets much discussion
here on theos-l. Would guess it has to do with the rather
strictly Theosophical orientation of discussions here.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 11:08:23 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Ken Wilber in QUEST

At 021800 PM 11/13/95 -0500 K Paul Johnson wrote:
>It is an honor for the TS to have published Wilber in book form
>The Atman Project and in the Quest. He is the most respected
>thinker of his generation in the areas he has chosen to write
>about.
>
>Don't know why neither he nor the Quest gets much discussion
>here on theos-l. Would guess it has to do with the rather
>strictly Theosophical orientation of discussions here.
>
A good question. One of the reasons may be due to the fact that some of
the members who receive the magazine find it too difficult to read and
understand. I myself have found several times the material to be very heavy
and have read only the book reviews. This is just my opinion. Would be
interesting to hear other feedback.

MK Ramadoss
*************** **** *****************************************
M K Ramadoss 4203 Gardendale Ste 226 San Antonio TX 78229-3137
210 615-7373
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 12:03:06 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Financial Statements of TSA

I have faxed you the TSA's financial statements that I received. Please
review the notes to financial statement where it is stated that the market
value of the TSA's equity in Theosophical Investment Trust was substantially
less in 199503 as compared to that in March 1994. The difference is
significant. I do not know what caused this change.

*************** **** *****************************************
M K Ramadoss 4203 Gardendale Ste 226 San Antonio TX 78229-3137
210 615-7373
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 13:18:34 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Theos-L

At 053000 PM 11/13/95 -0500 you wrote:
>
>> I am very glad to know this. As they say he who pays the piper calls
>>the tune the independence from any administrative or financial support
>>can only help free and open discussion of all topics of common interest.
>> ....
>> Even after TSA has its own WWW home page I think that you should
>>continue this forum as it can maintain its total independence.
>
>yes. I was happy to discover so many people Theosophists who belonged
>to the various organizations or none at all who liked the neutral
>environment for discussion. Even though the USA organizations all read
>this e-mail TSA Pasadena etc are all subscribed it seems that we have
>an environment where controversy is accepted and the *organizations* don't
>get upset at taking criticisms from members or others. it is kinda like
>a laundry room... a lot of dirty stuff gets aired out but it is an
>environment where dirty laundry is acceptable/normal. :-
>
Well intentioned and well motivated controversy is good in the long run.
Was not HPB very controversial and it was the controversy that brought a lot
of attention to what she was saying. She faced all the controversy because
she was willing to face them knew that it was very productive in making
people think. Fortunately at her time there was no big organization to deal
with. When there is an organization criticism may not be as welcome and may
even be treated as "unbrotherly".

>> Cyberspace allows fast and free exchange of information and views.
>>You are right about the members-at-large. At this time they have no
>>formal means of getting involved in a discussion on items of interest to
>>them. Moreover with the aging of population there are going to be
>>members who may not be able to physically go and attend a local lodge
>>meeting. If the present plans of coming up with a "computer" at $500
>>price range we will find more users getting on line.
>
>I and a few others actually considered trying to get Theos-L recognized
>formally as a TSA study lodge. At the time it seemed like a good idea.
>Fortunately TSA had By-Laws which formally caused this to be a problem.
>Now -- as you well know -- I doubt anyone ON the discussion lists would even
>WANT a formal connection.
>"Freedom is just another word for nothing-else-to-lose" - Janis Joplin I
think

We are in an age of change. Cyberspace has compressed the time and
distance in communication and a new form of "set up" is needed. It may not
fit into the traditional mold of Lodges Study Centers etc. with
qualification certification and all the organizational framework. In the
past physical contacat was needed to conduct most of the activities and
business. Now it is commonplace for many activities and businesses to be
conducted over phone fax computer communication Internet etc. In this
changed environment formal organizational structures which were essential
in the past may not be so now. Afterall is not one of the primary
objectives of "Theo Sophia" is to change the individual for the better and
for such a change a discussion group like this can work very well for many
individuals.

This are just my views. I welcome input from others in this forum.

> i.e. It is hard to miss what you don't have; detachment IS
liberation. :-
>
>> I have seen some of the home pages of other "spiritual"
>>organizations which are doing a very good job of providing information
>>and enabling users order publications and other related material.
>>
>
>Yes -- this was one selling point we used for TSA --- Quest books
>and other "advertisements". It can really disseminate information
>to those "wanting" it.
>
>peace -
>john e. mead
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 13:23:49 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Dangerous TSA Bylaw Changes Part 01

At 080700 PM 11/13/95 -0500 you wrote:
>Dear Doss
>
>There is no bylaws committee. By laws changes are devised by the
>Board of Directors which contains one person from each region in the
>US. But you can get al this from the "American Theosophist".
>This time the membership is at least getting a chance to read the
>changes & express opinions before the bylaws are passed. This is a
>great step in the right direction. Under the
> President before John Algeo the board just passed bylaw
>amendments & then the membership was informed about it afterwards.
>
>Liesel
>
thanks for the information. does the bylaws allow bylaws to be revised
with no referendum at all?

..Doss
*************** **** *****************************************
M K Ramadoss 4203 Gardendale Ste 226 San Antonio TX 78229-3137
210 615-7373
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 15:07:46 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Dangerous TSA Bylaw Changes Part 01

Dear Doss

There is no bylaws committee. By laws changes are devised by the
Board of Directors which contains one person from each region in the
US. But you can get al this from the "American Theosophist".
This time the membership is at least getting a chance to read the
changes & express opinions before the bylaws are passed. This is a
great step in the right direction. Under the
President before John Algeo the board just passed bylaw
amendments & then the membership was informed about it afterwards.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 15:45:50 GMT
From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Re: Multiple Choice

On 13 199511 RIhle@aol.com wrote:

> Common philosophy is the handmaiden to uncommon laziness; common theosophy is
> the handmaiden to uncommon: a. haziness b. craziness c. dazedness d.
> theosophy.
>
> Richard Ihle
>

e. eating habits.
-JRC
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 16:24:33 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re:Ken Wilber in Quest

Ramadoss:
> A good question. One of the reasons may be due to the fact that some of
>the members who receive the magazine find it too difficult to read and
>understand. I myself have found several times the material to be very heavy
>and have read only the book reviews. This is just my opinion. Would be
>interesting to hear other feedback.

Funny. I just received the magazine today 11/13 and took it with me to a
doctor's appointment. Almost read the whole thing while in the waiting room.
It was more engrossing than reading People magazine or watching the television
that was on. Seemed to be a rather readable issue this time.

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 16:35:53 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Don2 Liesel

Wow Don

That's quite a bit of research you present there. It's super.
It goes much further than I thought possible. I think it's wonderful
that you are researching ASC. I understand most of what you wrote
except for a few technical terms. But why do you say
that if I insist that the source is somewhere outside the brain I "shall not
be able to appreciate many things that exist now & many more
that will come."? I didn't mean to imply that brain research isn't
valuable. I think it is . If that's a sample of your work you're doing super
work at the edge of knowledge. That's exactly the kind of work I
think should be done by those who want to live by our 3rd Object &
I'm tickled pink to find someone who's actually doing it. But I think
I can appreciate brain research whether I believe the brain to be
the point of origin or not. Why don't we just agree to disagree &
40 years from now you can come visit me in Devachan & tell me what
else you've found & I'll tell you what else I've found.

Re talk versus experience - I don't think Dora is just talking. Some
of her work is quite objective. What she sees subjectively is
verified ... let's take the early example of X-rays when she was
diagnosing cancer patients. Therapeutic Touch works although there
you can debate why it does. I'm trying to excuse the rest of the
theosopists who talk without knowing. I think
a lot of us know & have observed Dora & what we think we saw might be
conjecture. Some things I experienced with Harry weren't conjecture.
Just for instance one day he started telling me to take a
homeopathic remedy for a heart problem I knew nothing about. So I
made an appointment with my MD & asked him to do a EKG. It showed
that I had a very slight heart murmur. My MD said it was so slight it
would probably never bother me. At the time Harry lived in
Australia & I in New York State. While he was alive I wasn't allowed to
talk about these things. I don't know what other theosophists know or
don't know. I know a few things & I guess I talk about a great many
more. After my experiences with Harry the subject fascinates me.

You make 02 statements towards the end of your 2d post that I very
much agree with.

"The world needs to mix science & occultism." That's what I believe
too. I think the 02 could learn a lot from each other & combined
enrich mankind. I think this is beginning to happen. I just read
"Turbulent Mirror" re chaos theory a few months ago & was
enchanted by how much the 02 views were blending. I think I would
call it "esoteric knowledge" rather than "Occultism" because the latter
considers itself a science.

As for theosopohy I too "want to see it updated & survive into the
future". Keith had some good thoughts on that yesterday.

Thanks for your messages. They were very welcome.

Namaste

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 16:47:22 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Financial Statements of TSA

Doss

If you read the last AT there was I believe something in John
Algeo's report. They were temporarliy short of money somewhere they
borrowed it from the Investment Trust & when the matter was
resolved the returned the money to the Trust. I remember that much
but not anymore where they were short.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 16:58:28 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Ken Wilber in QUEST

Dear Doss

I'm not sure that everyone on this net gets the "Quest". Why don't
you start a discussion about something you read in it? That'll give
us something else to talk about.I don't agree
with you that it's that deep. If most people didn't understand what's
written they wouldn't want to buy it. Incidentally Our town has an
esoteric bookstore being a univeristy town. They have the "Quest" on
their magazine rack. I noticed it just yesterday.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 17:02:37 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Liberalization

Dear John

I share your optimism. That's why I get so darn dsigusted with these
people who talk about nothing other than the evils of mankind. There
are so many hopeful things happening. I like to look at those &
think we'r heading in the right direction

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 13 Nov 1995 18:12:47 GMT
From: RIhle@aol.com
Subject: Multiple Choice

Common philosophy is the handmaiden to uncommon laziness; common theosophy is
the handmaiden to uncommon: a. haziness b. craziness c. dazedness d.
theosophy.

Richard Ihle
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 14 Nov 1995 00:11:32 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Don 02 Eldon

Don D:

A late reply ...

>>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.

>Are you saying here that the hidden knowledge also needs to adapt?

In the sense that the Masters are living men too and are subject to change
over time as much as we are. They are not static and I'd expect that they
might both have "dead languages" like we have latin and living languages as
spoken and currently thought in.

>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.

I don't expect the two to converge although the hidden heritage will always
remain an influence upon public knowledge. There are a number of reasons for
this. Their knowledge relates to Fifth Round experiences that are hundreds of
millions of years away from external realization in our external world.
Their knowledge is based upon hundreds of thousands of generations of
experience in not only "altered states of consciousness" but in evolved or
enlightened states of consciousness.

Our western knowledge could be compared to a few dozen iterations by our
current culture in understanding life. The knowledge that the Masters preserve
might represent millions or billions of iterations in understanding life.

>>Philosophy is not exactly science.

>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.

The distinctions that we make between religion science and philosophy
are artificial. I'd say that they don't just arise because of the strong
points in each but also because of their weak points. We can combine a
love of wisdom philosophy with a spiritual path religion and an
organized approach to understanding the material world science. The
three don't have to be separate categories.

When you place science foremost and depict philosophy as just an
envelope about science there seems to be a bit of a bias.

>These philosophical opinions change much more readily than the
>scientific ideas they are based upon ... the philosophies change
>but the science doesn't or at least not in the same way.
>Philosophies come and go whereas science grows.

In taking a short-run picture of human experience I'd find science
as stable and growing. But societies come and go and the same with
popular knowledge. You're writing from the standpoint that the body
of scientific thought is the repository of human experience. My view
is that we cannot take for granted what we are taught. In perhaps as
short as 20000 years our society could have gone under and been
replaced with another with its own common knowledge about life an
understanding that may or may not resemble what is currently thought.

The real body of knowledge that is retained by humanity in the long
run is that held by the Mahatmas not by the pundits of this or that
particular society.

Science is not more real than philosophy. Science may lead to the
production of better material goods weapons of war and advances in
medicine but it is religion that deals with the spiritual path and
philosophy that deals with living a wise life. The three should not
be separated and one raised to rulership over the others.

>there are tried and proven methods of obtaining spiritual knoweldge ...
>The methods of yoga have remained unchanged for over 2000 years
>because they work.

Agreed. And the training methods of the Mahatmas have become refined
over a far vaster time period unchanged due to the same reason: 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.

That is fine. But the subject for the tests is ourselves and it
requires that we undergo various experiences that we may not be
ready for in the next hundred lifetimes. So in the absense of
personal experience of personally replicating the experiences that
we've heard of we are left to study second-hand knowledge or
remain ignorant.

>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.

When we get to validating our beliefs through experience we're
talking about a spiritual practice. That implies that we've found
an established spiritual school and started our training or that
we're attempting a much-harder ad hoc approach. How many T.S.
members have done either?

You have to be careful when you say "mindlessly say things" or
"promulgate beliefs that do nothing for people spiritually". Those
things happen but it's possible to call something mindless banter
when it's not. The unadulterated teachings of the Mahatmas as they've
described them would sound like "insane gibberish" to the uniniated.
Even simple versions of reincarnation and karma may seem unintellible
to a Fundamentalist Christian totally unfamiliar with the ideas.

Also the theosophical doctrines can do something for people spiritually.
They can form the basis of a jnana yoga practice. And they are presented
by at least some like Purucker in a manner that trains the student to
develop his own innate ability to know truth directly to awaken the
inner teacher and come into direct contact with the theosophic thought
current.

>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.

These methods would involve the acquisition of inner powers that
necessitate one to have progressed along the Path. They involve the
occult arts and those that know them the Mahatmas have kept
them secret.

>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.

The planes interpenetrate each other but it's only in living
beings that exist on multiple planes in which a change on one
plane can be observed on the next.

To move from one plane to the next requires complete dissolution
and the passing through a laya center. The reason that there is
no apparnent separation between the astral and the physical is
that they are *on the same plane* and HPB mentions in "The Inner
Group Teachings".

The astral Linga-Sharira is our body of senses and our lowest
principle. The physical Sthula-Sharira is merely condensed
astral and not really a separate principle. What happens to
one shows up in the other because they are both on the same
plane and both composed of the astral light.

>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.

The astral double is the living prototype of the physical form
and not really on a separate plane. Dreams are a form of preception
into the astral light using the astral double. What we do in the
astral double affects the physical because the two jointly compose
our external form on this world Globe D.

>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".

Agreed that we need to progress from simple ideas and models to
more-and-more refined ideas. And we need to keep a high degree of
flexibility in our thought. This applies not only to keeping an
open mind regarding the capabilities and direction of science but
also to our study of the Mystery Teachings.

>>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.

>These kinds of statements Eldon can be taken as starting hypotheses to
>investigate the connection between physical and nonphysical things.

You can take any theosophical statement as the starting hypothesis for
purposes of investigation. Given the vast quantity of materials provided
for our study there's almost an unlimited assortment of points that
could be verified and proven.

>The broadest 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.

That's good.

>LaBerge ... [showed] that either 01: 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.

It's good to demonstrate that there's much more to life than the
material world.

>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.

What's been proven so far seems to be rather basic stuff. The more
significant side of the occult arts will I suspect remain "classified"
for quite some time to come. Scientists cannot prove something that
they don't know about.

>People such as myself who are in both worlds occultism and science
>are taking it upon ourselves 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.

The work that you're doing can be helpful. But although you may be
a trained scientist do you really consider yourself a trained
occultist?

>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.

My view is different. I see the psychic as coming and going in
specific historic periods. The long-range goal is the evolution
of consciousness and the perfecting of skills in self-expression
in the world. At different points in any cycle we may find the
psychic intellectual religious scientific or artistic/mystical
emphasized. A subrace cycles through an emphasis on certain
qualities then on others and eventually repeats itself.

>>And apart from the evolution of these external systems we're free
>>as individuals to directly persue the Path and *go beyond*.>

>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.

And this is where Theosophy comes into play. It provides *one*
opportunity for individuals to get started on their running ahead
of the average. This is not elitism as some would suggest and
requires the development and practice of compassion.

>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.

If left to itself humanity would not come into occult
knowledge until it was ready for it. But there's still a moral
decision on the part of those that have occult knowledge regarding
telling what whey have learned. Although humanity might not feel
inclined to explore occultism if knowledge is presented to it --
practical knowledge -- that knowledge would be taken up and
misused. There would be harmful effects. My analogy would be
to compare this with the knowledge of sex. A child may not feel
inclined to explore sex or seek out knowledge about it until the
child feels ready to know. This may be based upon the child's
own maturation. But someone could prematurely initiate the child
into sexual knowledge and that may have a disruptive affect on
the child's life. My point here is that humanity may not be ready
for occult knowledge and not seeking it out but could be harmfully
affected if any significant knowledge were prematurely given out.

>Personally Eldon I don't worry about it. People only see what
>they are capable of seeing no matter what one says or does.

But you don't have to know how a gun works or believe in it
in order to own and use one.

>And if a "monkey see monkey do" situation comes about
>then the dumb monkeys will burn themselves and perhaps learn.

That's what they said happened in Atlantean times.

Now I should mention that what I'm writing against are perhaps
the deeper occult secrets perhaps those that are only disclosed
under pledge of secrecy. What you are working with including
lucid dreaming and the relationship of altered states of consciousness
to the biochemistry of the brain is fine as it now stands. Where
I would start to worry would be when drugs start getting engineered
to alter the chemical makeup of the brain in order to induce
paranormal abilities and engineer personality attributes. Or with
genetics seeking to build a master race according to some formula
of socially desirable traits.

I think that in your case if you are sincere and working for the
betterment of humanity that your motivation and conscience will act
as guides and you will be protected against discovering or publishing
anything that would turn out to be truly harmful that your work
will be for the betterment of us all.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 14 Nov 1995 04:14:36 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Suffering

Jerry S:

I think we generally agree but have different uses
for the word "suffering".

>To me pleasure and pain are two sides of a duality and the
>pursuit of one always brings the other to us.

True.

>Suffering is associated with the "denial of life"
>yes but also with its acceptance. Pain is inherent in
>mortality.

I agree with this but was using "suffering" in a difference
sense. You are equating it with pain. Pain is indeed an
inseparable part of life. But we can accept it without denial
or make ourselves miserable have a sense of suffering.

>Even when we act in harmony with nature and
>accept life on its terms we still suffer. Suffering lurks
>even in the midst of our joyous moments. This is why
>Buddhism calls suffering one of the four nobel truths.

Yes. Life is often bittersweet. Parts of us hurt even when
we're growing and living a good compassionate life. But
there is a background feeling of delight sweetness buoyance
to life that gives *depth* to the external pleasures and pains.

>As we tread the Path we are told that we
>must "die daily." This act serves as a reminder of our
>mortality and the suffering it brings serves to increase
>our compassion for others.

We give up the notion of mortality when we stop clinging to
external events when we recognize the impermanence of life.
This comes from an appreciation of emptiness of sunyata.
We also strive to build character to acquire skills to
develope ourselves into productive creative participants
in the human drama. This comes from an appreciation of the
dual quality of fullness. There's no notion of misery
suffering in either view. We feel pain and pleasure
excitement and boredom and many other things. But there's
a background awareness to our experience of life akin to
a movie's theme song which qualifies all experience. This
is the "content" of our higher nature that part of us which
survives the mortal personality.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 14 Nov 1995 04:37:19 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: TMR

According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins:
>
> JHE
> Paul I had to go back into our former dialogues in order to
> reconstruct this part. This is what I have:
>
> JHE 11/8
> For Sengchen Tulku you have an enigma but very possibly a
> person whom HPB gained information. But Does HPB or HSO
> call him a Mahatma?
>
> KPJ 11/8
> Don't have the sources in from of me but HSO called him
> "one of our Masters" as I recall.
>
> JHE 11/9
> Where
>
> KPJ 11/9
> ODL somewhere; can't find the passage offhand. But he
> speaks of the Master of Ceremonies of the Panchen Lama being
> "one of our Mahatmas"--but does so after the death of the
> Sengchen in question so may be talking about his successor.
>
> JHE
> I'm really confused here. In Olcott's parenthetical phrase:
> "whose Master of Ceremonies one of our own revered Mahatmas is"
> I understand you are reading to say that this Master of
> Ceremonies of the Panchen Lama is one of our Masters. But since
> Sengchen Tulku was dead Olcott may be talking about his
> successor.
> OK now my original question was whether or not HPB or HSO
> called Sengchen Tulku a Master. Your original answer was yes
> but with the addition of the idea that Olcott might be talking
> about Sengchen's successor your answer becomes a maybe. Now
> what confuses me is why would Olcott publicly identify Sengchen
> Tulku or even his successor in ODL as a Master if he and HPB
> were trying to keep these identities a secret? If you had found
> this statement in a diary or in a confidential private letter
> then I would understand it as being some privileged information.
> But you are quoting from Olcott's quotation from Sarat Babu's
> "Narrative of a Journey to Lhasa in 1881-82. The parenthetical
> phrase appears to have been added by Olcott. If you are reading
> this correctly then that makes a very public proclamation of the
> identity of a Mahatma to me. Why the reversal of policy in this
> case? Perhaps because he is dead? This is a very intriguing
> passage but seems to simultaneously help and hurt your case.
>
> Jerry HE

Dear Jerry--

I'm glad to be focusing on this part of the book because it
seems to me to have some more fruitful possibilities in terms
of confirmation than some of my other speculations. First let
me say that HPB doesn't use the word Master or Mahatma but
calls the Sengchen the "Chohan Lama of Shigatse." Which is
enough for me. As for Olcott the very ambiguity of whether he
is talking about the Sengchen who was in office at the time of
Das's visit or the present one makes it a blind of sorts.
In the case of the Sankaracharya all the passages calling him
an Initiate Adept etc. are in private letters as one would
expect in such a case.

Three possibilities suggest themselves as to why Olcott would
drop such a clue:
1 Without HPB around to censor him he was simply indiscreet
not realizing that this was perhaps unwise to say.
2 The one you suggest; he is talking about someone dead and
feels that the need for secrecy is no longer a factor.
3 What I suspect is the main reason which is the same motive
I see in lots of HPB's references to the Masters. This relates
to Jerry S.'s comments on "blinds." That is to tell the truth
in salient details but to be vague or misleading about others so as to leave
wiggle room if people get too inquisitive. This goes back to
what I said in the talk at Berkeley in response to Apr's
question about the Mahatma letters. At first they are
unambiguous about K.H. being a resident of Amritsar being
named Singh and fairly clear about his being a Sikh. This
kind of detail whets the curiosity of Sinnett and he starts
asking questions. The questions cause HPB and her Masters to
realize the need for throwing him off the track and in comes a
bunch of stuff about Tibet. Check out the difference between
the K.H. of 1880 and of 1883. By the latter year Mohini is
coming up with testimonies that there is an entire sect of his
disciples in Tibet. In some places M. and K.H. are depicted as
Hindu and Sikh; elsewhere Buddhists. Also in
1882-3 we see HPB Ramaswamier and others heading off to meet
the Mahatmas in Sikkim while a year later Olcott Damodar
Brown meet them in Lahore and Jammu. Lots of confusion about
where they are and deliberately so IMO.

Cheers
PJ
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 14 Nov 1995 04:38:53 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Theosophy Forum in Cyberspace

Jason:

It is several weeks since we had any exchange of messages. Since you are
compiling list of members of Theosophical Society you may be interested to
know that there is a very interesting forum in the US which you may want to
sign up. It is independent of all Theosophical Organizations and I just
discovered it a couple of days ago. Signing up is very simple. Just send a
message to Theos-L@vnet.net. In the message just put in:

subscribe Theos-L

You will automatically copied all messages posted here. It costs nothing to
join this forum.

Since you have complied a list of members with e-mail address I suggest
that you forward this message to every one in your list. I am sure many will
appreciate it.

Also tell us all that is happening at your end. You can send a message to:
Theos-L@vnet.net and all of us will get it.

PS: I do not know if you need to put vnet.net.US or something like it to
identify that the e-mail address is in the US. Please check before posting
your message.

MK Ramadoss
*************** **** *****************************************
M K Ramadoss 4203 Gardendale Ste 226 San Antonio TX 78229-3137
210 615-7373
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 14 Nov 1995 04:50:47 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Theosophy Forum in Cyberspace

At 114200 AM 11/14/95 -0500 I
wrote:
>Jason:
>
>It is several weeks since we had any exchange of messages. Since you are
>compiling list of members of Theosophical Society you may be interested to
>know that there is a very interesting forum in the US which you may want to
>sign up. It is independent of all Theosophical Organizations and I just
>discovered it a couple of days ago. Signing up is very simple. Just send a
>message to Theos-L@vnet.net. In the message just put in:
>
> subscribe Theos-L
>
>You will automatically copied all messages posted here. It costs nothing to
>join this forum.
>
>Since you have complied a list of members with e-mail address I suggest
>that you forward this message to every one in your list. I am sure many will
>appreciate it.
>
>Also tell us all that is happening at your end. You can send a message to:
>Theos-L@vnet.net and all of us will get it.
>
>PS: I do not know if you need to put vnet.net.US or something like it to
>identify that the e-mail address is in the US. Please check before posting
>your message.
>
>MK Ramadoss
> *************** **** *****************************************
> M K Ramadoss 4203 Gardendale Ste 226 San Antonio TX 78229-3137
> 210 615-7373
>

The above message was copy of a message I sent to Jason Braunstein in
Australia <jbraun@yarrow.wt.com.au> who is compiling a list of members of TS
in the cyberspace with a e-mail address. I hope when he broadcasts the above
msg we will have more participants in this newsgroup.

The way I sent the original message it did not show that the message
was a copy of my message to Jason. Sorry for the slip.

MK Ramadoss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 14 Nov 1995 04:57:11 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Don2Keith

Don & Keith:

> Don writing to Keith
>> Keith's remarks

>>most people do not want to read what others wrote in
>>1888 but want to travel the spiritual path for themselves.

People still read Plato The Bhagavad Gita etc. centuries or more
after they are written because they deal with timeless truths.
The intellectual study of the great truths that are available to us
outside the Mysteries is something that continues to have high
value. The value is in training us in our ability to understand life
and not in culture-specific practices which rapidly go stale or in
scientific materials which could become obsolete in a single day as
new discoveries are made.

The cultivation of the intellect in philosophy and meditative practices
is part of travelling the path. This is more specifically true to those
taking the Jnana Yogic path but is important for all paths.

>I think that reading what others wrote is an important first step
>for afterall you have to get the ideas from somewhere.

The materials written about are not such that someone can get them
by a simple reading. They may not be realized after many readings.
They are dealing with a type of knowledge that can only be communicated
when the student has achieved the proper state of readiness. If it were
simply a matter of writing things down for people to read the Mahatmas
would have done so long ago.

>Reading what people wrote then stopping there and deifying the
>people is IMO bad news.

It would be bad news to deify them. But there are valid spiritual
practices like the Vajarana where as part of the practice one is
taught to respect the guru and the teachings of the school and
the guru's personal teachings. Granted we don't have a living
guru and aren't engaged in a specific practice but the presence
of reverence and respect can be a sign of healthy spirituality.

>One has to take the next step and learn to do for themselves what
>they have read about.

One does have to take the next step. That is to take the teachings
and make them a living practice. One needs to go beyond the words
and acquire the ability to directly know things. One needs to light
an inner fire that leads one to seek out and undertake the Path.
One needs to pick up the spiritual tinder and *make it burn*.

>And not in secret either. The world is different today.
>There can be no more "secret societies". There is no need for them.

There is I'd say a need for them. Not perhaps for Western aspirants
but the Mysteries themselves continue in utmost secrecy. We can debate
the need for intermediate organizations for Western chelas.

>Occult knowledge is now so widely available that the idea of
>keeping anything a secret is an absurdity.

It depends upon what degree of knowledge you are talking about.
In the science-fiction model of the universe there are likely
more-advanced civilizations on other planets. Could there also
be on other Globes of the earth chain? Could the Masters comprise
such a society? And even beyond them the Dhyani-Chohans the
god-men? At some point when you consider groups or societies
more advanced than ours there comes a point where their knowledge
would be considered dangerous and should be kept secret if it
were possible of being known.

>And after one learns to do it for themself the next step is
>to build a reliable science of these altered states. Like any
>science this will be a group process. Not a democratic process
>for we do not vote on the laws of nature but a community process
>where the efforts and trails and errors of all participating will
>lead to the construction of reliable knowledge.

This sounds like what "The Secret Doctrine" says that the Masters
have done for countless generations in their Wisdom Tradition.

>>We are moving from a quaint romantic Victorian discussion of states
>>of consciousness and human evolution to practicing and taking
>>conscious control of the process.

When we *undertake the Path* we do so. Not so I'd think
when we study astral projection in the laboratory.

<<Things like modern brain research and genetic engineering to
<<mention but two offer possibilities that even Blavatsky didn't
<<directly forsee

Or chaos fractals non-linear dynamics and other matematics
that Plato may not have studied.

>The world is vastly different than it was 100 years ago.
>The world is now interconnected. We are drowning in information.
>Things are more decadent than ever before. There is a deep need for
>spirituality but a rational and reasonable spirituality and one
>that has organically evolved.

Yes we need to evolve new approaches to the spiritual in the
West. That evolution needs to grow over time and come together
from the spontaneous participation of many people.

>You cannot create a paradigm. Paradigms evolve. The best we can
>do is contribute to this process for it is occuring whether we
>want to admit it or not or whether we are aware of it or not.

Agreed. We need to participate in this religion-formulation.
But the religions that we come up with are newly-established
practices for people to undertake. They aren't the direct teachings
of the Mysteries which still can be taught perhaps in some veiled
form.

>>Thus we should not look back but move forward with the wisdom
>>of the past as our guide but not our limitation.

Agreed when we're talking about the process of religion-formulation.
But I would object if this attempts to depict the actual Mysteries
as outmoded wisdom of the past.

>>there is a big difference in analyzing Blavatsky vs. Purucker vs.
>>Leadbetter vs Bailey etc and having the same kind of experience
>>they claim to have had.

An intellectual study is important but it leaves us empty-handed
if we don't do something more.

>these are dramatic experiences full of deep meaning to the indivdual.
>But in time the initial thrill fades and it is then that the mind
>takes over and tries to make sense of the happening.

Yes we all are capable of peak experiences that have a dramatic
effect in setting the tone for our lives.

>I know this was the case with me. In some cases it took me 2-3
>years to "come down" from some of the things I have experienced.
>The experiences are so shattering that it takes time for the
>intial "blast" to fade but fade it does sooner or later.

The feeling of a "blast" comes back again to the Western type
experience of a "dark night of the soul" or a "shattering" when
something new enters one's worldview. We are also able to have
Eastern type experiences of melting blending or flowing into
something new with a sense of "eternal delight". I'm more
inclined to the Eastern way and so it takes on that face to me.

>And when it does and things are again quiet one can then
>ponder even deeper and even further on their significance.

The part of us that ponders and reflects upon the experience
is also that operation of mind which blocks us from having
that experience. It is not like going on a treasure hunt
then coming home and going over our booty. It is rather I
think like having done something grand in our consciousness
then loosing it and clinging to the past experience rather
than looking forward and moving towards the next experience
of openness. The specialness of those grand moments is
always open to us but it is due to rigidity of mind and
fixity of personality that blocks us from it most of the time.

Interesting discussion.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 14 Nov 1995 05:11:18 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Wilber article

> Having just received The Quest yesterday I immediately read
> the Wilber piece Keith wrote about. It was most interesting as
> an insight into the psychology of the creative process. To a
> tiny degree I have seen the same thing Wilber talks about. You
> write something that generates controversy and people's desire
> to hash out the issues with you can consume your life. But
> eventually it becomes clear that the only way to open yourself
> up to creating something new is to close yourself off from
> continued feedback about previous things you wrote. Wilber
> with 100 times the creativity and 1000 times the feedback has
> experienced this phenomenon to a much greater degree than I
> have. His personal sharing in the article can be helpful to
> all lesser writers who go through the same cycle.
>
> What interests me after reading it is whether there is some
> pattern in the length of time this takes. From end of one book
> to beginning of the creative process for the next. Perhaps
> it's entirely idiosyncratic but I bet there are some common
> denominators.
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 14 Nov 1995 06:37:38 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: new book "contemporary view of Ancient Wisdom"

Here's a paragraph out of Shirley Nicholson's column in the Fall
"Krotonian":

"Our other celebrity Frances Vaughan psychotherapist is a
founding member of the transpersonal psychology movement which has
a perspective surprisingly like the theosophical view of human nature
& the Path. Dr. Vaughan's new Quest book

"Shadows of The Sacred"

is a contemporary view of the Ancient Wisdom that is practical and
grounded in experience. "

Judging from Shirley's book "Ancient Wisdom Modern Insight" &
knowning that her husband Bill was always at the forefront of
what was being discovered in his field psychotherapy while he was
alive I would think this is a good book to look into a propos to
bringing theosophy into the 21st century.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 14 Nov 1995 07:06:26 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Ken Wilber & Quest

I just received the Quest today anad read Ken Wilber's article. Keith
was right. Its great. Probably one of his best articles. He defines
guru and pandit like JHE did and like JHE he says that he is a
pandit not a guru. I think his explanation of jnana yoga is
excellent.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 14 Nov 1995 07:31:04 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Theos-L

Dear Doss

The organizations don't get upset but individuals participating in
theos-l do. So we try to observe a certain decorum
when we discuss things
on which we don't agree of which there are several.

We try not to deal with dirty laundry although there is that too from
time to time. Rather we try more for productive discussions &^ we're
hoping that our exchanges are helping individuals to better Theo
Sophia. I know they've done that for me.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 14 Nov 1995 08:25:49 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Re: Liberalization

>Lewis...
>> So you see the events of the past few years as a
>> "liberalization" huh?
>
>Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes! In fact I believe contrary to the
>overwhelming weight of current popular opinion that we are living in
>rare and wonderful times ... an era in which the fifth dimension the
>axis of probability as the physicists say ... but it might also be
>called the axis of *possibility* is on the the verge of being
>discovered - and even more important the means by which to achieve
>volitional movement upon it. But I need to write a longer post to answer
>yours ... and maybe a discussion about this would be a great idea. If
>there is any single most important thing I've taken from Theosophy over
>the years it is that a single human consciousness is capable of holding
>firm to a clear vision of a healed world ... and relating to the current
>world as though that vision is *already a fact* .... and that this tends
>to encourage others to believe it as well; and that *groups* of such
>people even very small groups can effect *large* populations if the
>vision is clear held by powerful minds charged with elevated and
>disciplined emotions and persevered in over time.
> Yes! I am full of hope for this world ... and believe I see the
>first surfacings of a sort of harmony that is difficult to see only
>because so few yet believe it is even possible so unprecedented is it.
> But I'm ferociously busy just now -:. I'll write soon.
> -JRC
Yes I agree. I have been following the new age stuff very closely and also
belong to some other discussion lists and I detect a trend in the
discussions towards belief in a 5th dimension. Now if enough people get the
idea maybe we reach the critical mass thing and it tips the scales in favour
of this idea. There is some odd talk from a number of directions about
strange physical symptoms that people are having. Many seem to be seeing
movements in their periphial sight and yet there is nothing there when they
turn their heads to look. Now this comes from the new agers and from some
newsgroups to do with ME and other debilitating sorts of illnesses.
Altogether there are a lot of people with ringing ears and muscle problems.
There is something on the wind and it is interesting to read the various
ideas about what it might be. In some of these newsgroups there is a lot of
support for each other and it is nice to see on that even on electronic
networks people can be there for each other. There is always a goon creeps
in now and then but they don't stay long.
I know that my reality has changed for me and I feel like I have a foot in
each world. Sort of says that what I really believe that is how it is and as
I realise that it gets even more obvious. Strange rather hard to explain
or maybe I am getting fanciful but it doesn't feel like that. Life is so
great these days and has been for long enough now for me to accept it
without wondering how long it will last. I think it is exciting to watch
where it is all going. I have every intension to be at the right place at
the right time so that I get to stay around for a while and see some of the
changes.
Regards Bee
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 14 Nov 1995 08:30:31 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: East Meets West

>JRC
>>this. In fact I've recently been reading a Freudian psychologist who was
>>western trained but had occaision to practice in India who goes into
>>great depth about the very profound differences between European and
>>Indian psyches.
>Eldon
>It is not I think that the psyches are fundamentally different
>but that there is a greater degree of rigidity in western psyches
>making it different for Westerners to follow unfamiliar spiritual
>techniques.

According to Jung Easterners tend to be introverts
while Westerners tend to be extroverts. Basically this means
that yoga and meditation are more natural to Easterners
while rituals and ceremonies are more natural to Westerners.
We are of course speaking here in gross generalities.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 14 Nov 1995 08:30:34 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Fog Index

MKR:
> A good question. One of the reasons may be due to the fact that some of
>the members who receive the magazine find it too difficult to read and
>understand. I myself have found several times the material to be very heavy
>and have read only the book reviews. This is just my opinion. Would be
>interesting to hear other feedback.

This goes back to an essay that I posted on Peacenet years
ago. At that time magazines like Quest and Gnosis were trying to be
"legit" in the eyes of the public and were courting PhD's as authors.
While this does adds legitamacy it also makes the reading harder--
what I called the Fog Index. PhDs tend to have a high fog index
even when writing for the general public. Anyway I found myself
sleeping through so many Gnosis articles that I quit my subscription
and have not seen an issue in years. I also have trouble with some
Quest articles but I think on the whole most have been readable.
The Fog Index for the average reader should be around 7. Most
PhDs write at the 18-21 range but deliberately lower this when
writing for the general public sometimes down to 12 or 13. But
even this is high for many people and frankly I am too lazy to
get out my dictionary all the time and long sentences with big
words tends to turn me off even though I am close to a PhD
myself.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 14 Nov 1995 10:36:31 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: TMR

> JHE 11/13
> I'm really confused here. In Olcott's parenthetical phrase:
>"whose Master of Ceremonies one of our own revered Mahatmas is"
>I understand you are reading to say that this Master of
>Ceremonies of the Panchen Lama is one of our Masters. But since
>Sengchen Tulku was dead Olcott may be talking about his
>successor.
> OK now my original question was whether or not HPB or HSO
>called Sengchen Tulku a Master. Your original answer was yes
>but with the addition of the idea that Olcott might be talking
>about Sengchen's successor your answer becomes a maybe. Now
>what confuses me is why would Olcott publicly identify Sengchen
>Tulku or even his successor in ODL as a Master if he and HPB
>were trying to keep these identities a secret? If you had found
>this statement in a diary or in a confidential private letter
>then I would understand it as being some privileged information.
>But you are quoting from Olcott's quotation from Sarat Babu's
>"Narrative of a Journey to Lhasa in 1881-82. The parenthetical
>phrase appears to have been added by Olcott. If you are reading
>this correctly then that makes a very public proclamation of
>the identity of a Mahatma to me. Why the reversal of policy in
>this case? Perhaps because he is dead? This is a very
>intriguing passage but seems to simultaneously help and hurt
>your case.
>
> Jerry HE

KPJ
I'm glad to be focusing on this part of the book because it
seems to me to have some more fruitful possibilities in terms
of confirmation than some of my other speculations.

JHE
I think you have a lead here that might yield more
information about the Masters. But before we get carried away
with further theories built upon other theories let's keep in
mind that:

1. The passage in question mentions the Panchen Lama's "Master of
Ceremonies" as being "one of our own revered Mahatmas is." It
does not mention Sengchen Tulku or his successor. As you have
admitted the identification of Sengchen Tulku to the above
passage is a possibility among other possibilities but not a
fact.

2. Since we have as yet no definitive evidence that the title
"Master of Ceremonies" refers to Sengchen Tulku his successor
or as you mentioned a "friend of the T.S." this passage may
very well have nothing to do with Sengchen Tulku at all.

KPJ
First let me say that HPB doesn't use the word Master or Mahatma
but calls the Sengchen the "Chohan Lama of Shigatse." Which is
enough for me.

JHE
But the passage you have in mind BCW III:398 does not
specifically mention Sengchen Tulku. You didn't mention that HPB
in the same passage also describes whoever she is talking about
as a "`Panchhen' or great teacher one of our most learned
theologians of Northern Buddhism and esoteric Lamaism" BCW
III:398. This might fit Sengchen Tulku but it also might fit
others. Your connections in TMR between whoever HPB and HSO are
talking about which may very well be two different persons and
Sengchen Tulku are circumstantial but not definitive.
Yes whoever HPB is talking about is a "Chohan Lama"
according to HPB. But what is a Chohan Lama? You say it means a
Master. If by Master you mean one of HPB's sources of
information; that is evident within the text itself without
worrying about his title. Obviously HPB considers this person to
be an authority on esoteric Lamaism. But by "Chohan Lama" does
HPB mean Master by your's or her definition? How can you know?
On the face of it I would think the title would mean a Lama with
a very important position and a person of high status. I might
speculate that HPB *might* also mean an Adept or a Mahatma They
are not the same as HPB made clear but I see nothing to pin
that speculation on. On the other hand even if by "Chohan Lama
of Shigatse" HPB met "Master" it still doesn't mean that she was
referring to Sengchen Tulku.
So here is an example of building a speculation upon a
speculation: HSO *might* be identifying Sengchen Tulku as a
Mahatma; HPB *might* be talking about the same person whom she
*might* be referring to as a Mahatma. Therefore Sengchen Tulku
*might* be one of HPB's Mahatmas. And you say that this is one
of your more "fruitful possibilities"? To me it looks like you
are building upon quicksand--not a good foundation for a solid
theory.

KPJ
As for Olcott the very ambiguity of whether he
is talking about the Sengchen who was in office at the time of
Das's visit or the present one makes it a blind of sorts.
In the case of the Sankaracharya all the passages calling him
an Initiate Adept etc. are in private letters as one would
expect in such a case.

JHE
I would not say a "blind." Olcott just simply didn't name
the person he was referring to nor did HPB--and we can't even by
absolutely sure that HPB and HSO are talking about the same
person in these two quotes. Perhaps private letters would give
more information and clarify who HSO is talking about. Do you
have any to offer?

KPJ
Three possibilities suggest themselves as to why Olcott would
drop such a clue:
1 Without HPB around to censor him he was simply indiscreet
not realizing that this was perhaps unwise to say.
2 The one you suggest; he is talking about someone dead and
feels that the need for secrecy is no longer a factor.

JHE
One the other hand since there does not seem to be any
definitive evidence that HSO is talking about Sengchen Tulku in
the first place perhaps Olcott was not being indiscreet after
all.

KPJ
3 What I suspect is the main reason which is the same motive
I see in lots of HPB's references to the Masters. This relates
to Jerry S.'s comments on "blinds." That is to tell the truth
in salient details but to be vague or misleading about others so
as to leave wiggle room if people get too inquisitive.

JHE
Unless I missed something I believe this was my comment.
Jerry S. was talking about HPB's description of blinds in the
Hindu scripture's description of Lokas and Talas. I was talking
about HPB's pattern of generalizing when discussing teachings
that she had not yet given sufficient background in order to
discuss in any detail. Whether the information is "misleading"
is another issue. I don't believe she did this with the
intention to mislead but to spare readers details that they were
not yet ready for. Though it does seem that some readers were
mislead by it when they consider the fact that HPB did not cover
all of her teachings at once to be proof that she made them up as
she went along. We can call this a "blind" if you want but I
think a better term would be in order. Perhaps
"misconstruction" on the reader's part might be a better term.

KPJ
This goes back to what I said in the talk at Berkeley in response
to Apr's question about the Mahatma letters. At first they
are unambiguous about K.H. being a resident of Amritsar being
named Singh and fairly clear about his being a Sikh. This
kind of detail whets the curiosity of Sinnett and he starts
asking questions. The questions cause HPB and her Masters to
realize the need for throwing him off the track and in comes a
bunch of stuff about Tibet. Check out the difference between
the K.H. of 1880 and of 1883. By the latter year Mohini is
coming up with testimonies that there is an entire sect of his
disciples in Tibet. In some places M. and K.H. are depicted as
Hindu and Sikh; elsewhere Buddhists. Also in
1882-3 we see HPB Ramaswamier and others heading off to meet
the Mahatmas in Sikkim while a year later Olcott Damodar
Brown meet them in Lahore and Jammu. Lots of confusion about
where they are and deliberately so IMO.

JHE
My reading of the Mahatma Letters is very different and I have
never noticed a difference in the characterization of the
Mahatmas from 1880-83 as you describe. I have prepared and led
several classes where we went through the ML in Hanson's
chronological order and I have studied them on my own. Further
my own studies and preparation also included the bringing in of
germane material from outside of the ML. So I find it very hard
to believe that I would miss something like this. Once again my
recollection of reading TMR was that you seemed to have been
selecting information building supposition upon supposition and
forcing it to fit your theory as you also seem to have done with
Sengchen Tulku. However I would not mind going through your
reasoning with you step by step. Perhaps your argument is
stronger than it appears in TMR.

Cheers
JHE

------------------------------------------|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 Nov 1995 13:29:50 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: RE: TMR

KPJ
>>So while she is not saying "I actively misled people about the
>>Masters" here although other evidence points in this
>>direction she is definitely saying that Theosophists have
>>developed a mythological view of the Masters she saw it
>>happening and did nothing to stop it. But she wasn't just a
>>passive nonentity in all this; in fact she fanned the flames
>>but later regretted it. This was more than she was
>>willing/able to admit.

JHE 11/10
> This quote doesn't do it for me either. Yes I see her
>expressing regret for not doing enough "remaining too
>passive" but I don't see that to mean that "she did nothing to
>stop it" and I certainly don't see how you can read into this
>quote that she "fanned the flames."

KPJ
I don't. That's what I see in history.

JHE
For the sake of communication it would help for you to make
a distinction between when you are interpreting a quote and when
you are giving your view of history. If your point is that HPB
"fanned the flames" then I would expect you to supply a quote
that makes that point for you. Showing me oranges to prove the
existence of apples doesn't do it for me.

> JHE
> Is this a supposition on your part or do you have a quote
> from her or Sinnett showing that she "knew" these letters would
> be published? Remember these letters were not published
within

KPJ
Not published as is but used for the writing of "Incidents in
the Life." So the information in them would be published; HPB
alludes to this in the letters.

JHE
That stirs up another can of worms since HPB was not in
favor of Sinnett writing ~Incidences~ in the first place and
what cooperation she gave was under duress. As a result of her
non cooperation the book is a mass of inaccuracies. But I
suppose you believe that this was by HPB's design?

JHE
> 3. Allow yourself to be co-opted by the IC. To be molested
you
> can: 1. Thumb your nose at the inner circle and continue to act
> according to your conscience. 2. Act according to our
conscience
> and allow yourself to be hurt by their molestations.

KPJ
and 03 eventually realize the worthlessness of their approval
and get over the hurting.

JHE
You've got the idea.

> JHE
> You can't expect to make rules for these things. You had a
> choice to respond or not to respond. But suddenly choosing not
> to respond in the middle of a debate doesn't look to good.

KPJ
But once I respond the "rules" are made by my antagonist and
all I can do is play by them and look good?? or decline and
not look too good?

JHE
No. Theos-l seems to be an even playing field. No one is
at a disadvantage or an advantage by virtue of the medium and no
one has the power of "making rules." Your antagonist
interesting choice of words can suggest rules but so can you.
However it is true you may or may not end up "looking good"
but that would be because of your responses not the medium.

> KPJ
> Why not? The more relevant question is why should I? What is
> to be gained? At what cost to me in time and energy? Who will
> benefit? The overwhelming consensus of people who have advised
> me in private email is-- forget it.
>
> JHE
> Those are great questions to ask *before* making the first
> response.

KPJ
20/20 hindsight. If I had realized the long-term nature of
that interrogation/debate whatever I wouldn't have started.
But of course this was not clear at the outset.

JHE
I've wondered why you started in the first place. I figured
that you must be doing it for the education. By the way my
responding to you is an equal expense of time and energy.

> KPJ
> I guess. But do you not care whether she took the trouble to
> seek out experts in the spiritual traditions she wrote about
> to learn from them firsthand?
>
> JHE
> No.

KPJ
Even though if she did not do so this renders her a liar on a
much bigger scale than my books suggest?

JHE
How so? With a few exceptions such as the ~Chaldean Book
of Numbers~ one can pretty much follow up on the sources she
gives. I once wrote a paper for an undergraduate class showing
how the mythological character Prometheus was used in different
ways from Aeschylus to Byron--sometimes as a Satan figure and
sometimes as a savior figure. The insight I gained in order to
write this paper in the first place was from my theosophical
studies not from my Professors. Of course I quoted from various
works to support my points. My professor never asked me to
append an explanation as to where I got the insights. It was
enough that I had them and it was enough that I was able to
support them by quoting the books. Why should anyone ask any
more of HPB? She made her points and she supported them with
evidence she drew from the various religious philosophical and
scientific literature. If she studied with "Mahatmas" that is
between her and the Mahatmas and should make her writing of
better quality. I studied theosophy before writing that
undergraduate paper. That made no difference to the Professor.
He is looking for how I supported my points. Who HPB studied
with makes no difference to me. I'm looking for how she
supported her points.

KPJ
Hey gang--
This week will be the last that I respond to any questions on
the list about my Theosophical books.

JHE
Sorry to hear that. I felt that we were just getting
started.

Cheers

Jerry HE

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 14 Nov 1995 15:52:50 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Multiple Choice

> From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
> Subject: Re: Multiple Choice

On 13 199511 RIhle@aol.com wrote:

> Common philosophy is the handmaiden to uncommon laziness; common theosophy is
> the handmaiden to uncommon: a. haziness b. craziness c. dazedness d.
> theosophy.
>
> Richard Ihle
>

e. eating habits.
-JRC

Ha ha hardihar har har!

LFD
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 14 Nov 1995 22:02:56 GMT
From: Richtay@aol.com
Subject: Re: TMR

Paul writes

"First let
me say that HPB doesn't use the word Master or Mahatma but
calls the Sengchen the "Chohan Lama of Shigatse." Which is
enough for me."

Why is that enough for you? Do you know what "Chohan" means? Do you know
what language it is? Why does Chohan = Master of Wisdom in the Theosophical
sense?

Rich
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 00:03:54 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Re: Ken Wilber in QUEST

>Dear Doss
>
>I'm not sure that everyone on this net gets the "Quest". Why don't
>you start a discussion about something you read in it? That'll give
>us something else to talk about.I don't agree
>with you that it's that deep. If most people didn't understand what's
>written they wouldn't want to buy it. Incidentally Our town has an
>esoteric bookstore being a univeristy town. They have the "Quest" on
>their magazine rack. I noticed it just yesterday.
>
>Liesel
>
The Wanganui Lodge has been subscribed to Quest for some time and our HQ has
just organised a subscribtion for each Lodge in NZ paid by them so it is
well thought of here. I grab one from time to time but I think this new subs
is addressed to my address so I get to read it first. One of the perks!!! I
photocopied an article in Autumn 1994 on Schizophrenia and the Soul by
Thomas Poplawski. It was very interesting as I have been wondering for some
time about the relationaship between a weakened astral membrane and Schiz. I
have a 33 year old daughter who is highly intellegent but also became schiz
10 years ago. She cannot do much as she seem quite out of this world. She
had made quite a study of Quaballa while at university studying law and used
the gliph to solve life problems with even after she got sick. She got her
law degree but didn't get to use it for long.
I also enjoy the occasional article to do with Rupert Sheldrake that is in
it. I got interested in Quantum Physics by reading the Dance of the Wui Li
Masters and have read other popular style quantum books since. I am
fascinated with the ideas even if I do not quite understand them. I think
the Quest is an excellent mag as it covers so many areas that one would
normally have to read a whole book to find out about. In a busy world it
isn't possible to read all the books so articles are just as good.
Regards Bee>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 00:04:39 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: blinds

> JHE:
> > Have you given any thought about the
> >eighth sphere doctrine in relationship to the Kabalistic Abyss
> >concept? Any ideas? But alas the eighth sphere is another one
> >of those doctrines that was never developed.
>
> Not myself. But Kenneth Grant wrote THE
> NIGHTSIDE OF EDEN in which he proposes the theory
> that the shells of the Sephiroth the Qlippoth can be entered
> via what he calls The Tunnels of Set whose entrance is
> somewhere in the Abyss. Alan disputes any substance to
> this and Grant is Outer Head of the OTO in Europe and
> so is a questionable source. But the idea of the "eighth
> sphere" in relation to the Qlippoth is intriguing.
>
> Jerry S.

Shells are containers like our bodies. That's it. Grant is
mild compared to "The Master Bertiaux" ...

What is this doctrine supposed to be about anyhow? In the Tree
of Jacob's Ladder which I have had endorsed by a latter-day
Jewish 'Hasid as 100% compatible with their version of Kabala
the sephira Daath usually depicted in the center of an Abyss
disappears whenever a [rising] shift in awareness/ consciousness
occurs and becomes the foundation or Yesod of the next level
up. I would guess that this goes way beyond our human
"evolution" - don't like this word as I prefer to think in
terms of "development". Just my 02 pennyworth.

Alan
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 00:16:07 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: Dribble box vs. Cyber Dump

>
> watching Duckman on TV avoids these difficulties. :-
>
> peace -
>
> john mead

Long live Duckman!

Alan
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 00:29:23 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: Fog Index

> I am too lazy to
> get out my dictionary all the time and long sentences with big
> words tends to turn me off even though I am close to a PhD
> myself.
>
> Jerry S.

I tried logoidal and personal subjective interpretative analysis
for a while but in the end I decided to figure it our for myself.

Alan
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 00:33:17 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Research

Greetings all!

Recently announced *Abraxas* titles on theos-news and
theos-roots are being issued under the aegis of the
"Theosophical Research Group" unattached but comprised of
members of the TS in England and soon with overseas members. It
is a loose grouping dedicated to speculative as well as purely
historical study without any dogmatic bias and reflecting a
variety of opinions. To avoid argument and dissension it is not
tied to any specific Lodge nor does it claim to be an official
body within the TS - simply a group of Theosophists who wish
tostudy and publish the fruits of that study. It is in no way
hostile to but very supportive of the TS and its aims.

Prefaces by R.A.Gilbert in publications to date are not very
well disposed towards the Mahatmas as independent entities nor
towards what he calls "Leadbeater and the Besant/Leadbeater
axis."

However all the personalities are in the past and it is hoped
that the kind of events that led to so many schisms and personality
cults in the past will remain safely buried there.

Because of the fact that the past shapes the future initial
publications are reproducing some of the scarcer writings which
highlight the problems of the formative years of the
Theosophical movement. We have no wish to try to assassinate
the dead - this is impossible. We do care about the future
however and we can all learn from the past just as we can all
learn by sharing our resources.

If any theos-list subscribers feel they have a useful
contribution to make we want to hear about it. As time goes
by we hope to publish booklet or pamphlet length writings from
the living as well as reprinting the writings of those who have
gone before.

Sincerely

AB
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 01:03:40 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: Theos-L

We all belong in a sense to an *international* theosophical
forum.

I would like to say that I belong to THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL.
There are no fees no rules no lodges just people who care.

Anyone care to join me? Anyone care to write it up?

Alan.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 03:46:25 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: TMR

According to Richtay@aol.com:
>
> Paul writes
>
> "First let
> me say that HPB doesn't use the word Master or Mahatma but
> calls the Sengchen the "Chohan Lama of Shigatse." Which is
> enough for me."
>
> Why is that enough for you?

Because I have only seen the word used by HPB and she uses it
to mean "Chief" exclusively in terms of a chief Theosophical
Master; e.g. the Chohan the Mahachohan.

Do you know what "Chohan" means? Do you know
> what language it is?

No do you? As for meaning I only know how HPB uses it.

Why does Chohan = Master of Wisdom in the Theosophical
> sense?

1. HPB insists that her Masters' lodge is affiliated somehow
not just with Gelugpa Buddhism but with Tashilhunpo and the
Shigatse area in particular.
2. HPB calls her correspondent who as far as I can tell can
only be the Sengchen for reasons cited elsewhere the Chohan
Lama of Shigatse and refers to him as a high authority in
Tibetan Buddhism.
3. Whenever HPB uses Chohan or Mahachohan elsewhere she is
talking about her own Masters.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 06:16:48 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: TMR

According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins:
>
> 1. The passage in question mentions the Panchen Lama's "Master of
> Ceremonies" as being "one of our own revered Mahatmas is." It
> does not mention Sengchen Tulku or his successor. As you have
> admitted the identification of Sengchen Tulku to the above
> passage is a possibility among other possibilities but not a
> fact.

I admitted no such thing. The Sengchen Tulku WAS the Master of
Ceremonies and there was no other. This from Das's testimony.
The question is which Sengchen we're talking about.

>
> 2. Since we have as yet no definitive evidence that the title
> "Master of Ceremonies" refers to Sengchen Tulku his successor
> or as you mentioned a "friend of the T.S." this passage may
> very well have nothing to do with Sengchen Tulku at all.

How so? Let me repeat from TMR which paraphrases Das
Autobiography p. 63: "...he completely ignored his usual
duties of receiving pilgrims blessing images and amulets and
conducting ceremonies. In an ordinary two-week period Sengchen
would have given six thousand benedictions which only he and
the Panchen as avatars were qualified to perform."200
This doesn't leave any alternatives as far as I can see.
>
> JHE
> But the passage you have in mind BCW III:398 does not
> specifically mention Sengchen Tulku. You didn't mention that HPB

Like the Olcott passage it describes him so specifically as to
exclude any other possibility. Your objections are as if I had
taken a reference to "the president from Arkansas" and another
reference to "Hillary's husband and Chelsea's father" as
identifying Bill Clinton and you were
insisting "It does NOT mention Bill Clinton by name therefore
you have no basis for identifying him." HPB calls him "the
Chohan-Lama of Rich-cha-tze Tibet the Chief of the
Archive-Registrars of the secret libraries of the Dalai and
Ta-shu-hlunpo Lamas-Riboche...A Pan-chchen or great teacher
one of the most learned theologians of Northern Buddhism and
esoteric Lamaism." Again from Das's account it is clear that
there was only one person who could give him access to those
libraries whose responsibilities connected him to both the
Dalai and Panchen Lamas etc.

> in the same passage also describes whoever she is talking about
> as a "`Panchhen' or great teacher one of our most learned
> theologians of Northern Buddhism and esoteric Lamaism" BCW
> III:398. This might fit Sengchen Tulku but it also might fit
> others. Your connections in TMR between whoever HPB and HSO are
> talking about which may very well be two different persons and
> Sengchen Tulku are circumstantial but not definitive.

The only reasonable basis that I can see for thinking that is
assuming that Das is unreliable. Olcott and HPB are on record
as considering him highly reliable.

> HPB mean Master by your's or her definition? How can you know?
> On the face of it I would think the title would mean a Lama with
> a very important position and a person of high status. I might
> speculate that HPB *might* also mean an Adept or a Mahatma They
> are not the same as HPB made clear but I see nothing to pin
> that speculation on. On the other hand even if by "Chohan Lama
> of Shigatse" HPB met "Master" it still doesn't mean that she was
> referring to Sengchen Tulku.

As I have repeatedly made clear any definition of Adept or
Mahatma that relies solely on imponderables like
"Fifth-Rounder" or other measures of spiritual stature would
render historical identification of them impossible. If no one
under any circumstances could prove anybody to be an Adept or
Mahatma by such standards then this objection seems to be a
"one size fits all" objection to any possible identification.
Mighty useful AGAINST any hypothesis but entirely useless FOR
any.

> So here is an example of building a speculation upon a
> speculation: HSO *might* be identifying Sengchen Tulku as a
> Mahatma;

*was* identifying either Losang Palden the Sengchen Lama of
1882 or his successor
HPB *might* be talking about the same person

*was* talking about Losang Palden
whom she
> *might* be referring to as a Mahatma.

*was* referring to as a Mahatma to the extent that one can be
identified by any historically observable traits-- e.g. a
recognized expert authority in an authentic spiritual tradition
to which HPB claimed affiliation

Therefore Sengchen Tulku
> *might* be one of HPB's Mahatmas. And you say that this is one
> of your more "fruitful possibilities"? To me it looks like you
> are building upon quicksand--not a good foundation for a solid
> theory.

I suggest you read the primary sources yourself and evaluate
this. To me it looks like you are inclined to dismiss even the
more solid evidence as quicksand.

Namaste
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 06:22:38 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: RE: TMR

According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins:
>
> KPJ
> 20/20 hindsight. If I had realized the long-term nature of
> that interrogation/debate whatever I wouldn't have started.
> But of course this was not clear at the outset.
>
> JHE
> I've wondered why you started in the first place. I figured
> that you must be doing it for the education. By the way my
> responding to you is an equal expense of time and energy.

I was talking about what happened a year ago with Daniel.
>
> KPJ
> Hey gang--
> This week will be the last that I respond to any questions on
> the list about my Theosophical books.
>
> JHE
> Sorry to hear that. I felt that we were just getting
> started.

Every moment of time and bit of energy spent on the past is
time and energy stolen from the future. Seriously
understanding Cayce is going to be a full-time job for the next
couple of years. While Theosophy certainly has a role to play
in that going back over issues in my Theosophical books
doesn't. Of course if my proposal doesn't fly this will not
be a factor.

Cheers
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 11:17:45 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org>
Subject: TN

>1.The passage in question mentions the Panchen Lama's "Master of
> Ceremonies" as being "one of our own rred Matmasis." It
> does not mention Sengchen Tulku or his successor. As you have
> admitted the identification of Sengchen Tulku to the above
> passage is a possibility among other possibilities but not a
> fact.

KPJ
I admitted no such thing. The Sengchen Tulku WAS the Master of
Ceremonies and there was no other. This from Das's testimony.
The question is which Sengchen we're talking about.

JHE
Now let's keep this entire discussion in perspective. You
earlier stated that the quote could be talking about Sengchen
Tulku his successor or a friend of the TS. Do I need to
retrieve the quotes where you stated this? If there are three
candidates for whom the quote refers to then that means three
possibilities. Therefore Sengchen Tulku is one of those
possibilities among two others you mentioned--and perhaps there
are still more.

JHE
> 2. Since we have as yet no definitive evidence that the title
> "Master of Ceremonies" refers to Sengchen Tulku his successor
> or as you mentioned a "friend of the T.S." this passage may
> very well have nothing to do with Sengchen Tulku at all.

KPJ
How so? Let me repeat from TMR which paraphrases Das
Autobiography p. 63: "...he completely ignored his usual
duties of receiving pilgrims blessing images and amulets and
conducting ceremonies. In an ordinary two-week period Sengchen
would have given six thousand benedictions which only he and
the Panchen as avatars were qualified to perform."200
This doesn't leave any alternatives as far as I can see.

JHE
Because "Master of Ceremonies" is Olcott's parenthetical
comment not Das'. And you had already stated three
possibilities as to whom Olcott was referring to.

> JHE
> But the passage you have in mind BCW III:398 does not
> specifically mention Sengchen Tulku.

KPJ
Like the Olcott passage it describes him so specifically as to
exclude any other possibility. Your objections are as if I had
taken a reference to "the president from Arkansas" and another
reference to "Hillary's husband and Chelsea's father" as
identifying Bill Clinton and you were
insisting "It does NOT mention Bill Clinton by name therefore
you have no basis for identifying him." HPB calls him "the
Chohan-Lama of Rich-cha-tze Tibet the Chief of the
Archive-Registrars of the secret libraries of the Dalai and
Ta-shu-hlunpo Lamas-Riboche...A Pan-chchen or great teacher
one of the most learned theologians of Northern Buddhism and
esoteric Lamaism." Again from Das's account it is clear that
there was only one person who could give him access to those
libraries whose responsibilities connected him to both the
Dalai and Panchen Lamas etc.

JHE
I can make a connection between the "president from
Arkansas" and "Hillary's husband" under the present context.
However if I found the phrase "president from Arkansas" from
something written ten years ago then the meaning becomes very
unclear. You already mentioned that Olcott's reference is
unclear. HPB's is again under another context. Whether the
"Master of Ceremonies" Sengchen Tulku and the "Chief of the
Archive-Registrars" are all the same person is not clear to me
because I cannot assume a single context when I know that the
quotes come from different ones. Also I think there are some
very basic questions that need to be asked before making
identities. For instance I asked earlier exactly what is a
"Master of Ceremony" in 19th century Tibetan Buddhism? Is it a
specific reference to a specific office; a general reference to
several functions; A turn of phrase by Olcott etc.? Not being
particularly knowledable in Tibetan studies I would want to
consult with an authority or two on this issue before even
thinking about making the "clear" connections that you have.

JHE
> You didn't mention that HPB in the same passage also describes
> whoever she is talking about as a "`Panchhen' or great teacher
> one of our most learned theologians of Northern Buddhism and
> esoteric Lamaism" BCW III:398. This might fit Sengchen
> Tulku but it also might fit others. Your connections in TMR
> between whoever HPB and HSO are talking about which may very
> well be two different persons and Sengchen Tulku are
> circumstantial but not definitive.

KPJ
The only reasonable basis that I can see for thinking that is
assuming that Das is unreliable. Olcott and HPB are on record
as considering him highly reliable.

JHE
I gave my reasons above snf they have nothing to do with
Das' reliability. One the other hand it is interesting that you
are using HSO and HPB' authority to endorse Das' reliability but
yet all through TMR HPB is giving disinformation.

JHE
> HPB mean Master by your's or her definition? How can you know?
> On the face of it I would think the title would mean a Lama
> with a very important position and a person of high status. I
> might speculate that HPB *might* also mean an Adept or a
> Mahatma They are not the same as HPB made clear but I see
> nothing to pin that speculation on. On the other hand even if
> by "Chohan Lama of Shigatse" HPB met "Master" it still doesn't
> mean that she was referring to Sengchen Tulku.

KPJ
As I have repeatedly made clear any definition of Adept or
Mahatma that relies solely on imponderables like
"Fifth-Rounder" or other measures of spiritual stature would
render historical identification of them impossible. If no one
under any circumstances could prove anybody to be an Adept or
Mahatma by such standards then this objection seems to be a
"one size fits all" objection to any possible identification.
Mighty useful AGAINST any hypothesis but entirely useless FOR
any.

JHE
First of all it is clear that HPB has a formal definition
of Mahatma that is very different from what you are proposing.
When HPB uses the word Mahatma she expects her reader to
understand the meaning of that word to be consistent with her
definition not yours. Second of all the "imponderables" do not
render historical identification impossible. Anna Kingsford was
specifically identified by HPB and in the Mahatma Letters as a
"fifth rounder." There is no question that Anna Kingsford was an
historical person regardless of her "imponderable" title. Oh
and by the way being a "fifth rounder" does not necessarily
identify a person as being a Mahatma. Though Kingsford was
called a fifth rounder she was never called a Mahatma.
The bottom line here concerning the title "Chohan Lama of
Shigatse" is that if you are going to call a person a Mahatma
because HPB did you need to be sure that by "Chohan Lama" she
means Master. Personally I don't think it does.

JHE
> So here is an example of building a speculation upon a
> speculation: HSO *might* be identifying Sengchen Tulku as a
> Mahatma;

KPJ
*was* identifying either Losang Palden the Sengchen Lama of
1882 or his successor

JHE
Three possibilities is not definitive. One is.

JHE
HPB *might* be talking about the same person

KPJ
*was* talking about Losang Palden
whom she

JHE
> *might* be referring to as a Mahatma.

KPJ
*was* referring to as a Mahatma to the extent that one can be
identified by any historically observable traits-- e.g. a
recognized expert authority in an authentic spiritual tradition
to which HPB claimed affiliation
Therefore Sengchen Tulku

JHE
Once again under your definition any authority from whom
HPB gained information you make a Mahatma. Since HPB has an
entirely different definition what is a Mahatma to you may not
be a Mahatma to her.

JHE
> *might* be one of HPB's Mahatmas. And you say that this is one
> of your more "fruitful possibilities"? To me it looks like you
> are building upon quicksand--not a good foundation for a solid
> theory.

KPJ
I suggest you read the primary sources yourself and evaluate
this. To me it looks like you are inclined to dismiss even the
more solid evidence as quicksand.

JHE
And again tying together "master of ceremonies"
"Chief of the Archive-Registrars" Sengchen Tulku his successor
and "a friend of the TS" does not add up to one person. It adds
up to three candidates and two titles that may or may not belong
to the same person.
As for "reading the primary sources" I looked up your
references as I read you book. Whether these are truly the
"primary sources" I would have to look deeper into it to find
out. If I were to research this I would be in consultation with
someone who knows Tibetan culture and reads the language.

Rich Taylor interjects:

> Paul writes
>
> "First let
> me say that HPB doesn't use the word Master or Mahatma but
> calls the Sengchen the "Chohan Lama of Shigatse." Which is
> enough for me."
>
> Why is that enough for you?

Because I have only seen the word used by HPB and she uses it
to mean "Chief" exclusively in terms of a chief Theosophical
Master; e.g. the Chohan the Mahachohan.

Do you know what "Chohan" means? Do you know
> what language it is?

No do you? As for meaning I only know how HPB uses it.

Why does Chohan = Master of Wisdom in the Theosophical
> sense?

1. HPB insists that her Masters' lodge is affiliated somehow
not just with Gelugpa Buddhism but with Tashilhunpo and the
Shigatse area in particular.
2. HPB calls her correspondent who as far as I can tell can
only be the Sengchen for reasons cited elsewhere the Chohan
Lama of Shigatse and refers to him as a high authority in
Tibetan Buddhism.
3. Whenever HPB uses Chohan or Mahachohan elsewhere she is
talking about her own Masters.

JHE
"Chohan" according to HPB is a Tibetan term meaning "Lord."
In the ~Theosophical Glossary~ she makes the term synonymous with
Dhyan Chohans chief of the Dhyanis which are not physical
beings. HPB likens them to Archangels. Therefore "Chohan Lama"
can simply mean Chief Lama.
Mahachohan on the other hand according to HPB is the
Chief of a spiritual Hierarchy or of a school of occultism or
the head of the "trans-Himalayan Mystics" she means Masters
here. Purucker comments somewhere that the Mahachohan is not
even a physical being.
Therefore I would submit that whenever HPB's uses the word
"Chohan" she is not necessarily talking about Masters and in
this case she probably only means "Chief Lama."

> KPJ
> Hey gang--
> This week will be the last that I respond to any questions on
> the list about my Theosophical books.
>
> JHE
> Sorry to hear that. I felt that we were just getting
> started.

KPJ
Every moment of time and bit of energy spent on the past is
time and energy stolen from the future. Seriously
understanding Cayce is going to be a full-time job for the next
couple of years. While Theosophy certainly has a role to play
in that going back over issues in my Theosophical books
doesn't. Of course if my proposal doesn't fly this will not
be a factor.

JHE
I understand.

Cheers
JHE

------------------------------------------|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: 15 Nov 1995 12:07:16 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Daath & Qlippoth

Alan:
>Shells are containers like our bodies. That's it. Grant is
>mild compared to "The Master Bertiaux" ...

True. I was given a copy of his Voudon Gnostic Workbook
Magickal Childe and was unable to tell if he was serious or just
trying to pull my leg. But Bertiaux was supposedly Grant's guru
so I don't know ...

Alan:
> In the Tree
>of Jacob's Ladder which I have had endorsed by a latter-day
>Jewish 'Hasid as 100% compatible with their version of Kabala
>the sephira Daath usually depicted in the center of an Abyss
>disappears whenever a [rising] shift in awareness/ consciousness
>occurs and becomes the foundation or Yesod of the next level
>up.

I would agree that Daath is located in the Abyss
at the separation between the higher 03 Sephiroth and the
lower 7. In fact in a sense it IS that separation. Magic
schools take the Qabalistic idea a little further and have
detailed the Abyss in ways probably never dreamed of by
the old Jewish Qabalistis. This is especially true for
Crowley and his OTO. I am not trained in Kabbalah but
rather in Qabala - the New Age magical version. All I can
say is that it works quite well and it is a most intriguing
subject.
You seem to be saying that Daath contains
a "wormhole" to the Yesod of Yetzirah a road from Assiah
to Yetzirah?. Most magic schools as far as I know don't
make much use of the four "worlds" of Assiah Yetzirah
Briah and Atziluth but rather stick only to the 10 Sephiroth
viewing the spheres on separate cosmic planes all the
way up to the highest divinity Kether. Using three extra
worlds gets messy for those whose interest is mainly
pathworking. Kabbalists I believe teach that the
Qlippoth are the shells or outer bodies of the spheres
and exist here in Assiah. The OTO and the Qabalists
teach that the Qlippoth exist on a lower cosmic plane
that our physical plane which is why it seems to
correspond to the 8th Sphere.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 14:03:21 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Fog Index

Jerry Schuler wrote:

>MKR:
>> A good question. One of the reasons may be due to the fact that some of
>>the members who receive the magazine find it too difficult to read and
>>understand. I myself have found several times the material to be very heavy
>>and have read only the book reviews. This is just my opinion. Would be
>>interesting to hear other feedback.
>

> This goes back to an essay that I posted on Peacenet years
>ago. At that time magazines like Quest and Gnosis were trying to be
>"legit" in the eyes of the public and were courting PhD's as authors.
>While this does adds legitamacy it also makes the reading harder--
>what I called the Fog Index. PhDs tend to have a high fog index
>even when writing for the general public. Anyway I found myself
>sleeping through so many Gnosis articles that I quit my subscription
>and have not seen an issue in years. I also have trouble with some
>Quest articles but I think on the whole most have been readable.
>The Fog Index for the average reader should be around 7. Most
>PhDs write at the 18-21 range but deliberately lower this when
>writing for the general public sometimes down to 12 or 13. But
>even this is high for many people and frankly I am too lazy to
>get out my dictionary all the time and long sentences with big
>words tends to turn me off even though I am close to a PhD
>myself.
>
> Jerry S.

Jerry:

I am glad that you have expressed my thoughts better than myself. I
hope everybody understands what we are trying to say.

As for myself I would be willing to let TSA stop sending me Quest
and reduce my National Annual Dues as it would save me some money which I
would be glad to give to the local lodge I belong to. It would also save
some trees.

...Doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 14:03:42 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Research

At 080500 PM 11/14/95 -0500 you wrote:
>Greetings all!
>
>Recently announced *Abraxas* titles on theos-news and
>theos-roots are being issued under the aegis of the
>"Theosophical Research Group" unattached but comprised of
>members of the TS in England and soon with overseas members. It
>is a loose grouping dedicated to speculative as well as purely
>historical study without any dogmatic bias and reflecting a
>variety of opinions. To avoid argument and dissension it is not
>tied to any specific Lodge nor does it claim to be an official
>body within the TS - simply a group of Theosophists who wish
>tostudy and publish the fruits of that study. It is in no way
>hostile to but very supportive of the TS and its aims.
>
>Prefaces by R.A.Gilbert in publications to date are not very
>well disposed towards the Mahatmas as independent entities nor
>towards what he calls "Leadbeater and the Besant/Leadbeater
>axis."
>
>However all the personalities are in the past and it is hoped
>that the kind of events that led to so many schisms and personality
>cults in the past will remain safely buried there.
>
>Because of the fact that the past shapes the future initial
>publications are reproducing some of the scarcer writings which
>highlight the problems of the formative years of the
>Theosophical movement. We have no wish to try to assassinate
>the dead - this is impossible. We do care about the future
>however and we can all learn from the past just as we can all
>learn by sharing our resources.
>
>If any theos-list subscribers feel they have a useful
>contribution to make we want to hear about it. As time goes
>by we hope to publish booklet or pamphlet length writings from
>the living as well as reprinting the writings of those who have
>gone before.
>
>Sincerely
>
>AB
>--
>Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>-----------------------------------------------
>

Glad to see the above message. I am sure that at some point the
contributions will be in electronic form and can you consider posting them
here. It will give one more channel for distribution and will save trees
mailing and save money for the readers.

Keep us informed.

...Doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 16:11:48 GMT
From: Anton <73532.1665@compuserve.com>
Subject: unsubscribing

I have tried without success to unsubscribe. Could you help me? Thank you.

E-mail from: Anton A. Armbruster XP 15-Nov-1995

!N3
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 16:40:33 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: another quote

Meant to put on this continuation of my favorite passage from "The
Voice..." the other day. Forgot p. 228 ff Talks on the Path of
Occultism:

<<If sun thou canst not be then be the humble planet. Aye if thou
art debarred from flaming like the noon-day sun upon the snow-capped
mount of purity eternal then choose O neophyte a humbler course.

<< Point out the way - however dimly & lost among the host - as does
the evening star to those who tread their path in darkness.

<<Behold Migmar as in his crimson veils his eye sweeps over
slumbering Earth. Behold the fiery aura of the hand of Lhagpa
extended in protecting love over the head of his ascetics. Both are
now servants to Nyima left in his absence silent watcher in the
night. Yet both in Kalpas past were bright Nyimas and may in future
days again become two suns. Such are the falls and rises of the
karmic law in nature.

<<Be O Lanoo like them. Give light & comfort to the toiling
pilgrim & seek out him who knows still less than thou; who in his
wretched desolation sits starving for the bread of wisdom and the
bread which feeds the shadow without a Teacher hope or
consolation and let him hear the Law.>>

<In a footnote HPB says:>

<<Nyima the sun in Tibetan astrology. Migmar or Mars is symbolised
by an eye and Lhagpa or Mercury by a hand.>>

<There are here several points of interesting analogy. The 02
planets mentioned give their light at night when the sun is out of
sight & all is dark. It is so with us. We have to help those who are
in greater darkness than ourselves; There is no one who cannot
find someone more ignorant than himself whom he may teach. Even if
those around us are not ready to enter the Path we can lead them
in the right direction towards it.

<At the time of the transference of life from the moon to the earth
the planets glowed & shone like small suns. But Mars is mainly a
desert now and that is why he reflects the yellow or reddish
lights. From the standpoint of the poetic author of these verses
they are doing their best work in giving light to man now. The
idea illustrates the fact that we are not necessarily doing our
best work when we shine the most. Alsowhen a building has to be erected
the foundations must be put
in first. They do not count for anything in the matter of
appearance being hidden out of sight but on them the building will
be erected. So in the common work of every day the candidate is
performing useful service to society and at the same time
developing the higher siddhis which are the spiritual powers of the
ego.>

This is from p 237 unrelated but noteworthy I think:

CWL is talking about what it takes to become an Arhat:

<It is only by going though the greatest trials by descending into
the very depth of darkness that the qualitites required in the
candidate for this initiation may be attained. The holy flower opens
and blooms in that darkness yet it comes as a result of
development on the buddhic plane.>

<< = HPB
< = CWL

Hope you find this useful.
Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 16:50:55 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: TS' by laws revision committe

To whom it concerns especially to Doss

Elisabeth at the Olcott libary tells me that there *is* a by-laws
revisions committee which has been meeting for quite a while.
Well I'm glad to pass on the information but I must say this is
typical of Wheaton. In all the years I've been a member I'd never
heard or read anything about a by-laws revisions committee. That's why I
appreciated John Algeo's Annual Report in the last AT. That at
least tells you something about how Wheaton is put together. Anyway there
is or was a by-laws revisions committee. Wonder who was on it.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 17:03:45 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Fwd TS' by laws revision committe

To whom it concerns especially to Doss

Elisabeth at the Olcott libary tells me that there *is* a by-laws
revisions committee which has been meeting for quite a while.
Well I'm glad to pass on the information but I must say this is
typical of Wheaton. In all the years I've been a member I'd never
heard or read anything about a by-laws revisions committee. That's why I
appreciated John Algeo's Annual Report in the last AT. That at
least tells you something about how Wheaton is put together. Anyway there
is or was a by-laws revisions committee. Wonder who was on it.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 17:23:58 GMT
From: Richtay@aol.com
Subject: Re: Theosophy International

Alan

Re: Theosophy International I don't have time this week/month to write
something up but if it includes the three objects i the most open
non-exclusive and non-controlling way possible exacting nothing from people
other than the pursuit of truth together with others under the complete
freedom of individual conscience then YES

SIGN ME UP.

hey good idea. Let's see how long we can avoid becoming yet another "sect"
of Theosophy.

Rich
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 22:17:58 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Theosophy International

Rich:

>>Alan
>>Re: Theosophy International

>SIGN ME UP.

This sounds like the stated *intent* of the ULT with a number of
independent lodges to study Theosophy and no emphasis on personality.
The actual implementation though falls short of the ideal and the
defintion of what is theosophical is held too tightly.

>hey good idea. Let's see how long we can avoid becoming yet
>another "sect" of Theosophy.

If you don't want to formalize any particular teachings or practice
e.g. become a "sect" in the good sense of the word the best approach
is like the Theosophical Network of the mid 1980's where one simply
states that one is a Theosophist and gets listed in an international
directory. It doesn't matter what T.S.'s one belongs to or one's
particular beliefs. There is no structure no organization no
formalization of any particular ideas.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 15 Nov 1995 23:51:54 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: Daath & Qlippoth

> Alan:
> >Shells are containers like our bodies. That's it. Grant is
> >mild compared to "The Master Bertiaux" ...
>
> True. I was given a copy of his Voudon Gnostic Workbook
> Magickal Childe and was unable to tell if he was serious or just
> trying to pull my leg. But Bertiaux was supposedly Grant's guru
> so I don't know ...

As Crowley pulled more legs than anyone I guess his followers
are subject to the same tendency - only too many of them seem to
think it's for real ... :- His best work was ~The Book of Thoth~.

> Alan:
> > In the Tree
> >of Jacob's Ladder which I have had endorsed by a latter-day
> >Jewish 'Hasid as 100% compatible with their version of Kabala
> >the sephira Daath usually depicted in the center of an Abyss
> >disappears whenever a [rising] shift in awareness/ consciousness
> >occurs and becomes the foundation or Yesod of the next level
> >up.
>
> I would agree that Daath is located in the Abyss
> at the separation between the higher 03 Sephiroth and the
> lower 7. In fact in a sense it IS that separation.

Consider it on the scale of a single Tree of Life as a
function of Tiphareth where Tiphareth = Soul/Self in a Jungian
sense. It is the link between the lower and the higher levels
however we look at it.

> Magic
> schools take the Qabalistic idea a little further and have
> detailed the Abyss in ways probably never dreamed of by
> the old Jewish Qabalistis. This is especially true for
> Crowley and his OTO.

Who took it all the way to the point of complete lunacy ...

> I am not trained in Kabbalah but
> rather in Qabala - the New Age magical version. All I can
> say is that it works quite well and it is a most intriguing
> subject.

It also produces a great deal of material that can only have
come from the rear end of the bull .... I know - I used to talk
it and even for a while taught it. The real thing is better.

> You seem to be saying that Daath contains
> a "wormhole" to the Yesod of Yetzirah a road from Assiah
> to Yetzirah?.

Not that it contains it. It *is* it. Likewise from Yetzirah to
Briah and Briah to Atziluth. Sounds like you need my "Keys to
Kabbalah" in hardcopy privately printed by me. This has the
necessary diagrams to follow the teaching.

> Most magic schools as far as I know don't
> make much use of the four "worlds" of Assiah Yetzirah
> Briah and Atziluth but rather stick only to the 10 Sephiroth
> viewing the spheres on separate cosmic planes all the
> way up to the highest divinity Kether. Using three extra
> worlds gets messy for those whose interest is mainly
> pathworking.

Shame poor dears! But the teaching explicitly teaches *four
worlds.* "Pathworking" can get anyone believing what they want
to hear all too easily and is in Yetziratic. To the
uninitiated in both senses of the term Briah is both much too
hard work and too frightening. Ignoring the higher worlds
however is simply playing games with the "ancient wisdom."

IMNVHO Qabalists should be issued with T-shirts reading "Let's
create doubtful karma together!"

> Kabbalists I believe teach that the
> Qlippoth are the shells or outer bodies of the spheres
> and exist here in Assiah.

And nowhere else except in the fantasy worlds of those mentioned
below:

> The OTO and the Qabalists
> teach that the Qlippoth exist on a lower cosmic plane
> that our physical plane ......
>
> Jerry S.

Alan
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 00:04:41 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Channelling Part 01

JRC:

Some stray comments on your essay on channelling ...

> those who actually channel to those who claim the virtually all
> channelling is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all
> costs

One of your opening statements seems somewhat biased in painting a
spectrum of possibilities saying it goes from those who actually
do it to those that don't and say never do it. Your spectrum puts
all recognition of danger on the side of the deniers. We can
depict things many ways depending upon the analogies that we give
in explanation. Another analogy as an example might say:

those who actually watch TV all day long to those who claim
that virtually all TV watching is a waste of time and should
be avoided at all costs

This implies that watching TV is good and that those who would not
watch it are doing so due to a lack of proper TV-watching
experience. But someone that watches TV much of the time is not
necessarily better qualified to comment on it.

> The dispute I would have with standard Theosophical model
> which mostly seems to be "don't do it - it is dangerous to give
> control up to another entity is that it seems to be based on a
> conception of the human psyche that was common in the late 19th
> century

That is not the model as I understand it. It may be the way that
certain theosophical writers explained things in the idiom of
their day. That is why we need to give fresh expression to the
ideas so that the culture-specific materials don't get in the way
of the ideas.

You seem to be mixing up two points here. One is the comparison of
the old idea of the human psyche with the theosophical model. The
other is the idea of not giving up control. The idea as I
understand it is that control is not given up but the sense of
ego or personality is dropped. There's an important distinction
here.

> Throughout the objections about giving up "conscious"
> control is the assumption that there *is* a solid consistent
> entity called the "conscious self" that can either be
> "controlling" or can "surrender" its control.

It is not a particular center of consciousness in our constitution
that maintains the sense of control. It is the dynamic activity of
the stream of consciousness the monadic essence the selfless
observer that retains the control.

> Problem with this
> is that psychology is coming to increasingly understand that
> "conscious self" that sits on the "throne" is far more of a
> democracy and an often unintegrated and unruly one at that with
> many different players than it is a single consistent self.

Our personality is composed of a bundle of tendencies of the
Skandhas and is essentially illusory.

> the vast number of people
> walk through the world almost entirely *asleep* ... that is that
> so-called "conscious control" is an illusion.

We're taught that most people go through life asleep to the
spiritual that they lack in self-consciousness.

> I remember watching this utterly bizarre wave of righteous
> patriotism spreading across the country very deliberately and
> even quite openly fed by the US Government ... I noticed that
> ... not only the ideas but actually entire sentences that were
> taken almost *verbatim* from a General's speech the previous day.

This can be observed with any movement of thought that catches the
public attention. People take up the ideas and are changed. Ideas
full of nonsense come to us from the political left as well as
right. We see a change in public thought as "utterly bizarre" or
as a dramatic step forward in the betterment of the world
depending upon our political biases.

> These people suddenly appeared to me to be *channelling* that
> is while each would say their "conscious self" was fully in
> control of their words their energy systems were simply
> completely saturated with a particular form of energy the darkly
> pleasurable buzz of supporting self-righteous killing ...
> words were going ... out of their mouths with virtually no
> conscious consideration

This is what happens with any idea that someone considers true. It
is not unique to one extreme on the political spectrum. It happens
even with harmless ideas. It is not chanelling or thought control
but rather inertia. People have ideas but won't freshly rethink
them each time; they choose instead to mouth words that no longer
carry any original thought.

> Perhaps it is helpful to distinguish between the voice - the
> words actually coming into verbal manifestation - and the inner
> impulses that are behind the formation of those words. From a
> particular point of view *everything* a person says is
> channelled ... the relevant question being the *nature* of what
> is being "channelled" rather than the act of channelling.

Here I see you giving a different definition to channelling that
I've seen it used elsewhere. The traditional use of the word is to
describe a situation of possession where someone else another
entity has temporary control of your physical body. It's not
really channelling when you're aware of a non-physical being and
yourself speak on its behalf.

> To hold as Patrick does that channelling "kama-manasic"
> entities is wrong and dangerous ignores the fact that the vast
> majority of current human casual conversations are composed of
> nothing other than "kama-manasic" impulses being "channelled" by
> those talking

There is a big distinction between sharing thoughts and feelings
which we all agree is ok and the equalivant of someone blacking
out losing control of his body having no memory of what
happened and basically standing aside in the astral as another
entity does what it will through the body. That giving up of
control of the body is *not* good.

> A good-hearted person deliberately tries to "channel" ... one
> of the countless "kama-manasic" entities that exist in the inner
> world that clothed itself in the concept of the "initiate" that
> it found in the person's subconscious

This is the standard theosophical description of mediumship as
found in Spiritualism. It is mediumship if the medium gives up
the physical body. The person may also stay in control and simply
relate what the entity is saying. In this case it depends upon the
person's training in the occult sciences whether the person can
tell when an impersonation is going on.

> ... a military colonel desiring for military purposes ...
> gives orders to deliberately block UN food trucks from reaching a
> settlement of starving refugees ... according to one model the
> colonel ... would not be considered to be "channelling"

Yes the distinction is that in one case one has give up all
control of the physical and another entity occupies it. In the
other case one is swept along out of control *but still there*
travelling a path of evil. There is a big difference between the
absence of the person when a person is elsewhere and when the
person is present but not in control of inner or outer
circumstances.

> In the Theosophical model ... down the road the mortal
> personality layers of the human constitution are going to *have*
> to surrender themselves - to their own higher animating spirit

The idea of a "surrender" is still taking the standpoint of the
personality and its delusions. There is nothing to surrender.
What is given up is the personality-centric perception of life
not the personality itself. And there is no higher power to
surrender to. It is still our consciousness that is in control
our volition that directs activity. What is different is the bias
and maya that we give up not the personality itself surrendering
to a higher entity.

> call it by whatever name. This certainly cannot be thought of
> as an easy thing to do as at least IMO one of the effects of
> the path itself is to produce at first a very powerful
> personality.

For some yes for others no. The enhancement of the personality
is secondary. The Path is threefold as we read in higher
Buddhism. One approach leads to self-mastery becoming an Arhat
the second to self-liberation becoming a Pratyeka-Buddha and
the third to becoming a power for good in the world becoming a
Bodhisattva. In all three Paths a basic step is to give up the
activity of mind which acts as a barrier to pure perception and
creates a false sense of personality. That does not mean an end to
the personality but rather an end to the ego-creating activity.

> The final point is that the *meaning* of words like
> "channelling" and "mediumship" has changed enormously since HPB
> and the Masters were writing their comments of the subjects.

Yes. When we study Theosophy we have to take care to use the
terms in the theosophical context and not assume that they mean
the same thing as in popular usage. But that does not mean that
the *ideas* are outmoded just that care must be taken with the
terminology.

> Channelling today IMO varies in at least three different
> important ways:

> there is a far greater degree of sophistication about the inner
> worlds than there was a century ago. ... [people are not] open
> to any damn thing that wanders by ... [and consider] issues of
> protection of keeping free of "lower" entities of attract.

I would question the greater degree of sophistication. Certainly
there are always a few more knowledgable that the rest but most
people I suspect are ready to believe whatever comes to them.

At this point we might make a distinction between channelling and
mediumship. With mediumship someone else is driving the car. With
channelling one keeps one's hands on the steering wheel but also
lets another passanger put his hands on the wheel as well. With
channelling the channeller is still present watching what is
done and able to stop the process at will. With mediumship the
person is absent and has no say in what is done.

> There is a far greater understanding ...[that] one's own
> attitudes and intentions creates a specific inner orientation
> that will determine the nature and level of beings attracted.

You seem to feel that people are much more capable
in dealing with non-physical entities now than in HPB's day and
so channelling would be safer for them. Yet on the other hand you
have observed how quickly people can be overtaken by undesirable
political propaganda. If people are so readily influenced by the
tides of public opinion are they really more balanced and
perceptive than in Blavatsky's time?

> In modern channelling literature ... people being encouraged
> to be extremely specific about the nature of what they are open
> to.

I would hope so but wonder why they need to be open to other
non-physical entities at all?

> a relatively more refined channel whose whole system is charged
> with the unconditional desire for truth and oriented to only be
> open to beings of stature

The need for channelling is based upon the model of how the world
works. It is not I'd say necessary to talk to non-physical
beings in order to come into direct contact with vast storehouses
of knowledge and wisdom. The search for truth does not need to be
personified into invisible entities that come to tell us things.
And higher beings with business on our physical world can and will
have bodies of their own in due time. They are the Dhyani-Chohans
and can currently be found on Globe C.

> This principle also means that those who hold negative
> conceptions of channelling and who find themselves focussing
> heavily on "danger" on fear filled with suspicion about *any*
> voice from the inner worlds should certainly *not* channel
> because that paradigm *itself* will become the filter that will
> effectively block those impulses that are *not* harmful and
> delusional.

Our expectations will bias our perception of the world and
especially so in the case of psychical perceptions. But there is
no need to *entify* thoughtforms and elementals as they come to
us and build pictures in our mind of them as being great beings.
We can be open to truth coming to us without having to calling one
rich vein of manasic content as Mr. Angel a second as Plato and
a third as Zargon from the Neptune Chain.

> the *baseline* human psyche of today is very different than it
> was a century ago - it is far more fluid far less fixed into a
> small set of patterns and perhaps *capable* in some cases of
> withstanding the high voltage of genuinely high spiritual
> entities.

Human nature may *appear* to change from one generation to the
next. This does not mean that humanity per se has radically
evolved. I think it is due to differing classes of humans coming
into birth together. Sometimes there's a generation of more
advanced people; othertimes there's a generation of stragglers.

The direct perception of the spiritual is not a "high voltage"
experience. It is more akin to a dynamic gentleness than to
ear-splitting loud music. It is a qualitative change to our
awareness of life not a quantitative change in the intensity of
anything.

When I hear you mention "genuinely high spiritual entities" my
reaction is to think of how we tend to personify things that we're
not ready to directly experience. I doubt that a channeller is in
direct contact with a real Dhyani-Chohan.

> In observing the inner worlds there appears to me to be a
> sort of physics a set of almost scientific mechanical principles
> that governs interactions between beings in general and the
> human persona and "higher" beings in the particular case of
> channelling.

Yes and this has to do with the nature of the sphere of effects
that surrounds our Globe D earth. There are many levels to this
including the level at which kamaloka is undergone and that
appropriate to devachan. This is not a place where self-conscious
existance is the norm but is rather the backstage to the drama of
life on this sphere of causes.

The different type of interaction which is highly influenced by
subjective expectations is due to the fact that we populate the
sceens with the content of our own consciousness. It is not the
norm to consciously interact with another being except for
perhaps an elemental there.

The same laws of "objective" existance apply to us on higher
planes when we are on the other Globes the other spheres of
effects. But to get there we have to go into dreamless sleep
leaving behind our Globe D human personality and becoming a
different part of ourselves.

> ... the denser regions ... in which ... energy pattern[s]
> itself tightly into fixed form

> [Then] there is a much more immense realm [with] beings are
> almost purely energy. They might be said to have great "wisdom"
> ... nothing to do with what we call "knowledge" ... not a
> series of conceptualizations not a "philosophy"

You describe an experience of a world of forms and a
relatively-formless world. This is all I'd say backstage to our
Globe D earth and not the next objective world Globe E.

> For a human personality structure to be touched even slightly
> by one of these immense beings ... it would have to be
> *extremely* flexible or the energy would simply blow the psyche
> into bits.

We *can* come into touch with higher energies but I don't think
that they should be personified. And there's more to it than
flexibility. The psyche or sense of personality needs to dissapear
or be as transparent as glass.

The sense of "blown into bits" is a Western experience of
transcending the ego-creating activity of mind but the
experience doesn't have to be an explosion nor a sense of
stretching of personality it can simply be pure perception.

The experience make take on a form *to you* of great beings to
interact with but that is an attempt to give a context to
something that is lost as soon as the mind again resumes its
self-creating activity. The same experience may be of communion
with Jesus or God with Daniel H. or with a Tibetan deity for yet
a third person.

> extremely high voltages ... must be first stepped down through
> a series of transformers

This is what the different planes are one after the next. And all
that passes from one plane to the next undergoes dissolution and
passage through a laya-center.

The same is true of the Kingdoms of nature. Each Kingdom steps
down and passes on certain qualities to the lower ones. The
Dhyani-Chohans have transmitted certain knowledge to the elect of
humanity and they further step down this knowledge and wisdom to
less-evolved men and women. There is a Golden Chain of
transmission which we all participate in both receiving and being
responsible for passing on to those that have less.

Apart from this transmission I don't see much that would be
passed on. We have the Dhyani-Chohans supporting Humanity which
then supports the Animal Kingdom etc. All the Kingdoms are
pre-human human or post-human. Beings of innocent wisdom
unstained by material existence and with the scars and richness of
heart of having passed through humanity are the Elementals. Those
with both humanity and something more are the Dhyani-Chohans.

> ... major religions are generated first as a current from one
> of those immense beings [then using the] transformers ...
> composed of "Masters" and "Initiates"

This sounds like the Dhyani-Chohans acting as the Celestial
Bodhisattva of our Globe in initiating the major cycles of our
evolution.

> Now as humanity as a whole evolves ...the rigid hierarchy of
> the power grid - required for *safety* - may be able to become
> more relaxed.

Our ability to perceive truth directly and to rise above the
limitations of the personality come from *within ourselves*. We
change the functioning of our consciousness. This is not because
of becoming "plugged in" into a "high-voltage being of energy".
We are talking about the workings of consciousness not an external
experience where we get something from others.

> Suppose a growing minority of humans possess personality
> structures refined and fluid enough to be able to be "re-wired"
> to withstand higher voltages hence allowing the circuit breakers
> to be bypassed.

Direct insight into life is not dependent upon the wiring of the
personality but rather on its transparancy where it no longer
predominates in our consciousness. The idea of energy flows is a
metaphor and not literally how consciousness works; consciousness
I think is something of its own nature and unique in its own
right.

> Imagine the possibility that instead of the model of pure
> energetic impulses needing large hierarchal religious structures
> with the somewhat immense *downside* and potential for abuse
> such a system has inherent in it to render the impulses safe
> for individual consumption

Which is saying imagine that instead of an established religious
framework for people unable to directly perceive the true nature
of life ...

> that instead a far more decentralized picture became possible
> in which every *community* possessed a few individuals capable of
> responding to the energy itself and adapting it with far greater
> specificity to those living in that place and time.

We have a Protestant model of religion rather than a Catholic one
a model that has individuals with the right to "speak to God
directly" rather than needing a Pope to do it for us.

> While these people might not be able to touch the pure
> unfiltered current they might at least be able to more directly
> contact it after only its first or second transformation and
> remember every *level* in a church hierarchy represents another
> level of "transformers"

And this seems to be yet another definition of a priestcraft.
Instead of priests speaking on behalf of a God we have oracles
speaking on behalf of great invisible beings.

I'm not sure how necessary it is for another priestcraft. Gurus
are fine as personal coaches to the spiritual but I'm not sure
that we need people to seemingly speak to invisible beings on our
behalf. The problem I think is with our lack of direct
insight not with our lack of contact with higher beings.

> ... almost everyone who has power ... in a ... religious ...
> organization will speak out sharply against channelling is ...
> It will mean the foundations of their power will be cut out from
> beneath them.

What you are proposing is an oracle-based spiritualistic religion
with a congregational or decentralized power structure. As an
alternate religion it would be opposed by proponents of other
religions. That opposition though comes from the mistaken belief
that their way is the only true approach to the spiritual. You
seem to be making the same claim for your newly proposed religion.

The same decentralized approach can be found in other religions
like Christianity where we find local break-away churches that
follow their own practice not under the command or subject to the
authority of some national or international religious body.

> We may be now seeing the first admittedly stumbling steps
> towards this very different picture of spiritual and religious
> activity.

I see it as stated to be another reformulation and not
essentially different. The power structure is decentralized. It is
a popular religion for the masses with a priestcraft rather than
a spritual practice with gurus and well-defined practices. The
priests claim to speak on behalf of invisible beings.

The existence of those beings and what they represent would be
presented as part of the dogma of the new religion part of its
teachings which its followers would be expected to accept as
literally true.

This is not a radical breakthrough but rather something which may
have been tried at different times in the past. Wasn't there a time
in early Greece when there were temples to the various Greek gods
with oracles to speak for them and a mythology to explain the
nature of those gods?

> The basic underlying pattern is of certain individuals
> beginning to try to channel "spiritual entities"

You're attempting to help formulate one possible future religion
for the West. It will appeal to certain people that need to
personify the inner workings of life to make them into deities.
When I might attempt the same task I'll stick to something that
more closely follows what I've found in Theosophy and Buddhism.

In your religion "channelling spiritual entities" will be an
important activity. In mine realizing "the nature of mind is
empty clear and unimpeded" will be important.

> i.e. to connect directly instead of through the process of
> entering a religious hierarchy - that is to go "off the grid"
> and seek power directly from sun & wind & etc.

There seems to be a bit of liberal politics here. The idea that
"big is bad" and to disconnect from society and become physically
self-sufficient is I think misguided. We are now a global
community and that interconnectedness is growing not shrinking.
We are becoming increasingly dependend upon one another. That
interdependence is not a bad thing and allows both economic and
cultural growth.

> and of people in communities beginning to go to those channels
> to take advantage of that direct connection instead of for
> instance going to a Catholic priest who will simply adapt
> principles determined in Rome to specific situations.

Again it is simply a matter of different dogma. Your religion
has a teaching that its priests are direct connections to real
deities and the priests of other religions merely parrot the dead
and untrue teachings of their authorities. It's akin to a claim
of "my god's bigger than your god".

Your oracle might say "well I know by personal experience that
I'm channelling a high being from the planet venus." And a
Fundamentalist priest might say "you're a pawn of the devil
whereas I speak for God and know him and have a personal
relationship with him." Priests of yet other religions would make
similar claims.

> And while the first steps *are* difficult and may contain many
> mistakes the underlying pattern itself may ultimately become not
> only a new "religion" but an entirely different concept of what
> religion itself *is*.

Nothing of what you've said leads me to see it as essentially
different from religions of the past. You're just changing a few
of the variables but following the same general pattern. Even the
claim of being something special and above all other religions is
typical.

> And even further the evaluation of the "danger and delusion"
> cannot be done in a vacuum ... but must be done in comparison to
> *hierarchal religion*

The results will be the same. The oracle personifies his own
thinking and insight gives it a name and speaks on behalf of it.
The priest does the same but calls his personification "God"
rather than "higher-plane being".

> ... Might some channels cause trouble by being unclear being
> deluded becoming authoritarian and controlling and thinking they
> should be put on a pedestal?

Both oracles and priests can.

> Certainly but they are causing only the tiniest *fraction* of
> the trouble caused for the identical reasons by modern
> mainstream *priesthoods*.

We'll get the same troubles with oracles as with a priestcraft.
The problem is with the model of a religion for the masses where
special individuals minister to people rathern than a spiritual
practice where gurus act as personal coaches to the development
of individuals in training.

> Its just I believe that we've become so accustomed to such
> abuses have just simply accepted that abuses of hierarchal
> standing are a necessary evil that must be borne to derive the
> positive aspects from religion.

The problem I think is not with a particular organizational
model be it hierarchical network etc. The problem is with the
model of having to go to someone to minister to one. The problem
is with people being setup as intermediaries between us and our
spiritual practices. There is need for intermediaries -- priests or
oracles -- except for those who would bury their heads in the sand
and ignore the calling of the spiritual.

> But to really evaluate channelling we must throw this
> assumption out. For every modern channel that mistakenly advises
> a woman to leave a relationship there are a hundred Baptist
> preachers threatening women with eternal damnation if they dare
> leave the husbands that have beat them from the first day of
> their marriages.

Again we find the tradional claims made on behalf of a favorite
religion. My way someone might say is 100 times better than
your way. Mistakes though are made through human error
through lack of insight and really looking at the particular
situation of the moment. This is done by people of all faiths
and an oracle of Channelity is not any more immune from human
error than the rest.

Of course the channeler operates from a dogma required belief
of his faith which accords semi-omniscience to his
pronouncements which puts him on a par with the Baptist priest
thinking he is speaking for God! <grin>

> I do not channel and would never advise anyone to do it or not
> to do it

That's good because you'd have to be someone's "spiritual doctor"
or guru to be in the position to prescribe a particular practice.

> but I do tip my hat to those who have chosen perhaps without
> knowing it to be what I believe a century from now may be seen
> as the first pioneers to explore a new and wild land

I think that the land of the occult or hidden side of life has
been explored for almost numberless generations. We're just
dabbling in the West with things that have been known far into the
prehistoric past.

> ... a land that might contain benefits currently not even
> dreamed of.

The benefits are in the riches of the spiritual which are open to
all of us and have always been open. We just have to give the
"right knock" and the door will open.

For Western society I expect several new religions to evolve to
account for various temperaments. One possible religion might very
well take the lines of the approach that you outline. My
background though leads me to want to help with religious
formulations along different lines.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 06:23:08 GMT
From: "Lewis Lucas" <LLUCAS@Mercury.GC.PeachNet.EDU>
Subject: Re: CWL's comments on the Voice

Liesle

Thank you for posting some of this man's work to this list. Much
has been made of the allegations against him and his personal life
and it is good to have a chance to consider his views on one of HPB's
books. It seems apparent he shared with most of us an interest in
the Path and the light HPB tried to shine on it.

In his views I find a thoughtful man who offered constructive
insights to a subject he was sincerely yet not infallably
interested in. One he had spent much time studying and teaching. His
effort has made mine own more rewarding and is much appreciated.

Lewis
llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 08:59:26 GMT
From: mauriced@cin.gov.au Maurice De Montaine
Subject: Re: TMR

>Paul writes
>
>"First let
>me say that HPB doesn't use the word Master or Mahatma but
>calls the Sengchen the "Chohan Lama of Shigatse." Which is
>enough for me."
>
>Why is that enough for you? Do you know what "Chohan" means? Do you know
>what language it is? Why does Chohan = Master of Wisdom in the Theosophical
>sense?
>
>Rich
>

Beloved All

Chohan means Lord in a particular definition. Even in Theosophical
nomenclature it is utilised in that sense. For instance we have the Chohans
representing the Seven Rays - the Chohan Lord of the First Ray the
Ascended Master El Morya etc. Then of course we have the Mahachohan who
is the "Great Lord" or mentor of the Chohans of the Seven Rays Lords of the
Seven Rays.

Indeed let us define correctly but let us not get ensnared in the trap
of an over indulgence in intellectualisation. This is often the tendency
these days. And the New Age movement unfortunately is full of such. Let us
also remember that Truth is progressively revealed. So no matter what brand
of teaching we adopt or whichever teacher we follow such is not the
ultimate attaining to of Truth. For beloved there really is no ultimate or
final end to Truth. Truth is indeed infinite.

Maurice
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 10:03:47 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Digest Approach

>Date: 16 199511 162200 -0500
>X-Sender: jem@popmail.vnet.net
>To: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
>From: jem@vnet.net John E. Mead
>Subject: Re: hi
>
>>> At 033000 PM 11/15/95 +0800 Jason Braunstein wrote:
>>>I had been receiving Theos and other TS lists starting with the same
>>>THEOS heading. I unsubscribed because of the large number of
>>>communications: it became a nuisance after a while. Recceiving several
>>>hundred postings over a few days can be daunting. I would not recommend
>>>it to anyone unless they were retired.
>>>
>
>this is a common complaint now. However if you set the mail mode to "digest"
>it gets much more manageable. to do so send to listserv@vnet.net the messages
>
>set theos-L mail digest
>set theos-buds mail digest
>set theos-roots mail digest
>
>etc.
>
>that helps alot.
>
>peace -
>
>john mead
>
>p.s. please forward to wherever appropriate. :-

Dear Jason

I just received the above message. The digest approach may solve the
problem of large number of messages being received. Please forward the
message to anyone interested in the newsgroup.

In this cyberage with fast world wide communication I am confident
that with the newsgroups and IRCs newer modes of exchange of ideas and
discussions and flow of information may speed up the dissemination and
spread of Theo-Sophia in the most free form.

In the context of the current cyber communication world I wonder
how HPB would have used it if she were here now. One of the interesting
phenomenon is that rarely you find any of the leading figures in
Theosophical Organizations participating in the cyberspace. I do not know if
this is due to the fact that they need to be educated in the use of
computers; most of them grew up in pre computer age.

Would it not be wonderful if we all come up with creative ways to
use the cyberspace to spread Theo-sophia especially to the younger
generation who may not be attracted by the traditional approach?

Regards

...Doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 10:15:50 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Digest Approach

>Date: 16 199511 160625
>To: Jason Braunstein <cshs@vianet.net> Theos-L@vnet.net
>From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
>Subject: Digest Approach
>
>>Date: 16 199511 162200 -0500
>>X-Sender: jem@popmail.vnet.net
>>To: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
>>From: jem@vnet.net John E. Mead
>>Subject: Re: hi
>>
>>>> At 033000 PM 11/15/95 +0800 Jason Braunstein wrote:
>>>>I had been receiving Theos and other TS lists starting with the same
>>>>THEOS heading. I unsubscribed because of the large number of
>>>>communications: it became a nuisance after a while. Recceiving several
>>>>hundred postings over a few days can be daunting. I would not recommend
>>>>it to anyone unless they were retired.
>>>>
>>
>>this is a common complaint now. However if you set the mail mode to "digest"
>>it gets much more manageable. to do so send to listserv@vnet.net the messages
>>
>>set theos-L mail digest
>>set theos-buds mail digest
>>set theos-roots mail digest
>>
>>etc.
>>
>>that helps alot.
>>
>>peace -
>>
>>john mead
>>
>>p.s. please forward to wherever appropriate. :-
>
>Dear Jason
>
> I just received the above message. The digest approach may solve
the problem of large number of messages being received. Please forward the
message to anyone interested in the newsgroup.
>
> In this cyberage with fast world wide communication I am confident
that with the newsgroups and IRCs newer modes of exchange of ideas and
discussions and flow of information may speed up the dissemination and
spread of Theo-Sophia in the most free form.
>
> In the context of the current cyber communication world I wonder
how HPB would have used it if she were here now. One of the interesting
phenomenon is that rarely you find any of the leading figures in
Theosophical Organizations participating in the cyberspace. I do not know if
this is due to the fact that they need to be educated in the use of
computers; most of them grew up in pre computer age.
>
> Would it not be wonderful if we all come up with creative ways to
use the cyberspace to spread Theo-sophia especially to the younger
generation who may not be attracted by the traditional approach?
>
> Regards
>
> ...Doss
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 10:24:18 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: TN

According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins:
>
> JHE
> Now let's keep this entire discussion in perspective. You
> earlier stated that the quote could be talking about Sengchen
> Tulku his successor or a friend of the TS. Do I need to
> retrieve the quotes where you stated this? If there are three

You are misconstruing the reference to a "friend of the TS." I
did not mean this as a third possibility but was simply saying
that if Olcott was not talking about the martyred Sengchen but
about his successor in the role and that this person was one
of "our Mahatmas" THEN the implication is that one friend of
the TS-- who became the "Master of Ceremonies"-- survived the
executions of the Sengchen whose given name was Losang Palden
and his associates who were also blamed for
helping Das.

>
> JHE
> I gave my reasons above snf they have nothing to do with
> Das' reliability. One the other hand it is interesting that you
> are using HSO and HPB' authority to endorse Das' reliability but
> yet all through TMR HPB is giving disinformation.

Simply because I thought it would weigh somewhat with you.
>
> JHE
> First of all it is clear that HPB has a formal definition
> of Mahatma that is very different from what you are proposing.

But not inconsistent with it! Is a carrot a plant with a long
cylindrical orange root or a green leafy top? But the root is
not observable to someone walking in the garden. Similarly
HPB's definition of Mahatma relies on inner nonobservable
traits. If one is limited as I am to working on the basis of
observables perforce the operational definition has to be
different.

> When HPB uses the word Mahatma she expects her reader to
> understand the meaning of that word to be consistent with her
> definition not yours. Second of all the "imponderables" do not
> render historical identification impossible. Anna Kingsford was
> specifically identified by HPB and in the Mahatma Letters as a
> "fifth rounder." There is no question that Anna Kingsford was an
> historical person regardless of her "imponderable" title. Oh
> and by the way being a "fifth rounder" does not necessarily
> identify a person as being a Mahatma. Though Kingsford was
> called a fifth rounder she was never called a Mahatma.

What criteria would you find sufficient to declare any person
in history a Theosophical Mahatma? If no criteria suffice
then such identification is a priori impossible. If you
approach my works with the a priori assumption that what they
set out to do is impossible-- on semantic grounds-- then your
negative conclusions are foregone.

> JHE
> Once again under your definition any authority from whom
> HPB gained information you make a Mahatma. Since HPB has an
> entirely different definition what is a Mahatma to you may not
> be a Mahatma to her.
In the Key she says "we call them the Masters because they are
our teachers." Finding her spiritual teachers is what my book
is about. Meeting some a priori impossible criterion of
identifying people's level of spiritual evolution is not.
>
> Mahachohan on the other hand according to HPB is the
> Chief of a spiritual Hierarchy or of a school of occultism or
> the head of the "trans-Himalayan Mystics" she means Masters
> here. Purucker comments somewhere that the Mahachohan is not
> even a physical being.

Consider that she talks about a Mahachohan who traveled from
Egypt to Tibet around the same time the Founders went to
India. How would a non-physical being do this?
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 10:27:40 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Babies and bathwater

In light of letters received yesterday from Pasadena and
Wheaton I have reconsidered my resignations. It is definitely
time to focus my literary energies on something other than
Theosophy and to get over caring whether I meet anyone's
standards of what Theosophists should think. But that doesn't
necessitate resigning from organizations with which for better
or worse the karmic links are undeniable.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 10:36:27 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: CWL's comments

Lewis:
> In his views I find a thoughtful man who offered constructive
>insights to a subject he was sincerely yet not infallably
>interested in. One he had spent much time studying and teaching. His
>effort has made mine own more rewarding and is much appreciated.

Ditto.

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 10:52:47 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: Fog Index

According to M K Ramadoss:
>
> Jerry:
>
> I am glad that you have expressed my thoughts better than myself. I
> hope everybody understands what we are trying to say.
>
> As for myself I would be willing to let TSA stop sending me Quest
> and reduce my National Annual Dues as it would save me some money which I
> would be glad to give to the local lodge I belong to. It would also save
> some trees.
>
> ...Doss

Well guys different strokes...
The current issue of The Quest is IMHO the best ever and The
Quest is the first initiative in a long time that has the TS
reaching out to the same level of the thinking public that was
reached by HPB in her time.

Other opinions?
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 13:06:36 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: TMR

> JHE
> Now let's keep this entire discussion in perspective. You
> earlier stated that the quote could be talking about Sengchen
> Tulku his successor or a friend of the TS. Do I need to
> retrieve the quotes where you stated this? If there are three

KPJ
You are misconstruing the reference to a "friend of the TS." I
did not mean this as a third possibility but was simply saying
that if Olcott was not talking about the martyred Sengchen but
about his successor in the role and that this person was one
of "our Mahatmas" THEN the implication is that one friend of
the TS-- who became the "Master of Ceremonies"-- survived the
executions of the Sengchen whose given name was Losang Palden
and his associates who were also blamed for helping Das.

JHE
You abridged my quote before you got to the point. One
can't say Manny Moe and Jack are really Charley. Manny might be
Charley or Moe might be Charlie or.... Whether you are working
from three possibilites or two possibilities doesn't really
matter. Actually I suspect that with a little digging you
might end up with more than three possibilities. But that hanges
on what HSO means by "Master of Ceremonies" as I mentioned
before.

> JHE
> First of all it is clear that HPB has a formal definition
> of Mahatma that is very different from what you are proposing.

KPJ
But not inconsistent with it! Is a carrot a plant with a long
cylindrical orange root or a green leafy top? But the root is
not observable to someone walking in the garden. Similarly
HPB's definition of Mahatma relies on inner nonobservable
traits. If one is limited as I am to working on the basis of
observables perforce the operational definition has to be
different.

JHE
Once again you abridged the point from my quote. If HPB
says "iced tea" one must begin with the assumption that she
means "iced tea" until you have consistent evidence that she
means otherwise.
As to your point. After discarding the "nonobservable
traits" of her definition I would question whether your
"operational definition" can still be consistent with hers.

JHE
> When HPB uses the word Mahatma she expects her reader to
> understand the meaning of that word to be consistent with her
> definition not yours. Second of all the "imponderables" do
> not render historical identification impossible. Anna
> Kingsford was specifically identified by HPB and in the Mahatma
> Letters as a "fifth rounder." There is no question that Anna
> Kingsford was an historical person regardless of her
> "imponderable" title. Oh and by the way being a "fifth
> rounder" does not necessarily identify a person as being a
> Mahatma. Though Kingsford was called a fifth rounder she was
> never called a Mahatma.

KPJ
What criteria would you find sufficient to declare any person
in history a Theosophical Mahatma? If no criteria suffice
then such identification is a priori impossible. If you
approach my works with the a priori assumption that what they
set out to do is impossible-- on semantic grounds-- then your
negative conclusions are foregone.

JHE
Once again your answer is not responsive to the point. But
at least it wasn't abridged this time. I was demonstrating that
an "imponderable" such as "fifth rounder" which is the example
you gave can be identified with an historical person.
To answer your question. I take HPB pretty much at face
value. I use her criteria. Her criteria would point to several
historical people as being Mahatmas. Most notably Siddartha
Gautama being the greatest of them.
If you want to go from your "operational definition" and
build your case that is fine too. But it is obvious that your
"operational definition" is not HPB's which is as you say full
of "inponderables." So I see it as a misreading construe HPB's
definition as yours and then reread her statements to fit your
hypothesis. It is something like accusing a woman of being a
Witch and then taking her denial as proof of her guilt because
a guilty witch will always lie to avoid the flames.

> JHE
> Once again under your definition any authority from whom
> HPB gained information you make a Mahatma. Since HPB has an
> entirely different definition what is a Mahatma to you may
> not be a Mahatma to her.

KPJ
In the Key she says "we call them the Masters because they are
our teachers." Finding her spiritual teachers is what my book
is about. Meeting some a priori impossible criterion of
identifying people's level of spiritual evolution is not.

JHE
That is a very selective definition. Everyone I meet in
life is my teacher because there is something I can learn from
them. So under this definition everyone is a Mahatma. Instead
of selecting one definition out of context I would look at all
of them in their proper contexts and see what comes out of it. I
think you will discover that her concept of a Mahatma is more
comprehensive than then one you selected.
JHE
> Mahachohan on the other hand according to HPB is the
> Chief of a spiritual Hierarchy or of a school of occultism or
> the head of the "trans-Himalayan Mystics" she means Masters
> here. Purucker comments somewhere that the Mahachohan is not
> even a physical being.

KPJ
Consider that she talks about a Mahachohan who traveled from
Egypt to Tibet around the same time the Founders went to
India. How would a non-physical being do this?

JHE
Once again you ignored the point by abridging the quote. A
Mahachohan is the "Chief" of a Spiritual Hierarchy etc. Thus
"Chohan" in this case has to do with Masters but in other cases
like "Chohan Lama" i.e. Chief Lama it doesn't.
As for the Mahachohan's physicality or lack of it you will
have to take that up with a Purucker student. That remark was
just something that I threw out for fun. I already have enough
people mad at me because I have points of disagreement with
Purucker. Perhaps Eldon can answer your question.

Cheers
JHE

p.s. I will be out of state for a week beginning friday and will
be out of touch with theos-l.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 13:22:39 GMT
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: Theosophy International

Alan

Sign me up.

Jerry HE
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 14:21:42 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: Theosophy International

According to Dr. A.M.Bain:
>
> To so far Liesel Eldon & Rich:
>
> I envisage THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprising those who
> subscribe to the the three objects of the TS but in a
> more up to date form based on suggestions by John Mead
> J.Crocker and others and expressed thus:>
> 1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family without
> discrimination with regard to sex including sexual
> orientation creed class or color.

Species? I guess it's OK to limit membership to humans but
wonder about the juxtaposition of "universal" and "human" which
seems oxymoronic. Any way to loosen the phraseology up to
indicate respect for *all* life?
>
> 2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative religion
> theosophy philosophy and the scientific method according to
> individual ability and inclination.
>
> 3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized
> human potential and abilities.
>
> [Above subject to negotiation and consensus :-]
>
> As I think Eldon mentioned this will be along the lines of ~The
> Theosophical Network~ whereby it is sufficient to declare one's
> sympathy and/or allegiance to the three objects and to be
> registered as having done so. No belief system to be required
> *nor assumed to be held* by any member. Ideally members would
> endeavour to express their ideas in gender-inclusive language
> where this is possible and practical.
>
> There will be no fees no subscriptions although voluntary
> donations and/or contributions *could* be made to specific
> projects or even individuals for particular and specified
> purposes.
>
What sorts of projects do you envision for starters?
PJ
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 14:22:21 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Theosophy International

At 070200 PM 11/16/95 -0500 Dr. A. M. Bain wrote:
>To so far Liesel Eldon & Rich:
>
>I envisage THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprising those who
>subscribe to the the three objects of the TS but in a
>more up to date form based on suggestions by John Mead
>J.Crocker and others and expressed thus:
>
>1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family without
>discrimination with regard to sex including sexual
>orientation creed class or color.
>
>2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative religion
>theosophy philosophy and the scientific method according to
>individual ability and inclination.
>
>3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized
>human potential and abilities.
>
>[Above subject to negotiation and consensus :-]
>
>As I think Eldon mentioned this will be along the lines of ~The
>Theosophical Network~ whereby it is sufficient to declare one's
>sympathy and/or allegiance to the three objects and to be
>registered as having done so. No belief system to be required
>*nor assumed to be held* by any member. Ideally members would
>endeavour to express their ideas in gender-inclusive language
>where this is possible and practical.
>
>There will be no fees no subscriptions although voluntary
>donations and/or contributions *could* be made to specific
>projects or even individuals for particular and specified
>purposes.
>
>Alan
>--
>Member Theosophy International.
>Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>-----------------------------------------------
>
In the present Theos-L forum do not we already have an international
collection of individuals interested in Theosophia?.

Every one who is subscribed to Theos-L is I am sure in sympathy with
the three objects. Taking the first object as a participant in this forum
we already are in a situation that we may not know the class color race
religion creed sex age national origin physical handicaps educational
level professional background wealth position etc etc etc of the other
participants unless the participants volunteer the information. In the
absence of these kinds of information there is less opportunity for one to
act in a biased or discriminatory manner towards an individual or group of
individuals. Let us try to actively participate in all discussions to make
it a very useful forum for everyone interested.

One joins the newsgroup by just subscribing to it via e-mail and is
the defacto registration. This setup avoids all problems that come up when
an formal setup is in place. When you want to be out of it just
unsubscribe. No paperwork no record keeping no administrative work!

In this forum everyone will welcome any project that support the
welfare of the humanity and hence details can be posted. However once a
project is started and if this forum is used as a means raising funds by
voluntary contributions it brings about a whole new set of questions which
needs to be carefully looked into. If funds are raised then the question is
who is going to collect and use the funds? What kind of controls are going
to be there to make sure that the contributions are indeed spent for the
project or purpose etc? In money matters generally secrecy slowly creeps in.

I do not want to be seen as being a skeptic. In a very well known
charitable trust with millions of dollars in assets set up for the work of
the world reknowned individual there came a time when the individual did
not have access to the trust funds and the Attorney General of the State and
a new Trust had to sue the old Trust to recover the assets that were donated
for the work. The litigation went on for years and years costing huge sums
of legal fees on both sides. Hence I would keep any kind of fund raising
out of the newsgroup. From what I have seen "money" brings its own isses
and problems.

These are my thoughts and would welcome comments of others.

MK Ramadoss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 16:12:48 GMT
From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Re: Channelling Part 01

Eldon:
Yeehaa! Well this is one of the more bizarre things I've seen
written in a little while ... I'm by now used to having most things I
write quite rewritten split into little pieces and reassembled as
they enter your world - and usually I barely even recognize what comes
back out as something even relating to anything I've said. You
certainly have the "right" to evaluate anything I say but much of the
time you don't simply seem to be responding to my posts and others'
as well so much as restating what was written scrunching it into
some model so it fits into your worldview and then commenting on
*that* ... or in fact not even commenting on it but simply using it to
make some almost totally unrelated point.
Yet again in this response you see fit to not only critique my
ideas but to question the way I choose to state things. Good enough.
I will respond in kind.

>> those who actually channel to those who claim the virtually all
>> channelling is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all
>> costs

>One of your opening statements seems somewhat biased in painting a
>spectrum of possibilities saying it goes from those who actually do
>it to those that don't and say never do it. Your spectrum puts all
>recognition of danger on the side of the deniers. We can
>depict things many ways depending upon the analogies that we give in
>explanation.
This is projection pure and simple. You may hear things in a
biased way if *you* have a bias but the statement and its form is
simply a statement of fact. On one side of the discussion *are* people
like Bee who channel. On the opposite side are those like Patrick
who actually *said* that channelling should be absolutely avoided. I
personally *don't have an opinion* ... that is I *don't* do it and
would never try but I also don't think myself to be some guru capable
of telling someone whose *has* chosen to do it that they are a priori
*wrong*. Rather I have been seeking to understand it to understand
the experience of those who do it without the prior presumption that
they are in danger or deluded - or the presumption that they *should*
do it and are all getting high spiritual insight.
*You* are the one preaching a very specific path that makes a
lot a assumptions and of course claims that absolutely no experience
or even study and open-minded questioning of the experience of others
is necessary to render a judgement. You can certainly do this if you
wish but it will also mean that anyone that wants to look at the
phenomena without those assumptions will seem biased. Just as to a
couple of channels to which I showed the piece it seemed biased in the
*opposite* direction you are claiming.
What should I have said? "The spectrum goes from those stupid
enough to channel and those who are intelligent enough to be aware of
the risks?"

>> I remember watching this utterly bizarre wave of righteous
>> patriotism spreading across the country very deliberately and
.> even quite openly fed by the US Government ... I noticed that
>> ... not only the ideas but actually entire sentences that were
>> taken almost *verbatim* from a General's speech the previous day.

>This can be observed with any movement of thought that catches the
>public attention. People take up the ideas and are changed. Ideas
>full of nonsense come to us from the political left as well as
>right. We see a change in public thought as "utterly bizarre" or as
>a dramatic step forward in the betterment of the world depending upon
>our political biases.
Yes and we also read what other people write as being political
or not political depending upon whether we are looking at what they
are actually saying or simply looking at the reactions within
ourselves to what the person has said. This paragraph had *nothing* to
do with politics. It was an example from a personal experience - and
the Gulf war was chosen as the example as the post said because I
happened to be reading Gurdjieff at the moment I overheard the
conversation. Somehow this enters your world as a political statement
or something and I have no idea how you got onto the "liberal vs.
conservative" notion that seems to run throughout this post. I am
*not* "liberal" or "conservative" by the way -
However do tell me do you actually consider that the Gulf War
and the deliberate manipulation of the collective consciousness
throughout it was a dramatic step forward for the betterment of the
world?

>> To hold as Patrick does that channelling "kama-manasic"
>> entities is wrong and dangerous ignores the fact that the vast
>> majority of current human casual conversations are composed of
>> nothing other than "kama-manasic" impulses being "channelled" by
>> those talking

>There is a big distinction between sharing thoughts and feelings
>which we all agree is ok and the equivalent of someone blacking
>out losing control of his body having no memory of what
>happened and basically standing aside in the astral as another
>entity does what it will through the body. That giving up of
>control of the body is *not* good.
Its simply not black and white. Which is the point I was trying
to make. Point was in the "sharing of thoughts and feelings" very few
people are *totally* conscious and in control all the time ... and in
cases like mass movements may be just as close to "unconsciousness"
as a channel. And most channels don't totally lose control their
bodies have absolutely no memory of what happened and etc. Most
casual conversations as well as most channelling takes place in the
enormous grey area between those extremes.

>> The final point is that the *meaning* of words like
>> "channelling" and "mediumship" has changed enormously since HPB
>> and the Masters were writing their comments of the subjects.

>Yes. When we study Theosophy we have to take care to use the
>terms in the theosophical context and not assume that they mean the
>same thing as in popular usage. But that does not mean that the
>*ideas* are outmoded just that care must be taken with the
>terminology.
It also does not mean the ideas are *not* outmoded and should
not be opened to question.

>> Channelling today IMO varies in at least three different
>> important ways:
>> there is a far greater degree of sophistication about the inner
>> worlds than there was a century ago. ... [people are not] open
>> to any damn thing that wanders by ... [and consider] issues of
>> protection of keeping free of "lower" entities of attract.

>I would question the greater degree of sophistication. Certainly
>there are always a few more knowledgeable that the rest but most
>people I suspect are ready to believe whatever comes to them.
Read the literature of the late 19th century and then do a
survey of the popular channelling literature written recently. There
is an *enormous* difference.

>> There is a far greater understanding ...[that] one's own
>> attitudes and intentions creates a specific inner orientation
>> that will determine the nature and level of beings attracted.

>You seem to feel that people are much more capable
>in dealing with non-physical entities now than in HPB's day and so
>channelling would be safer for them. Yet on the other hand you have
>observed how quickly people can be overtaken by undesirable political
>propaganda. If people are so readily influenced by the tides of
>public opinion are they really more balanced and perceptive than in
>Blavatsky's time?
Not only is this not a contradiction it serves to prove the
point. I do know a number of channels and those who are serious about
it are actually those *most* attuned to and least affected by mass
movements ... precisely *because* much of the new literature
encourages specific control of what enters one's system - and this
becomes so automatic that the same discipline leads to a channel
almost automatically exerting controls and filters and discrimination
when an entity becomes present is also invoked by the presence of fad-
currents and mass manipulations. The good ones are some of the most
independent minded humans I know - and don't simply swallow *any*
idea from no matter *what* source without rigorous questioning.

>> In modern channelling literature ... people being encouraged
>> to be extremely specific about the nature of what they are open
>> to.

>I would hope so but wonder why they need to be open to other
>non-physical entities at all?
For *service*. And because some people just don't have a "pro-
incarnate" bias. Just because something doesn't presently have *flesh*
to mope around in doesn't mean there's absolutely no value in it. You
would say why would they need it - they would say why do *you* need
books and teachers and people to share interaction with? And why would
the possession of flesh be a requirement? You may think because of
some particular worldview that absolutely nothing of value comes from
discarnate entities or that you are nervous about your abilities to
discriminate among discarnates and therefore don't consider
interaction worth the risk ... but many operate with a considerably
different view of the inner worlds.

>> a relatively more refined channel whose whole system is charged
>> with the unconditional desire for truth and oriented to only be
>> open to beings of stature

>The need for channelling is based upon the model of how the world
>works. It is not I'd say necessary to talk to non-physical
>beings in order to come into direct contact with vast storehouses of
>knowledge and wisdom.
This is bias. I never said it was "necessary". But why is the
standard of "necessary" being used? Its also not "necessary" to read
books to come into contact with storehouses of inner wisdom. So why do
you read them?

>The search for truth does not need to be
>personified into invisible entities that come to tell us things. And
>higher beings with business on our physical world can and will have
>bodies of their own in due time. They are the Dhyani-Chohans and
>can currently be found on Globe C.
Always charming to see my sentiments neatly bundled into
Theosophical categories.

>Our expectations will bias our perception of the world and
>especially so in the case of psychical perceptions. But there is no
>need to *entify* thoughtforms and elementals as they come to us and
>build pictures in our mind of them as being great beings. We can be
>open to truth coming to us without having to calling one rich vein
>of manasic content as Mr. Angel a second as Plato and a third as
>Zargon from the Neptune Chain.
No need *unless* for instance you want to *talk in the English
language to other people* about things. I personally do not "entify*
what I call angels or angelic currents when I understand what happened
within myself - in fact I translate such experience into the language
of mathematics mostly because it makes it possible to understand
things in spaces with considerably more than three spacial
dimensions and in fact in the actual experience of understanding do
not even entify *myself* - but if I want to *talk* to someone about
it I have to say "angel" or "angelic current". Our language is based
on very limiting assumptions that almost forces "entification" to
*speak* about inner things to others but that does *not* necessarily
imply that the *experience itself* is of an "entity".
And this argument is getting old. Myself and several others have
put ourselves out there in trying to *express* inner experience ...
and are forced to use words to do so and then get judged and
"evaluated" by you & a few others ... who then speak in high words
about this "inner wisdom" accessible by following some specific path
that seems to look down upon the experiences expressed as being
"unnecessary" - but through all of those posts I have yet to see you
take the same risk ... have yet to see you attempt to *voice* even the
tiniest piece of that transcendent wisdom. Why doncha try it? You have
been implying all along that you have access to some "higher wisdom".
well precisely *what the hell IS it*? This path you talk about ...
upon which you walk and on the basis of which you judge the
experience of others to be *unnecessary* - well let's see it in the
open light of day; put bluntly:
Do you claim access to or possession of a wisdom or knowledge
or range of experience that is *higher* than what I speak of with the
angels than others speak of with their inner contacts? You seem to
continually imply this and I'd really like to hear you either claim
it outright or say that you are simply theorizing based on what
you've read. If you are just theorizing then the apparent freedom you
feel to judge and almost dismiss the experience of others as
"unnecessary" is the height of arrogance. If however you are
grounding your position in some *experience* of your own then for
once stop implying it and *state* it.
This sounds combative ... but it isn't - myself and others have
tried to express actual experience ... and it is a *hard* thing to do.
I *always* feel as though by the time it is put into words it has
required serious distortion and reduction - because expressing things
in language requires it ... it is a *risk* to do it especially when
the partial expression is then pounced on - massively misinterpreted
and then dismissed by someone saying there is something "higher".
Maybe you should *try* to actually *tell us* a piece of that
higher wisdom. Open *yourself* up to the tremendous pain and risk of
having your inner experiences - which you'll never feel as though
you've been able to completel6y express in english - interpreted
reinterpreted mashed - maybe even looked *down upon* and dismissed as
delusions of the lower mental or something. You might find that in
the process of putting your experience into *words* it winds up
looking nowhere near as "high" as you feel it to be - because words
*do that* - but this also might cause you to recognize how brutal some
of your comments are and how significantly you may be unintentionally
diminishing the experiences of others.
You have felt free to interpret and evaluate almost every single
inner experience that's been expressed on this list ... but I've just
realized that the mode is always the same ... you answer experience
with statements of Theosophical theory and the *implication* that
this is based on some sort of experience ... but I can't remember you
*ever* having tried to articulate what is being implied. With all due
respect I suspect if you try it even once ... put the most secret and
sensitive understandings within yourself on the table to be
"evaluated" by others you might well find your *responses* when
others do it achieving a greatly enhanced sensitivity.
Since you feel given to commenting on almost every inner
experience mentioned on the list and these comments always seem to
come as though from some guru on a mountain high above it all it
would be very helpful to know how to *evaluate* these comments. If the
evaluation is based on Theosophical writings then it is no more or
less important than anything written in any book. It will depend
purely upon how much of belief a person places in the Secret Doctrine
& etc. and in my own universe TS literature is not privileged or
supreme but very worthy contributions to a still enormous universe of
wonderful spiritual literature. If the comments are based on your own
personal interpretation of TS literature then they mean somewhat less
.. as to the already partial nature of what could be written in the
literature is added your own personal biases. If however you are
claiming that you can achieve states of consciousness superior to
those in the experiences being spoken of that your personality can
become transparent and non-biased that this inner wisdom that you
keep holding above the heads of anyone who articulates experiences is
something you have *achieved access to* ... then please once and for
all - *demonstrate it*. Open *your* most private inner sensations to
the same sort of "evaluations" you feel so free to superimpose on the
experiences of others.
This is not *personal*. What suddenly struck me as I was reading
this latest post is that since I have been on the list it seems as
though you are by far the most voluminous poster. There are others who
write a lot but some will write at length about some things little
about others and remain almost silent for weeks on end. You seem to
comment thoroughly on almost everything ... this is not negative I
am not complaining about the fact of it ... but it does mean that
your voice more than any other single person's has a large amount to
do with determining the general *environment* of the list. I also
noticed that virtually every inner experience expressed by someone be
it about "psychic" things inner abilities channelling or anything
else has not only been evaluated by you but has been evaluated
whether subtly or overtly as a *lesser* thing ... and usually been
placed next to not only a theory about a specific sort of path but
the implication that *you* have *direct knowledge* of its truth.
I'd very much like to see once and for all the *foundation*
upon which you stand when you claim in universal terms that "X is
higher Y is lower and Z is unnecessary".
I dare ya -: -JRC
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 17:33:02 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Fog Index

At 114800 PM 11/16/95 -0500 you wrote:
>Date: 16 199511 155347 -0500
>Reply-to: theos-l@vnet.net
>From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <theos-l@vnet.net>
>Subject: Re: Fog Index
>
>According to M K Ramadoss:
>>
>> Jerry:
>>
>> I am glad that you have expressed my thoughts better than myself. I
>> hope everybody understands what we are trying to say.
>>
>> As for myself I would be willing to let TSA stop sending me Quest
>> and reduce my National Annual Dues as it would save me some money which I
>> would be glad to give to the local lodge I belong to. It would also save
>> some trees.
>>
>> ...Doss
>
>Well guys different strokes...
>The current issue of The Quest is IMHO the best ever and The
>Quest is the first initiative in a long time that has the TS
>reaching out to the same level of the thinking public that was
>reached by HPB in her time.
>
>Other opinions?
>>
>I just got my "Quest" copy ysterday. There are a number of good
>articles in it. A few days ago we were talking about modernizing the
>TS. Well besides all the good modern articles in this copy Bill
>Metzger also mentions a number of up to date books on Theosophy &
>theosophical history. See pp. 10-11. To judge from this maybe parts
>of the TS are modernizing
>but we on theos-l don't really know about it.
>
>Liesel
>
Only over a period of time we can look back and assess the
effectiveness of TS modernization.

...doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 17:41:39 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Digest Approach

>Date: 16 199511 233557
>To: liesel@dreamscape.com
>From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
>Subject: Re: Digest Approach
>
>At 113900 PM 11/16/95 -0500 you wrote:
>>Doss
>>
>>You wonder what HPB would do in cyberspace. My guess is that after
>>she'd quickly telephatically put her writings into archives where we could
retrieve
>>them. Then she would send you a tea cup via the internet that would
>>precipitate on your computer desk.
>>
>>Some of the TS organizations do use computers. They just don't get
>>into our conversations too much.
>>
>>In retrospect I thought of something that might help you with your
>>reading. When I started out reading up on Theosophy I complained to
>>Bill Nicholson who lateron became Chairnman of the Dept. of Ed in
>>Wheaton that I didn't understand a lot of it. His advice was to keep
>>on reading because something always sticks. Well it did & through
>>the years more & more stuck. I still dont understand everything but it
>>doesn't matter to me anymore. I get out of a piece of writing whatever
>>I can.
>>Liesel
>>
> Liesel:
>
> Thanks for quick response and it will surely keep the thread going.
I will not be surprised if HPB either physicially or superphysically may
be reading all the messages here. Who knows!
>
> I have had a lot of opportunity to listen to various lectures from
several well known theosophical lecturers. I still remember years ago when I
was eight or ten years was at Federation Conference with a huge crowd
addressed by an old man who in later years I came to find out to be one of
the International Presidents. As for reading I try. My current work
involves closely working with individuals I am always looking for use of
Theosophical knowledge to help them. Indeed there have been occasions the
info I picked up from Theosophy was very helpful.
>
> ...Doss
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 18:39:18 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Digest Approach

Doss

You wonder what HPB would do in cyberspace. My guess is that after
she'd quickly telephatically put her writings into archives where we
could retrieve them. Then she would send you a tea cup via the internet
that would precipitate on your computer desk.

Some of the TS organizations do use computers. They just don't get
into our conversations too much.

In retrospect I thought of something that might help you with your
reading. When I started out reading up on Theosophy I complained to
Bill Nicholson who lateron became Chairnman of the Dept. of Ed in
Wheaton that I didn't understand a lot of it. His advice was to keep
on reading because something always sticks. Well it did & through
the years more & more stuck. I still dont understand everything but it
doesn't matter to me anymore. I get out of a piece of writing whatever
I can.
Liesel

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 18:46:12 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Fog Index

> From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
> Subject: Re: Fog Index

According to M K Ramadoss:
>
> Jerry:
>
> I am glad that you have expressed my thoughts better than myself. I
> hope everybody understands what we are trying to say.
>
> As for myself I would be willing to let TSA stop sending me Quest
> and reduce my National Annual Dues as it would save me some money which I
> would be glad to give to the local lodge I belong to. It would also save
> some trees.
>
> ...Doss

Well guys different strokes...
The current issue of The Quest is IMHO the best ever and The
Quest is the first initiative in a long time that has the TS
reaching out to the same level of the thinking public that was
reached by HPB in her time.

Other opinions?
>
I just got my "Quest" copy ysterday. There are a number of good
articles in it. A few days ago we were talking about modernizing the
TS. Well besides all the good modern articles in this copy Bill
Metzger also mentions a number of up to date books on Theosophy &
theosophical history. See pp. 10-11. To judge from this maybe parts
of the TS are modernizing
but we on theos-l don't really know about it.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 18:57:02 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Theosophy International

> From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
> Subject: Re: Theosophy International

To so far Liesel Eldon & Rich:

Alan:

Please tell me who's running it & what the legal setup is.

Liesel

I envisage THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprising those who
subscribe to the the three objects of the TS but in a
more up to date form based on suggestions by John Mead
J.Crocker and others and expressed thus:

1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family without
discrimination with regard to sex including sexual
orientation creed class or color.

2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative religion
theosophy philosophy and the scientific method according to
individual ability and inclination.

3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized
human potential and abilities.

[Above subject to negotiation and consensus :-]

As I think Eldon mentioned this will be along the lines of ~The
Theosophical Network~ whereby it is sufficient to declare one's
sympathy and/or allegiance to the three objects and to be
registered as having done so. No belief system to be required
*nor assumed to be held* by any member. Ideally members would
endeavour to express their ideas in gender-inclusive language
where this is possible and practical.

There will be no fees no subscriptions although voluntary
donations and/or contributions *could* be made to specific
projects or even individuals for particular and specified
purposes.

Alan
--
Member Theosophy International.
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 19:24:44 GMT
From: Aki Korhonen <akikorho@paju.oulu.fi>
Subject: TV and Mass-media some effects

Hello All.

A few nights ago there was a "Good" program at TV infact there were two
simultaniously - I had a chance to watch and I made a exception to my
habits. What happened? First those programs were not so good so
actually I wasted an hour. But what was more serious was my
mental/psychological condition after that - now some might think that I'm
paranoid or scizofrenic - My head was like buzzing and I had difficulties
to concentrate. I don't know what caused that. I suspect that it is
something simlpy mechanistic; flickering of the screen or the 15 000 hz
beeping sound every TV emit that sound when on or something like that.

What irritates me is the idea that some people assume in some
broadcasting commitee that I would be interested in some topic in some
particular moment.

There is a certain amount of capacity in our minds to process data -
larger or smaller. All non-important mechanistic data takes space time
and energy from our own Ideas and creative thinking. To build an integrate
world-view would require at least some hours per day at reflective
meditations - time for own thoughts and simply for peace. Average people
around don't seem to have or even want to have that kind of time.

Usually people say; that what they need is knowledge and information to
develope their mind intelligece and personality - that all people have
more than enough but not so many enlightened people around?

All data creates some impact in our mind and subconscious and will be a
small part of our personality and world-view. My opinion is that a Human
as such is entirely a product of external influences; culture education
parents mass-media friendsreligion. And as a result of this all
His/Hers thinking is a pre-conditioned reaction to some impulses so there
is no free thinking no creative thinking.

Peace.
aki korhonen
Oulu. Finland.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 19:41:31 GMT
From: Aki Korhonen <akikorho@paju.oulu.fi>
Subject: Re: Dribble box

Hello Lewis and all.

On 12 199511 Lewis Lucas wrote:

> Not watching tv to me seems ostrich like behavior. In another ts
> classic we admonished not to wipe the tear from our eye until it had
> been wiped from our brothers. Recently JRC asked we send our
> thoughts of peace to the middle east after the assasination of Rabin.
> Being aware of problems is the begining of their solution according
> to modern psychology. Informing ourselves of atrocities and
> remembering the victims as in the Holocaust is the LEAST we can do.
>
> Timothy Leary led millions to "tune in turn on and drop out" in
> the '60s and he wasn't talking about tv but the debate continues
> as to whether or not tv is the opiate of the masses or a grand
> leavening agent. I suggest that it is a little of both at the moment.

I'm quite against TV and Mass-Media personally. But I'm quite sure
that it is a very important and lifesaving invention at the moment. I
can quite safely warn people not to follow TV and Mass-Media since
majority of the people don't mind and continue to spend their lives on
those matters. It is ok. Since if TV Radio and Newspapers would be cut
of I predict that within two weeks there would be no governments no
electricity no water and a complete chaos would be a result. So it is
absolutely better that people's thoughts come "safely" form outside - so
they act and coherently - together similarily have similiar
world-views.

I think that this is like a matter of War and Peace it has to be done
individually and freely not from outside. - As long as people want to
spend their time and energy at front of TV or some other media they are
needed and continue to exist.

I think that following mass-media and television develope/activate a
person's thinking manas. But on the other hand it keeps He/She
spritually/individually at sleep?

But this is a larger issue of education mass-media and culture. TV is
just a one part of it.

Peace.
aki korhonen
Oulu. Finland
akikorho@paju.oulu.fi
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 19:50:45 GMT
From: Aki Korhonen <akikorho@paju.oulu.fi>
Subject: Re: Dribble box vs. Cyber Dump

Hello John and the others.

On 13 199511 John E. Mead wrote:

> I couldn't help but point out that that Internet and TV are
> very similar.
>
> My wife would probably argue that TV-junkies and Cyber-junkies are
> no different. However I do have problems typing letters and reading
> articles when both hands are filled with popcorn beer and a pipe/cigar;
> watching Duckman on TV avoids these difficulties. :-

Yes I think you are right. I think that Internet is worse since; when
you watch TV you sit passively and your tv-friends come to you when you
are dealing with internet you go actively to explore vast Cyber-Space and
meet actively your Cyber-Friends - like I'm doing now. So it is more
suggestive. But I'm waiting eagerly Virtual-Internet-Reality!

Peace.
aki korhonen
Oulu Finland.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 16 Nov 1995 23:38:46 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: Theosophy International

To so far Liesel Eldon & Rich:

I envisage THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprising those who
subscribe to the the three objects of the TS but in a
more up to date form based on suggestions by John Mead
J.Crocker and others and expressed thus:

1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family without
discrimination with regard to sex including sexual
orientation creed class or color.

2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative religion
theosophy philosophy and the scientific method according to
individual ability and inclination.

3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized
human potential and abilities.

[Above subject to negotiation and consensus :-]

As I think Eldon mentioned this will be along the lines of ~The
Theosophical Network~ whereby it is sufficient to declare one's
sympathy and/or allegiance to the three objects and to be
registered as having done so. No belief system to be required
*nor assumed to be held* by any member. Ideally members would
endeavour to express their ideas in gender-inclusive language
where this is possible and practical.

There will be no fees no subscriptions although voluntary
donations and/or contributions *could* be made to specific
projects or even individuals for particular and specified
purposes.

Alan

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 17 Nov 1995 02:41:02 GMT
From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: TMR---The Discussion between Jerry HE and Paul J

> From: IN%"LaPea@aol.com" 17-NOV-1995 092300
> Subj: RE: TMR

WHO'S PULLING WHOSE LEG? OR HOW CAN ONE TELL WHEN IT IS
DISINFORMATION OR NOT?

In his latest posting Nov. 14 1995 Paul Johnson *admits* that
when Olcott writes about the Tashi Lama's "Master of Ceremonies"
being "one of our own revered Mahatmas" and when HPB writes about
"the Chohan-Lama of Rinch-cha-tze Tibet the Chief of the
Archive-Registrars...also a member of our [Theosophical]
Society" both Founders are telling the TRUTH *i.e.* Olcott and
HPB actually knew about and are referring to a real flesh and
blood person living in Tibet at Tashi-Lhunpo.

But let us first contrast this admission of Johnson's with his
view on the following two extracts from primary sources:

HPB in a letter to Sinnett dated Oct. 09 1882: "Oh the blessed
blessed two days! It was like the old times....The same kind of
wooden hut a box divided into three compartments for rooms and
standing in a jungle on four pelican's legs....the same eternal
`gul-gul-gul' sound of my Boss's [Morya's] inextinguishable
chelum pipe; the old familiar sweet voice of your KH whose voice
is still sweeter and face still thinner and more
transparent....."

KH in a letter to Sinnett received by Sinnett Oct. 1882: "I
do not believe I was ever so profoundly touched by anything I
witnessed in all my life as I was with the poor old creature's
[HPB's] ecstatic rapture when meeting us recently both in our
natural [physical] bodies...Even our phlegmatic M[orya]. was
thrown off his balance by such an exhibition---of which he was
chief hero. He had to use his *power* and plunge her into a
profound sleep otherwise she would have burst some blood-
vessel....in her delirious attempts to flatten her nose against
his riding mantle besmeared with the Sikkim mud!...."
=0D
According to the hypotheses to be found in his 2nd book published
by SUNY Johnson would contend that HPB and "Koot Hoomi" were
LYING to Sinnett about HPB actually meeting Morya and Koot Hoomi
in Sikkim. If we are to believe Johnson's speculations and
suggestions M. and K.H. were NOT in Sikkim; HPB did NOT meet
these Masters. Call it a "blind" used by HPB to conceal the
"real Truth" but most of us would probably call it a pack of
LIES.
=0D
But if the reader of Johnson's latest book is willing to accept
that HPB's Sikkim meeting with the Masters just didn't happen
why should the reader be willing to believe as Johnson is
apparently willing that HPB and Olcott are telling the truth
when they talk about "the Master of Ceremonies" and "the Chohan-
Lama of Rinch-cha-tze Tibet"? HPB's reference to the "Chohan-
Lama" appears in the Jan. 1882 issue of *The Theosophist* for
the public ie. the outside world to read. In the same article
HPB also says that she has already received from the Chohan-Lama
a promise that he will give his comments on what Arthur Lillie
and Stainton Moses has written. But why should anyone take this
"claim" by HPB at face value? If one believes what Johnson has
written in his two SUNY books about HPB and other Theosophists
putting out DISINFORMATION LIES about the real Masters and
placing the Masters in far away Tibet *why I ask why believe
HPB is telling the truth to the public in this Jan. 1882
statement*? And come on how did Olcott know that one of the
Mahatmas was the Tashi Lama's "Master of Ceremonies"? Was Olcott
himself reporting from downtown Shigatse? Probably following
Johnson's own line of reasoning as documented in his books HPB
just fed Olcott some DISINFORMATION and he swallowed it and
repeated it years later also in the pages of *The Theosophist*. =

Hopefully Dr. David Christopher Lane and Dr. Gregory Tillett if
they by chance read this won't fall for HPB's clever
DISINFORMATION about her "alleged" Tibetan connection at
Tashilunpo!
=0D
Well I don't personally believe Johnson's "hodge-podge"
hypothesis about DISINFORMATION. But I am glad : : that
Johnson admits the TRUTHFULNESS of Olcott's and HPB's statements
about "the Master of Ceremonies" and "the Chohan-Lama." In 1989
I wrote an article still in rough draft which was titled "Will
The Real Koot Hoomi Please Stand Up." In this article I quoted
Olcott's reference to the Tashi Lama's "Master of Ceremonies" who
is one of the Mahatmas. I then suggested that the Master of
Ceremonies might possibly be KOOT HOOMI. And I then listed the
following extracts from various documents which lead me to this
conclusion:
=0D
"...my venerated GURU DEVA [Koot Hoomi]...holds a well-known
public office in Tibet under the TESHU LAMA." Damodar in the
Apr 1884 issue of *The Theosophist* See *Damodar* etc. p.
340
=0D
"According to Theosophical statements Koot Hoomi is a
Brahmin....He was...educated in Europe and attended Professor
Fechner's lectures. He became an Adept and took up his
residence in Thibet where he is relic-bearer to the Teschu-Lama
an office in Thibet resembling that---say of Cardinal Vicar in
the Roman Catholic Church...." From the Oct. 1884 unpublished
draft of the S.P.R.'s *First Report...on Phenomena in Connection
with the Theosophical Society* p. 16.
=0D
"There is beyond the Himalayas a nucleus of Adepts of various
nationalities; and the Teschu lama knows them and they act
together and SOME OF THEM ARE WITH HIM AND YET REMAIN UNKNOWN IN
THEIR TRUE CHARACTER EVEN TO THE AVERAGE LAMAS....My Master and
K.H. and several others I know personally are there...." HPB in
an 1886 letter to Franz Hartmann *The Path* Mar 1896 p.
370. CAPS added.
=0D

"In about a week---new religious ceremonies new glittering
bubbles to amuse the babes with and once more I will be busy
night and day morning noon and evening...." Koot Hoomi in
Letter No. XVI 2nd ed. of *The Mahatma Letters* p. 116. This
letter was written in the latter part of Jul 1882. I have
documentation to show that a large religious festival occurred at
TashiLunpo during this same period of time. I have numerous
quotes in my article to show the close connection between the
Panchen Teschu Lama and HPB's Masters. Some examples are:
=0D
As early as 1877 HPB writes in ISIS UNVEILED: "Within the
cloister of Tashi-Lhunpo and Si-Dzang these powers inherent in
every man called out by the few are cultivated to their utmost
perfection. Who in India has not heard of the Panchen
Rimpoche the *Hutugtu* of the capital of Higher Tibet? His
brotherhood of Khe-lan was famous throughout the land; and one of
the most famous `brothers' was a *Peh-ling* an Englishman who
had arrived one day during the early part of this century from
the West...." p. 618 Volume II Boris de Zirkoff's edition.
=0D
"...the Teshu Lama at Tchigadze...is an *Avatar* of Tson-kha-
pa...*De jure* the Teshu Lama is second after the Dalai Lama; *de
facto* he is higher....While the former Dalai Lamas are
addressed as `Jewel of Majesty' the latter enjoy a far higher
title namely `Jewel of *Wisdom*' as they are high Initiates." =

HPB in *The Theosophical Glossary* p. 247.
=0D
"Save a few exceptional cases [as] in the case of the initiated
such as our Teshu-Lamas and the Boddhisatwas and a few others no
monad gets ever reincarnated before its appointed cycle." This
is from the Mahatma Letters p. 176 in the 2nd ed. It is
interesting that Koot Hoomi is making this observation in an Oct.
1882 letter to Sinnett. The Teshu-Lama had just died 05 or 06
weeks before on 193108 1882. When KH penned these lines the
discarnate Teshu-Lama was in the "bardo" and would be
reincarnated if we believe in such a process the next year
1883 as Chos-kyi Nyi-ma 1883-1937 the next Panchen Teschu
Lama who would meet Alice Cleather and Basil Crump in China in
the 1920s and who would also write a "foreword" to the new Peking
edition of THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE edited by Cleather and Crump.
=0D

I have consulted with David Reigle whom Johnson mentions in TMR
as to his opinion on whether Sengchen Tulku or his successor was
possibly Olcott's "Master of Ceremonies." From Reigle's
knowledge of Tibet he is of the opinion that the Sengchen Tulku
or his successor was NOT likely Olcott's "Master of
Ceremonies." He gave a number of reasons for this opinion.
=0D

Daniel Caldwell
=0D
=

--PART.BOUNDARY.0.870.emout05.mail.aol.com.816625318--
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 17 Nov 1995 05:42:43 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Channelling Part 01

John RC:

In your posting on channelling you outline a metaphysical model
to describe what you think is happening and predict that it may
form the basis of a future western religion.

My reply which you somehow found bizarre attempted to bring up a
number of points for discussion. In it I offered the more
traditional theosophical scheme put in my own words and with
perhaps a few ideas of my own as well.

I did not say that *you* are this way or that way nor challenge
you for credentials. Although I discussed why I would not go along
with that particular conceptualization I allowed for your form of
a future religion to exist alongside others that I might help
with.

Your presented your theory and speculations based upon what you
thing is going on. I replied in the same manner. I think that it's
possible for us to discuss our differing ideas or at least
present a side-by-side view of how they differ without having to
either a fall back and say that everything is subjective and
opinions or b making appeals to authority to "prove" our points.

You may want to make the ground rules for a discussion to require
that each of us either prove some sort of personal occult status
or 'admit to mere theorizing and the height of arrogance'. If you
want to do so yourself go ahead. I don't think that it is
necessary myself.

Apart from such proof either of us can fall back upon secondary
sources to give external validation to the ideas that we present.
I could quote HPB Purucker or perhaps Kalu Rimpoche. You could
quote your friendly channelers. These quotes would provide
'objective' evidence that what either of us writes about is not
simply made up by ourselves.

In your channelling paper you present a theory about what is
going on and describe where you thing it will lead in the future.
That theory is open to discussion. I don't think that a discussion
of the theory constitutes brutal comments about your personal
experiences.

Let me summarize some of the points that I made in discussion:

1. Your description for channelling as a future religion is not a
radically new thing in the world but is similar to other
previous approaches to religion.

2. The distinction between oracle-based and priest-based
religions.

3. Channelling is a different process than mediumship and is in
itself a neutral activity. It is like any form of perception of
other planes. Mediumship though is generally bad. The
difference is not quantitative or shades of grey but
qualitative or a different activity.

4. The distinction between a public religion that ministers to the
masses and a Mystery School or specific spiritual practice with
gurus and individual training.

5. A different model where oracles are not needed to contact higher
beings in order to tap Wisdom.

In your writing you do not seem to be describing personal
experiences except for perhaps the description of seeing the
beings of pure energy. If you think that I'm making fun of those
experiences then you're mistaken. But most of your writing is
weaving a theory which is fair game for discussion. Certainly an
analysis along traditional theosophical lines is not out of place
on theos-l even if not done with Blavatsky quotes.

The other area where you may have been upset is in my not
accepting your model for a future religion since you explain it
with the strong feelings of obvious religious devotion. But your
devotion and sincerity and compassion for others is not in doubt
when the potential dogma of that future religion is questioned by
any of us with other backgrounds.

I believe that I'm free to write about Theosophy or whatever I
find valuable as are you and the rest of us. The quantity of
writing that each of us does is based upon our free time and
interest in writing and may vary at times. Job school or family
may make demands upon our time that limits what we can do. I was
inactive on theos-l for instance from May through the end of
Jul because I was finishing an occult novel unpublished which
took up most of my time.

You feel that I and a few others are jumping on your sharing of
personal spiritual experiences that you are risking exposure of
your inner wisdom whereas we are not. I don't think that we are
doing that; we're just responding to your personal theories about
those experiences and about how the rest of the world works.

Perhaps if you clearly separate your descriptions of experiences
from your theory and speculations you won't feel this way since
the responses would only be to the theoretical postings.

I don't see myself as responding to your postings as a guru and
feel that I can show roots for most of what I think in established
theosophical and Buddhist thought. I think that spiritual
experiences must be judged on a case-by-case basis and each
individual judge what is appropriate to share. I'll also share
but when and how it seems right to me to do so and not simply to
give you an opportunity to show me how it feels to express an
experience and have it abused by others.

Any of us including myself can write about channelling to
analyze and attempt to understand it. If you want to make claims
for yourself and say that your analysis is more true because of
your special experiences we can take that into account. I or
others don't need to make special claims though to reply with
our own ideas especially when we mostly talk straight textbook
Theosophy. We are neither gifted oracles nor arrogant imposters.

You need to relax and lighten up and chuckle about things not
only when you're issuing stinging indictments of theosophical
groups but also when your theories are under attack. The views of
others only seem bizarre when you gaze upon a caricature of them
and are not trying to understand them.

I'm not taking the bait on your dare because I don't feel that I'm
holding back with anything that I want to share. For what I say I
consult my best judgement not yours and respond to an inner
sense of what is right. Are you doing the same? Are there any
experiences that you feel that you *should share* but are holding
back from sharing? If so the holding back is wrong and you
should speak up.

Respectfully

Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 17 Nov 1995 09:14:26 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: HPB in the news

A friend who is managing editor of Education Week published in
Washington sent me two recent issues because the second
contains the publication's first ever mention of HPB. It is in
a letter to the editor written in response to a glowing article
the previous week about a Waldorf School. The letter writer
Dan Dugan writes that his son was enrolled in a Waldorf
School in San Francisco and for 18 months all was well with
both child and parents happy with the school. But then he
noticed "pseudoscience in my son's lesson books and
investigated to discover whether it was a problem of poorly
trained teachers or part of the system. Unfortunately it was
the latter. My efforts to reform the science program along
with my objections to pre-Nazi racial theories in books sold at
the school resulted in my family's being expelled."

The letter continues:

Waldorf schools teach the worldview of Rudolf Steiner
an Austrian philosopher and artist who died in 1925. He was
head of the German section of Helena P. Blavatsky's
Theosophical Society until he split off to form his own group
"Anthroposophy." After his efforts to establish a political
movement called "the threefold social order" failed he
switched to education as a means for accomplishing his
objective of transforming society from modern materialism back
to medieval magical spirituality.
Mr. Steiner's doctrines which Waldorf schools teach as
science include: that "the four elements" are significant in
chemistry; that the human body is organized into the
"metabolic-muscular rhythmic and nerve-sense systems" that
the heart does not pump blood; that humans have 12 senses
corresponding to the signs of the zodiac; that the planets
influence the growth of plants; and that Newton was wrong
white light cannot be divided into colors.
Science isn't the only area shot through with bizarre
beliefs. History for example is taught on the framework of
the "seven root races" from Madame Blavatsky's theosophy.
I'm sad to see you repeating so many of the Waldorf
school publicity formulas. Articles like this are
unfortunately all too common. There is another quite
different side to this picture which has gone unreported so
far.

In my analysis Waldorf schools should be regarded as
the principal missionary activity of a cult-like religious
sect. I say missionary because everything they do is
calculated to instill Steiner's worldview; a religious sect
because the teachers are trained almost exclusively in
Steiner's "spiritual" doctrines and must be committed to
anthroposophy in order to advance to full status; cult-like
because they cling to rejected knowledge and obscure their
intentions and the true contents of the curriculum.

The letter goes on a bit and is answered by the chairman of the
Association of Waldorf Schools. But besides being tired of
typing I don't see anything in the answer that is really
responsible to Dugan's points.

Comments?
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 17 Nov 1995 09:45:18 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: to Ann B.

Did the chart and the 02 comparisons but didn't save your email
address. Please send and I will send commentary.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 17 Nov 1995 15:11:43 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Theosophy International

Alan

OK I misunderstood. I thought this was in existence & you're talking
about starting it. What's the difference between what you have in
mind & theos-l?

As for money matters seems to me we can work that out as it occurs.
On the surface of it I don't see anything wrong in our chipping in
for someone's project if it's needed & we'd like to.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 17 Nov 1995 15:36:45 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: HPB in the news

My NJ TS Branch once went visiting a Steiner place near us. Their
science was derived from Goethe 1749-1832 who was *the* German
Shakespeare & also dabbled in the natural sciences. So what Steiner
built on might be outdated but Goethe was known as a multi faceted
genius not a charlatan. I don't know about the school. We didn't
look at it. We were more interested in the old people's accomodations.
They had 02 MD's who used
alternate healing ways first & only if they didn't work did they
use allopathic medicines. The place was spotless and had Swiss style
buildings located in little rolling hills. very pretty. They had the good
idea to have the more dependent elderly taken care of on a 01 to 01
basis by some mildly retarded attendants who did a real good job.
There were also activities such as weaving & raising their own
vegetables & printing up Steiner material. I was a little disturbed
because one had to believe in
the Christ within & the Buddha within wasn't acceptable. As for anti
semitism I never read much of Steiner's lit but I was
told there were several Jewish residents on the premises. I also
think the old man who took us around was flirting with one of the
young women on the staff & I didn't think that was very apropos
while he was showing us the place. The drug store had quite a
nice selection of herbal products.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 17 Nov 1995 17:56:31 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Theosophy International

At 071300 PM 11/17/95 -0500 A. M. Bain wrote:
>> At 070200 PM 11/16/95 -0500 Dr. A. M. Bain wrote:
>> >To so far Liesel Eldon & Rich:
>> >
>> >I envisage THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL ....
>
>> >There will be no fees no subscriptions although voluntary
>> >donations and/or contributions *could* be made to specific
>> >projects or even individuals for particular and specified
>> >purposes.
>> >
>> >Alan
>
>> In the present Theos-L forum do not we already have an international
>> collection of individuals interested in Theosophia?.
>
>Yes but why keep it there?
>
A good question?
Why move it any where else?

><snip>
>
>> In this forum everyone will welcome any project that support the
>> welfare of the humanity and hence details can be posted. However once a
>> project is started and if this forum is used as a means raising funds by
>> voluntary contributions it brings about a whole new set of questions which
>> needs to be carefully looked into. If funds are raised then the question is
>> who is going to collect and use the funds? What kind of controls are going
>> to be there to make sure that the contributions are indeed spent for the
>> project or purpose etc? In money matters generally secrecy slowly
creeps in.
>
>Of course you have in the snipped part of your original post
>stated the obvious as it applies to we on theos-l.
>
>The questions which bother you do not in the way I envisage it
>need looking into at all. If there is a project which a member
>wishes to promote why can they not ask for donations to help
>fund it. None of us would be obliged to either donate anything
>nor not to donate.
>
>Some years ago in Canada I think a local community wanted to
>build a new school. A vote was taken to see if the members of
>the community a town in this case were willing to accept an
>increase in taxes of $n per month to pay for it. When it was
>paid for the tax would be abolished and the school would have
>been built. They voted yes the school was built and the tax
>ceased.
>
>I think we could support joint projects in this kind of way but
>maybe not. It's up to us jointly what we *do*. The main thing
>is *no* subs no required dogma. I only mentioned donations as an
>idea for members to support theosophical projects where say
>one member has time but no money and another the reverse.
>
>Let me put it this way: You have a favorite project you cannot
>afford to fund directly. You ask the members for help. They
>generously contribute. You receive $$$. You spend it on wine
>women and song.

>
>YOU ONLY GET TO DO IT ONCE. I think we call it Karma. :-
>
>If we mean what we say when we subscribe to the objects then we
>must surely trust each other if it is going to work? If we
>don't and have to set up watchdogs for financially supported
>projects then we are a bunch of hypocrites.
>
>A church organisation I was once part of decided to raise funds
>for starving Africa. A generous collection was held. Everyone
>left the building feeling pretty good most of them ignoring a
>homeless beggar asking for help outside the door.

An interesting comment. Frequently I find homeless individuals near
my workplace or my home who need help. Whatever little money I am able to
spare I give them directly. May be when I win one of the multi million
dollar lottery I may have opportunity to support larger projects.

>
>I am no longer part of that organisation nor that church.
>
>Alan
>--

---------end of message--------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 17 Nov 1995 23:31:25 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: Theosophy International

> According to Dr. A.M.Bain:
> >
> > To so far Liesel Eldon & Rich:
> >
> > I envisage THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL <snip>

> > 1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family without
> > discrimination with regard to sex including sexual
> > orientation creed class or color.
>
> Species? I guess it's OK to limit membership to humans but
> wonder about the juxtaposition of "universal" and "human" which
> seems oxymoronic. Any way to loosen the phraseology up to
> indicate respect for *all* life?

Whilst I - and I expect all of us - respect all life there is
no way I can see that non-human life eg horses dogs
termites fleas could sign up :-. Some might have so low an
opinion of us as not to want to? Soooo ... I suggest starting
where we are with ourselves and in the first instance with
those of us online.

> > 2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative religion
> > theosophy philosophy and the scientific method according to
> > individual ability and inclination.
> >
> > 3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized
> > human potential and abilities.

<snip>

> > There will be no fees no subscriptions although voluntary
> > donations and/or contributions *could* be made to specific
> > projects or even individuals for particular and specified
> > purposes.
> >
> What sorts of projects do you envision for starters?
> PJ

You tell me ... anyone tell us. Let's get something going first.

Alan
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 17 Nov 1995 23:38:01 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: Theosophy International

> At 070200 PM 11/16/95 -0500 Dr. A. M. Bain wrote:
> >To so far Liesel Eldon & Rich:
> >
> >I envisage THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL ....

> >There will be no fees no subscriptions although voluntary
> >donations and/or contributions *could* be made to specific
> >projects or even individuals for particular and specified
> >purposes.
> >
> >Alan

> In the present Theos-L forum do not we already have an international
> collection of individuals interested in Theosophia?.

Yes but why keep it there?

<snip>

> In this forum everyone will welcome any project that support the
> welfare of the humanity and hence details can be posted. However once a
> project is started and if this forum is used as a means raising funds by
> voluntary contributions it brings about a whole new set of questions which
> needs to be carefully looked into. If funds are raised then the question is
> who is going to collect and use the funds? What kind of controls are going
> to be there to make sure that the contributions are indeed spent for the
> project or purpose etc? In money matters generally secrecy slowly creeps in.

Of course you have in the snipped part of your original post
stated the obvious as it applies to we on theos-l.

The questions which bother you do not in the way I envisage it
need looking into at all. If there is a project which a member
wishes to promote why can they not ask for donations to help
fund it. None of us would be obliged to either donate anything
nor not to donate.

Some years ago in Canada I think a local community wanted to
build a new school. A vote was taken to see if the members of
the community a town in this case were willing to accept an
increase in taxes of $n per month to pay for it. When it was
paid for the tax would be abolished and the school would have
been built. They voted yes the school was built and the tax
ceased.

I think we could support joint projects in this kind of way but
maybe not. It's up to us jointly what we *do*. The main thing
is *no* subs no required dogma. I only mentioned donations as an
idea for members to support theosophical projects where say
one member has time but no money and another the reverse.

Let me put it this way: You have a favorite project you cannot
afford to fund directly. You ask the members for help. They
generously contribute. You receive $$$. You spend it on wine
women and song.

YOU ONLY GET TO DO IT ONCE. I think we call it Karma. :-

If we mean what we say when we subscribe to the objects then we
must surely trust each other if it is going to work? If we
don't and have to set up watchdogs for financially supported
projects then we are a bunch of hypocrites.

A church organisation I was once part of decided to raise funds
for starving Africa. A generous collection was held. Everyone
left the building feeling pretty good most of them ignoring a
homeless beggar asking for help outside the door.

I am no longer part of that organisation nor that church.

Alan
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 18 Nov 1995 05:21:42 GMT
From: RIhle@aol.com
Subject: Re: Babies and bathwater

KPJ
In light of letters received yesterday from Pasadena and
Wheaton I have reconsidered my resignations.

RI
I don't know anything about Pasadena but I am very happy that Wheaton sent
you a letter. Many of the best living theosophers can be found right here on
theos-l and it is pretty obvious that you are one of them.

I like to think of a theosopher as a person whose own transcendental progress
has resulted in at least some personal knowledge of certain things otherwise
inaccessible. I like to think of a theosophist as simply someone who studies
and/or believes the knowledge of theosophers. When the latter start letting
the former slip through their fingers without at least a letter or two
organized Theosophy is in BIG trouble. . .

Best wishes

Richard Ihle
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 18 Nov 1995 14:42:12 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Free Nieman Marcus Cookie recipe

Friends:

The following msg I received from a friend of mine was forwarded to one of
the recipients of Theos-L. The recipient suggested that I should post it on
Theos-L as some of the participants may like it. hence I am posting it here.

..Doss

>Date: 17 199511 205905 -0600
>X-Sender: weston@mailhost.icsi.net
>From: "Peter V. Weston M.D." <weston@ICSI.Net>
>Subject: Free Nieman Marcus Cookie recipe
>
>>> This message is sent to you with the hope you will forward it to
>>> everyone you have ever even seen the email address of. In the
>>spirit of
>>> the originator please feel free to post it anywhere and everywhere.
>>>
>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>* *
>>>
>>> >Okay everyone....a true story of justice in the good old U.S. of
>>A.
>>> >Thought y'all might enjoy this; if nothing else it shows internet
>>> >justice if it can be called that.
>>> >
>>> >My daughter & I had just finished a salad at Neiman-Marcus Cafe
>>> >in Dallas & decided to have a small dessert. Because our family
>>are
>>> >such cookie lovers we decided to try the "Neiman-Marcus Cookie".
>>It was
>>
>>> >so excellent that I asked if they would give me the recipe and they
>>said
>>
>>> >with a small frown "I'm afraid not." Well I said would you let
>>me
>>> >buy the recipe?
>>> >
>>> >With a cute smile she said "Yes." I asked how much and she
>>> >responded "Two fifty." I said with approval just add it to my
>>tab.
>>> >Thirty days later I received my VISA statement from
>>> >Neiman-Marcus and it was $285.00. I looked again and I remembered
>>I had
>>
>>> >only spent $9.95 for two salads and about $20.00 for a scarf. As I
>>> >glanced at the bottom of the statement it said "Cookie Recipe -
>>> >$250.00." BOY WAS I UPSET!! I called Neiman's accounting dept.
>>and
>>told
>>> >them the waitress said it was "two fifty" and I did not realize
>>she
>>> >meant $250.00 for a cookie recipe. I asked them to take back the
>>recipe
>>
>>> >and reduce my bill and they said they were sorry but because all
>>the
>>> >recipes were this expensive so not just everyone could duplicate
>>any of
>>> >our bakery recipes....the bill would stand. I waited thinking
>>> >of how I could get even or even try and get any of my money back.
>>> >
>>> >I just said "Okay you folks got my $250.00 and now I'm going to
>>have
>>> >$250.00 worth of fun." I told her that I was going to see to it
>>that
>>> >every cookie lover will have a $250.00 cookie recipe from
>>Neiman-Marcus
>>> >for nothing. She replied "I wish you wouldn't do this." I said
>>"I'm
>>> >sorry but this is the only way I feel I could get even" and I
>>will.
>>> >
>>> >So here it is and please pass it to someone else or run a few
>>> >copies....I paid for it; now you can have it for free.
>>> >
>>> > Recipe may be halved.
>>> >
>>> > 02 cups butter 04 cups flower
>>> > 02 tsp. soda 02 cups sugar
>>> > 05 cups blended oatmeal** 24 oz. chocolate chips
>>> > 02 cups brown sugar 01 tsp. salt
>>> > 01 8 oz. Hershey Bar grated 04 eggs
>>> > 02 tsp. baking powder 03 cups chopped nuts
>>yourchoice
>>> > 02 tsp. vanilla
>>> >
>>> > ** measure oatmeal and blend in a blender to a fine powder.
>>> > Cream the butter and both sugars. Add eggs and
>>vanilla;
>>> > mix together with flour oatmeal salt baking powder
>>and
>>> > soda. Add chocolate chips Hershey Bar and nuts. Roll
>>into
>>> > balls and place two inches apart on a cookie sheet.
>>Bake
>>> > for 10 minutes at 375 degrees. Makes 112 cookies.
>>> >
>>> > Have fun!!! This is not a joke --- this is a true story..
>>> >
>>> > ************************************************************
>>> > That's it. Please pass it along to everyone you know
>>single
>>> > people mailing lists etc.....
>>> >
>>> > Ride free citizen!
>>
>Peter V. Weston M.D.
>Private Practice Gynecology San Antonio.
>weston@icsi.net
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 19 Nov 1995 17:49:25 GMT
From: RIhle@aol.com
Subject: Multiple Choice II

When you stop having fun turn to philosophy; when you stop having fun with
philosophy turn to Theosophy; when you stop having fun with Theosophy a
turn to the TMR arguments on Theos-l b turn over you are done on that
side c turn in your membership card d turn to theosophy e

Richard Ihle
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 19 Nov 1995 20:31:55 GMT
From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com>
Subject: Astrological Karmic and Genetic Twins

An interesting discussion has reminded me of some ideas few would discuss today.

DISCUSSION between Richard and Eldon:

RI
Practically speaking perhaps karma need only be regarded as uncorrected
tendencies for specific types of semi-Self indulgence. Genetic twins born at
the nearly the same astrological moment could thus be regarded as starting
out with roughly the same "karma." The only difference--and it is a big
one--between the twins would be in their degrees of Self-awareness. This
would change the level animating physical desire-feeling desire-mental
mental Spirit-mental and Spirt at which Self Undifferentiated
Consciousness will become completely transformed into semi-Self delusion
differentiated consciousness. One of the twins might regularly lose all
Self-awareness when he or she started to eat a bowl of ice cream; the other
not until he or she started to share an idea. In the former case the
temporary egoic delusion is of the nature "I *really am* the taste of
chocolate chip"; in the latter "I *really am* what I think I know about the
subject of reincarnation."

Naturally complete semi-Self indulgence at any level usually brings negative
consequences and of course Self-awareness is never so perfect as when we
are suffering. Increased diffidence because of learned lessons may be the
mark of the "older soul"; kamikaze-like boldness in semi-Self adventure the
"younger." Shit like "bad" karma may be found everywhere and in many
disguises; however perhaps it is not really necessary to think that it
"belongs" to you--no matter who killed whom 20000 years ago. Undoubtedly
the important thing is to become the more Self-aware twin who egoically steps
in less shit and thus *becomes* less of it.

clip

The general theme I believe is that reincarnation is not determined by
astrology but by past spiritual growth or lack of it - the old soul young
soul idea.

I would like to suggest that karma can be evidenced by genetics as well as
astrology. We are on very dangerous terrritory here. Many when they hear
genetics think Nazi and turn off their brains and ears. Nothing seems to be
more dangerous than the new genetic research.

I of course am not a geneticist. But research such as sociobiology reveals
"scientifically" for what that's worth knowing it all changes tomorrow that
much of our behavior including altruism is the result of selfish genes. The
individual is expendable to the group. Bees and ants will sacrifice their lives
to the genetically encoded program of "Long live the QUEEN!"

I would like to make to put forward the hypothesis that much of what we call
skandhas are really genetic messages that we must obey. They are not our
individual encoded karma exactily. They are the behaviors of our ancestors for
good or bad and we relive their lives and loves and hates just as we resemble
them in our physical bodies.

We do not reincarnate as a collected set of seven bodies but the seven bodies
physical emotional mental etc. get reshuffled in the great gene pool
unmanifest quantum possibility karmic wheel of sangsara CHAOS etc and do
not live one continuous life through several incarnations but experience the
karma of all the generations and individuals before us but our mother and
father etc. most closely through the genetic selection program. Or we may
almost the relive the life of a great-aunt or great- great-great grandfather
yet with our own variations on a theme as these traits are translated shuffled
and the genotype becomes a unique phenotype in a different time and environment.
Some traits are recessive or dominant and we likewise have some elements of
humanity borught forward or stopped down according to our genetic makeup.
Intelligence time and time again has been show through twin studies and other
methods to be primarily genetic and a distant second-environmental. Oh what and
ugly can of worms for some!
The big lie that more money will make a genius out of a average person to be
kind has lead us down some compassionate but spendthrift paths.

We quiff-pop into the manifest world as a set of genes encoded with the ability
of rational thought and the ability to aquire language and culture. We have
lived before but not as the King of Babylon or the Queen of Egypt as is usual
related in accoutns it makes for much better stories but as the collective
experience of humanity from lowest criminal to highest saint - from untouchable
to Brahmin.

When we endevor to remember past lives we are searching in the collective
unconcious for remenants of archetypal human patterns and not specific real past
lives with verifiable details etc.

The bad news is that many may feel this is not an acceptable or "spiritual"
hypothesis in that it reduces the importance of the individual as center of the
universe - ie the integrity of the evolving monad.

The good news is that it may shed some light on the true unity and
interconnectedness of the human family and cannot be used for selfish or racist
purposes because at depth we are trully all one right now as we speak. My
father and mother are primordial and the same as yours and everyones. The Adam
and Eve story has more than allegorical significance.

Of course gentics or astrology for that matter can't explain everything. But
as Darwinism though flawed replaced literal Christianity in our cultural
paradigm so must we make way for advances in genetics even if they are not SC
spirititually correct.

Of course one can refute this as not being a part of theosophy at all. But J.
Ranjadasa and others have introduced genetics of the time into theosophy.
Many American we asked if they believed in creationism or the theory of
evolution responded with what was reported as "a strange blend of creationism
and evolution."
Thus we see the popular mind making the same attempts as those in the late
1800's to maintain a spiritually active universe within scientific rationalism.

Thus genetics and sociobiology are not new "scriptures" nor are they of the
"devil". They are a tool of hard cold science that like quatumn physics can be
used or abused in the future as rationalizations for wise policies or the
horrors of Nazi Germany. Genetics and biology and depth psychology can be seen
as living evidence of karma and evolution or they can be ignored at our own
peril.

Namaste

Keith Price
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 19 Nov 1995 20:35:23 GMT
From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com>
Subject: Keith2DON+ELDON

I think we can all agree that texts from the past from Plato. Plotinus Buddhist
sages and Blavatsky are invaluable tools in that they confer a rationality and a
sense of community and tradition to the esoteric teachings. As we can compare
and cross-reference their commonlities we get a sense of foundation and "light"
on the spiritual path.

However we all have different strengths. Ken Wilber for instance seems to
have the ability to condense and psychologize/philosophize many of the difficult
teachings for a modern audience -he is a self-confessed pandit not guru. Don
from what I can tell has branced off into an almost medical examination of the
brain possibly in an attempt to explain and lead. Eldon to oversimplify again
focuses on a need to respect the teachers and the teachings as part of the
spritual path.

I honor all these paths. I have tried many things as many of you have. We are
faced. as Don said with a world that is glutted with information including
occult teachings and a world that would lead us quickly away from any serious
attempt to put them into practice. I think of my attempt with Zen meditation.
I felt somewhat betrayed when I found out that one had to embrace Buddhism with
all the statues wooden turtles and 13th century bric-a-brac if one was to
progress in many Zen circles. It's like you have to be a Catholic or
fundamentalist according to whoever in order to be "saved". Of course I
don't believe this but why do so many feel that Blavatsky had "it" but Bessant
and Bailey didn't? WIll we ever answer that question? I think not.

Needless to say I was drawn to theosophy because of its almost no holds barred
and non-ritualistic approach and strong intellectual elements. To be brief I
think Eldon is right in that we should honor the texts and those that have done
essential work but feel also like Don that we have little time to loose in
hashing over the past but move forward to what might be called "practical
occultism" in order to encourage a new way of handling our massive modern
energies whether in the outter world of technology or the inner world on the
mind and spirit.

Namaste

Keith Price
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 19 Nov 1995 22:46:27 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Dribble box

Aki:

>I'm quite against TV and Mass-Media personally....

Some comments on TV ...

Part of the argument against TV is that there is a limited selection of
programming so that one is "forced" to watch a poor show since nothing
else is on. This is gradually going away. There's a 18 inch RCA digital
satellite receiver available for $600 that allows for potentially hundreds
of shows to pick between. The selection will rapidly widen over the
coming years as more channels open up on cable and satellite TV.

The quality of the programming is fairly low and not intellectually
challenging although on my local cable TV the Discovery channel has
good shows on science. And there's even a good hour-long news show on
science on CNN. Sunday's show which I listened too while watching
my 13-month-old and trying to work on some computer stuff for the T.S.
talked about an unique form of sense perception. This sense perception
involves a mixed experience of the senses. Someone hears colors or
smells sounds. The perception is considered more primal than our
sorted-out perception; it happens before the experience is broken
apart into sights sounds smells etc. It most often occurs with
respect to things like having colors associated with letters or numbers
where the person always *sees* the color with the letter or number.
I wonder if this is where we get the tradition of a sound color
taste smell etc. associated with numbers letters and people as
well? Perhaps Don D. has more information on this phenomena?

Coming back to TV ... Another argument against TV is the state of
passivity that the viewer is in. It may be so if the viewer is tired
and wanting a temporary fantasy to relax and escape the rush of life
for a few minutes. The sense of escape is the same as in reading a
good work of fiction excepted there is less challenge on the mind
of the TV viewer.

TV though does not have to be challenging if one is using it
for "background noise" while we're really doing something else.
In my case on I'm half-way watching the TV and working
on the computer at the same time. And the baby Geoffrey is
somewhat watching talking to me in his baby talk and playing
with his toys. Cartoons capture his attention more readily but
grown-up shows offer a stream of talking that may help his
language skills? This is of course in addition to his family
talking to him not instead of such talking.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 19 Nov 1995 23:08:44 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Comments on the Theosophical Network

Another aspect of the former Theosophical Network in addition
to the idea that anyone could be listed with a self-provided
personal description was that of projects. There was a section
in the Directory dedicated for listing projects describing
them for others throughout the world to know about them and
have the opportunity to participate through offering time
money moral support publicity etc..

The Directory would list individuals projects and theosophical
groups. The groups were listed using a naming convention that
emphasized a commonality across organizations. We might have
a "Los Angeles Branch [Adyar]" and a "Los Angeles Branch [Pasadena]".
There was no attempt to make one group seem better than another
although groups were mostly limited to those calling themselves
theosophical or having a claimed connection with the Theosophical
Movement like the Temple of the People.

With computers -- for those having computer access to the internet --
the Theosophical Network could be implemented in the form of a
Web page with links to other pages describing the various groups
and current projects. Notices of new projects or change of project
status could come through 'theos-news'. A Web server could be used
to keep an active database of those who would consider themselves
Theosophists and post listings to it.

This does not help of course people without the money for
computer access be they in the economic lower class in developed
countries or in third-world countries where costs may be prohibitive.
Something like a Theosophical Network Newsletter and Directory would
be useful to provide a newspaper-style communication of the same
information.

The original effort on the TN ended after Rick Nurrie-Stearns assumed
full control of it being the last of its original managing committee.
He carried it for a year or two on his own with some volunteer and
financial support but felt the time had come to end it and allowed
it to fold. At that time he started Lotus Magazine and the initial
subscribers to the new magazine came from a couple of free issues going
to the TN subscribers. Since then I recall twice the topic coming up
of bringing the TN back to life but no one stepped forward to assume
the responsibility for the necessary level of work to sustain it.

We can talk about how nice such an activity might be but in the
short run I'd suggest that a humbler start would be a Web page
describing projects would be good. People on the computer would
"belong" by subscribing to theos-news to indicate an interest in
project announcements where active participation in the on-going
theos-l discussions is not required. And an email newsletter
could be maintained with someone in America England Australia
and perhaps the Far East could print out and distribute paper copies
to smail subscribers. These are just some basic ideas though and
need further work ...

The important thing with any approach is to not take on too much
but just what we are capable of carrying to completion and actually
doing it. If what we are doing is good and of benefit to the world
it will take on and grow. Otherwise we move on to other activities.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 20 Nov 1995 00:05:05 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Astrological Karmic and Genetic Twins

Keith:

>I would like to suggest that karma can be evidenced by genetics as well as
>astrology.

Both bear correlations with the person being born because all of life
is interconnected. But is there causality here?

I'd say that astrology is descriptive not causitive. A natal chart
describes the general conditions at the time of an individual's birth
conditions which limit and influence what sort of person the individual
can be. If someone is born into a dark age one is influenced by the
culture and other people coming into brith even if one *inwardly* is
much better.

Regarding genetics the genes are said to determine the formation of
the body and many of the personality attributes as one ages. But again
are the genes the *cause* of the personality? I'd say "no". The genes
provide the "holding pattern" that allows the personlity a sense of
continunity. The initial life-impress determines the genetic selection
which sustains that impress through the lifetime.

> much of what we call skandhas are really genetic messages that we
> must obey. They are not our individual encoded karma exactly. They
> are the behaviors of our ancestors for good or bad and we relive
> their lives and loves and hates just as we resemble them in our
> physical bodies.

The general genetic pool which we draw upon in a particular culture
is part of the "holding pattern" for a particular subrace. There are
family tribal and national gene pools just as there are general
types of experiences offered in different group settings.

Being born into a particular culture our experiences are qualified.
The external limitations upon and encouragements to our natures
do not specifically come as a result of our personal karma except
in the sense of the idea of merit. It is a privilege to be born into
a nation where the Buddhadharma is alive where there is access to
the Mysteries and the Path. There is a sense of karmic merit to be
born into such a land rather than into a land of abject misery where
we might look forward to a 20-year lifespan frantically searching for
food before we die never having learned to read or write.

> We do not reincarnate as a collected set of seven bodies but the ...
> bodies ... get reshuffled in the great gene pool ... and do not live
> one continuous life through several incarnations but experience the
> karma of all the generations and individuals before us ... through
> the genetic selection program.

When we look at the external human personality it draws upon the
storehouse of nature in coming into birth. It draws manas from Mahat
kama from Fohat prana from Jiva the sense perceptions from the Astral
Light nad the physical form from the objective world.

What do we draw? It is generic stuff or does it bear some particular
relationship to *us* the individuals coming into birth? I'd say that
it not only bears a relationship to us but is *our stuff*. The term
Skandhas is a description of this stuff which also has been called our
life-atoms. While disincarnate this stuff returns to the elements and
circulates through other living beings; while incarnate this stuff
returns to us as our particular personalized materials or clothes of
consciousness that we dress ourselves in.

With each incarnation we're starting off with a blank sheet of paper.
That sheet of paper is drawn from a particular supply and we're working
in a particular setting. Both influence how we may write or draw. But
we're picking up our trusty pen or paint brush one we've used many
times before and we -- the writer or artist -- will express ourselves
as best we can in the current setting. There are obvious external
conditions that limit or encourage us but we the creative intelligence
continue from previous sessions and are better able to do things because
of our prior experiences.

> We have lived before ... as the collective experience of humanity
> from lowest criminal to highest saint - from untouchable to Brahmin.

We share in the experiences of others. They all sweeten or dirty the
waters about us. And we feel the pain and joy of other living beings.

The collective experience is the *setting* the drama on the stage of
life that we enter into. But we are individual players on that stage
each with our own role; and we bring with us our individual skill
sets and unique way of acting skills and talents that we are responsible
for perfecting and putting to good use.

> When we endevor to remember past lives we are searching in the
> collective unconcious for remenants of archetypal human patterns
> and not specific real past lives with verifiable details etc.

This is what I think often happens with so-called past-life memories
perhaps from hypnotic age-regression techniques. The individual sees
into the astral light and picks out general images that are used to
construct a tale of a past life. This is probably similar to how dreams
are constructed out of the content of our consciousness also drawing
upon images in the astral light about us.

> The bad news is that many may feel this is not an acceptable or
> "spiritual" hypothesis in that it reduces the importance of the
> individual as center of the universe - ie the integrity of the
> evolving monad.

You've been describing the nature of physical existence. We come into
life in a cooperative setting. The structure of life has to a great
degree been determined by others before we step on-stage and enter the
drama ourselves. Our role is largely-determined or limited by the act
and scene of the play currently in progress on that stage. But this
does not mean that we are not individual actors with prior acting
experience and individual skills and abilities.

> The good news is that it may shed some light on the true unity and
> interconnectedness of the human family and cannot be used for
> selfish or racist purposes because at depth we are trully all one
> right now as we speak.

Our oneness with others is not just something shared at the physical
level through a cooperative physical existence. It comes from the
very beginning when we take on Atman and first enter into manifestation.
>From the very first sensing of the nature and flavor of the universe
before even knowing there are other beings present we experience the
essential unity of that universe that universe's "theme song".

>we [must] make way for advances in genetics even if they are not SC
>spirititually correct.

We must I agree continue in scientific advancement. But as individuals
we're able to take charge of our lives and seek after the pure
unqualified luminious nature of life the sense of emptiness which
paradoxically is richer and more fulfilling than the achievement of any
material objective.

> Of course one can refute this as not being a part of theosophy at
> all. ... we see the popular mind making the same attempts as those
> in the late 1800's to maintain a spiritually active universe within
> scientific rationalism.

The ideas in Theosophy were not made up in the 1800's but can be
shown to appear in the various religions and philosophies of the
world dating back to prehistoric times. They were described in the
1800's in the words and idiom of the 1800's and could be described
in the 2000's in newer words and a newer idiom. The truths about the
workings of consciousness and about the Path though remain the
same.

> Thus genetics and sociobiology ... are a tool of hard cold science
> that like quatumn physics can be used or abused in the future as
> rationalizations for wise policies or the horrors of Nazi Germany.

Any scientific knowledge is a two-edged sword. That is why it is
considerably important to teach people the path of self-knowledge
the path towards enlightenment so that the spirituality of our age
is improved.

It's good to see that you're thinking about things in a new and
original way. But there are two steps to the process. The first is
in analysis or in coming up with new ways of looking at things. The
second is in synthesis or coming back to the original unity. With
the second step we take our new ideas and see how they fit in with
the overall philosophy. As we do so we may end up with a better
appreciation of what it's about than we started with.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 20 Nov 1995 04:43:06 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Keith2DON+ELDON

Keith:

>I think we can all agree that texts from the past from Plato
>Plotinus Buddhist sages and Blavatsky are invaluable tools in
>that they confer a rationality and a sense of community and
>tradition to the esoteric teachings.

True. The textbooks are useful tools. It still helps to have
a teacher or teaching assistant present to help us understand
the texts but we make do with what we have.

>However we all have different strengths.

>Ken Wilber for instance seems to have the ability to condense and
>psychologize/philosophize many of the difficult teachings
>for a modern audience -he is a self-confessed pandit not guru.

This is something useful for all of us to learn. At some point I'll
have to read his books to study his technique of presentating the
spiritual path. I know that for myself certain approaches have more
appeal than other approaches. A well-digested book on Tibetan Buddhism
is much more understandable to me than a lecture by a high-ranking
lama with ad hoc translation.

>Don from what I can tell has branced off into an almost medical
>examination of the brain possibly in an attempt to explain and lead.

This is useful science. It complements a discussion of the doctrines
and techniques of spiritual practices.

>Eldon to oversimplify again focuses on a need to respect the
>teachers and the teachings as part of the spiritual path.

And also I try to stress the need to find some form of spiritual
practice that takes us beyond the dead-letter of the books. I would
stress the need for specific spiritual practices to be evolved in the
west practices rooted in the spiritual lineages but newly-adapted
to what works with westerners.

>I honor all these paths. I have tried many things as many of you have.

We've all tried different paths. At some point we individualize in
our quest or have flashes of "lucid waking" where we become ensouled
or awake to the vastness of life. Then life takes on new meaning and
we can become productive and active contributors to the welfare of
humanity.

>We are faced as Don said with a world that is glutted with information
>including occult teachings and a world that would lead us quickly
>away from any serious attempt to put them into practice.

There's a world of possibilities. When we're growing up as teenagers
we may feel we can do anything. In our 20's we try out many adventures
and by the time of our first Saturn return at age 29 we're ready to
settle into some structure for our life. The same may be true of the
Path as it's lived in a particular lifetime. There's the feeling of
limitless possibilities with open doors all around us and no one to tell
us which way to go. After some exploration we settle down into a practice
and then things really start to grow.

>I think of my attempt with Zen meditation. I felt somewhat betrayed
>when I found out that one had to embrace Buddhism with all the statues
>wooden turtles and 13th century bric-a-brac if one was to progress in
>many Zen circles. It's like you have to be a Catholic or >fundamentalist
according to whoever in order to be "saved".

Each practice has its own way of meditating chanting observing altrusim
and selflessness etc. Some aspects are arbitrary but a specific formulation
is needed a specific structure to the practice. If the structure is
unappealing because being too rooted in the trappings of a foreign culture
it may make a particular approach useless for us.

For myself I found the Zen approach useful to a certain degree in
learning patience and how to meditate but it fell short on the
philosophical side and I found it difficult to learn from a Zen Master
that spoke in Japanese and always had to be translated. I went to a
number of week-long Dai Sesshins held by Sasaki Roshi a Rinzai Zen Master
at Mt Baldy Zen Center many years ago. Note that he did speak in English
during Sanzen when speaking in private with students about their koans.

The bells clappers and other trappings made the practice easier because
everything could be done withone thinking and all one's attention could
be given to the meditative practices.

>Of course I don't believe this but why do so many feel that
>Blavatsky had "it" but Bessant and Bailey didn't? Will we ever
>answer that question? I think not.

I'd say that there is an answer to this question but we have to
review our motivations when we bring it up as an issue. The three
are all dead and don't care what we think of them personally.
The important issue is creating and sustaining spiritual lineages
in the west. Keeping the philosophy is also important of course
but it will always be available in different forms like in the
writings of Plato the Gita etc. We need an unbroken line of
people that understand teach and practice the Philosophy if it
is to remain of use in the western world.

>Needless to say I was drawn to theosophy because of its
>almost no holds barred and non-ritualistic approach and strong
>intellectual elements.

Theosophy as presented is the raw materials out of which both
individuals and our western society can formulate spiritual
practices. We as individuals have to devise our own path. And
as westerners we also have to take the materials and make it
into practices that can benefit others as well.

>To be brief I think Eldon is right in that we should honor
>the texts and those that have done essential work

Yes we take what is give us both in the public arena including
the theosophical books and through whatever inner doors that we're
able to open on our own. We take all that we can so that we can
give it to others in our own unique way.

>... but feel also like Don that we have little time to loose in
>hashing over the past but move forward to what might be called
>"practical occultism" in order to encourage a new way of handling
>our massive modern energies whether in the outter world of
>technology or the inner world on the mind and spirit.

I agree that the cultural trappings of the past need to be discarded.
The culture-specific context of Theosophy needs revision or reworking
as the philosophy is clothed in modern words. This is not revision
of the basic occult truths but a reexpression in modern language.

In addition to the reexpression we need to combine what we've learned
of the occult truths from our spiritual lineages theosophical Buddhist
etc. with new knowledge from advances in modern science. As we combine
the two we can arrive at a greater understanding of the mysteries of
life. Still though we are told by KH to 'come to us or settle for
crubs'. That is we're still outsiders from the real body of knowledge
until we engage the spiritual start a living practice in our lives and
wait for it to flower.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 20 Nov 1995 04:48:41 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re:Multiple choice

RI:
>When you stop having fun turn to philosophy; when you stop having fun with
>philosophy turn to Theosophy; when you stop having fun with Theosophy a
>turn to the TMR arguments on Theos-l b turn over you are done on that
>side c turn in your membership card d turn to theosophy

e turn off the bubble machine.

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 20 Nov 1995 12:58:23 GMT
From: John R Crocker <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Bye

Eldon
Lighten up? Sure. That's pretty much the same response as the TS has to
anyone who thinks the current status quo is not just a bit off but
appalingly far from the size and scope of what the founders had in mind.
For my own part I care little anymore.
Just thought I'd see whether the envelope
might be pushed just a little ... to see whether "traditional" Theosophy
might ever be a comfortable place for discussions of actual inner life
and experience whether it might feel like a place were something more
than the tiniest fraction of the population might feel welcomed. If I
seemed at times overly strident it was perhaps because I was attempting
to articulate on behalf of the *large* numbers that touch Theosophy and
quickly and silently *leave* why they leave. As far as I go I
wouldn't in a million years express another bit of my own inner
experience here ... the environment is simply unsuitable. And since
I have no interest in obscure discussions of the finer points of
theoretical occultism I will as many have say ta ta. Enjoy
"traditional" Theosophy. Empirical evidence seems to suggest the strong
possibly that this may be the last generation of its current incarnation.

Toodles -JRC
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 20 Nov 1995 15:15:35 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: Keith2DON+ELDON


> To be brief I
> think Eldon is right in that we should honor the texts and those that have
> done essential work but feel also like Don that we have little time to
> loose in hashing over the past but move forward to what might be called
> "practical > occultism" in order to encourage a new way of handling our
> massive modern energies whether in the outter world of technology or the
> inner world on the mind and spirit.
>
> Namaste
>
> Keith Price

here is a difference between "hashing over the past" and looking
into history for its lessons. Yes we honor the texts but we
don't I hope make "gospels" out of them. HPB CWL Annie B
all lied to us knowingly or unknowingly at some time or
another. To the extent that we can confirm their truths we
trust them and honor them; to the extent that we can confirm
their errors we trust them less - but we can still honor them.
Like us they were and probably still are fallible.

Alan
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 20 Nov 1995 16:12:57 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Astrological Karmic and Genetic Twins

Keith says re our ancestors "We relive their lives their loves their
hates". Yes but your mission is to become aware of this & modify it
to your own likeing. You go around in circles until you become
aware & then stop yourself from circling.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 20 Nov 1995 16:29:38 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Keith2DON+ELDON

Dear Guys

Re our modern energies ... I just got an umpteen page listing of
video & audio tapes recorded in Wheaton & maybe Krotona etc.. I think most
of them are borrowable from theOlcott Library.
They also don't cost much to buy.

"Consciousness: MInd or Matter - Steve Hagen 1995

"Easter: Rebirth of the Feminine" - Joy MIlls 1990

"TheosophyToday: The Mystic's Laboratory" - Ravi Ravindra Wm
Metzger 1988

Voice Raised for Freedom:Karma & Nirvana The Doubke Key - John ALgeo
1992

"Right Education for Children" - based on Krishnamurti - P. Krishna
1994
Inter-Theos.Dialogue: The TS Movement Past & Future. Discussion
between TSA Pasadena ULT & Temple - 1994

I bet there's 50 pages of it. They're way ahead of us.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 20 Nov 1995 16:36:05 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Astrological Karmic and Genetic Twins

In general my overall response to Keith's post is that "the stars impell
they do not compel" G de P somewhere. The same with genetics and
environment and karma. These are all tendencies that we can either
accept or reject or else free will is meaningless.

Keith says "much of our behavior including altruism is the result of
selfish genes." Yes this is a new theory and doubtless has some
truth to it. Many folks are altruistic today because of sins made in the
past i.e. as a form of restitution or conscience cleansing albeit
unconsciously. In other words many of today's altruists were Jack
the Rippers in a former life and their altruism is an unconscious
response mechanism to their guilt. Does this make their altruism
any the less worthy?

Keith: >I would like to make to put forward the hypothesis that much of
> what we call skandhas are really genetic messages that we must obey

Is it possible that our skandhas drive us to seek out certain
genetic patterns rather than seeking any random available womb?

Keith says that "genetic messages that we must obey ... are the behaviors
of our ancestors." In this sense why can't our genetic heritage be equated
with our collective karma rather than our individual karma?

Keith:>Some traits are recessive or dominant and we likewise have some
>elements of humanity borught forward or stopped down according to our
>genetic makeup.

This is exactly why environmental factors are also important. The
latest results from the Nature-Nurture arguement suggests that both genetics
and environment play critical parts. How the one acts tends to be influenced
by the other and vice versa.

Keith:>Intelligence time and time again has been show through twin
>studies and other methods to be primarily genetic and a distant
>second-environmental. Oh what and ugly can of worms for some!

Its only a can of worms if we value intelligence. And I know several
people who have done well in spite of their genetics. I for one my parents
barely made it through high school and never really thought I would make
it in college - but they encouraged me to try.

Keith:>When we endevor to remember past lives we are searching in
>the collective unconcious for remenants of archetypal human patterns
>and not specific real past lives with verifiable details etc.

I tend to agree with you.

Keith:>The bad news is that many may feel this is not an acceptable or
"spiritual"
>hypothesis in that it reduces the importance of the individual as center of the
>universe - ie the integrity of the evolving monad.

Depends on your religion. Buddhists would likely agree with
you and say that the "evolving monad" is both a contradiction in terms
and an illusion.

Keith:>Genetics and biology and depth psychology can be seen
>as living evidence of karma and evolution or they can be ignored at our own
>peril.
Agreed.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 20 Nov 1995 16:41:51 GMT
From: RIhle@aol.com
Subject: Re: Astrological Karmic and Genetic Twins

ET to Keith Price

It's good to see that you're thinking about things in a new and
original way. But there are two steps to the process. The first is
in analysis or in coming up with new ways of looking at things. The
second is in synthesis or coming back to the original unity. With
the second step we take our new ideas and see how they fit in with
the overall philosophy. As we do so we may end up with a better
appreciation of what it's about than we started with.

RI

However when a person considers the "overall philosophy" to be the result of
a Divine Dispensation of some sort "synthesis" may just be the throwing away
of the new perspectives which do not fit very well with the way the
philosophy was originally articulated. Could this be the underlying reason
why Paul's book continues to get such a sustained negative reaction from
certain people? I mean by suggesting that actual human beings were the
basis for the Masters does it not open up the possibility that the overall
philosophy-cum-verbiage "conveyed" by them through H.P.B. is not indefectible
enough to be in the category of Things Not to Be Changed?

I like Keith's attitude actually.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 20 Nov 1995 16:49:40 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Bye

On 20 199511 John R Crocker wrote:

> Eldon
> Lighten up? Sure. That's pretty much the same response as the TS has to
> anyone who thinks the current status quo is not just a bit off but
> appalingly far from the size and scope of what the founders had in mind.
> For my own part I care little anymore.
> Just thought I'd see whether the envelope
> might be pushed just a little ... to see whether "traditional" Theosophy
> might ever be a comfortable place for discussions of actual inner life
> and experience whether it might feel like a place were something more
> than the tiniest fraction of the population might feel welcomed. If I
> seemed at times overly strident it was perhaps because I was attempting
> to articulate on behalf of the *large* numbers that touch Theosophy and
> quickly and silently *leave* why they leave. As far as I go I
> wouldn't in a million years express another bit of my own inner
> experience here ... the environment is simply unsuitable. And since

> I have no interest in obscure discussions of the finer points of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> theoretical occultism I will as many have say ta ta. Enjoy
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I like your statement. We can go on discussing all the finer
points and some like me is interested in practical application of
Theosophy in dealing with the situations we run into where we may be able
to help our fellow human beings. May be it is a minority who think this way.

> "traditional" Theosophy. Empirical evidence seems to suggest the strong
> possibly that this may be the last generation of its current incarnation.
>
> Toodles -JRC
>

It may be time to reevaluate how Theosophy can help our fellow humans
in todays world. There is no need to give up.

MK Ramadoss

PS: My work is in the nature of personal service in the area of
consulting. Theosophy has helped me very frequently when I help
individuals. More later.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 20 Nov 1995 17:14:21 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Attracting Younger Individuals

Recently Dr. Anton Lysy Director of Olcott Institute visited our lodge
and I attended one of his lectures. His presentation was excellent and
was very appreciated by the audience present.

What was noticeable was that almost all present were around
middle age and older and none from the younger generation. I have seen a
similar situation in some other lodges in this part of the country. I do
not know if this is peculiar to this part of the country or it is generally the
case with rest of the lodges.

I think we all should put our heads together and come up with
creative ideas to attract younger generation to Theosophy. If not we can
see a day when most of the current members pass away what may be left
will be a shell sitting on a lot of money and property and the TPH.

Cyberspace being a great equalizer and a place where a lot of
younger generation browse we may be able to take advantage of their
presence in presenting Theosophy and make them interested in it.

Any ideas?

MK Ramadoss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 20 Nov 1995 23:10:42 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Attracting Younger Individuals

MKR:

>Recently Dr. Anton Lysy ... visited our lodge ... What was noticeable
>was that almost all present were around middle age and older and
>none from the younger generation.

This is nothing new. When I was a teenager in the 1960's it was the
same story. There were few young people in the T.S. The bulk of T.S.
members are perhaps in their 40's. Why is this?

My first thought is that as a young person someone is looking for
*things to do*. As we approach middle age we are fairly busy and
have a full plate of activities. We're more inclined to want things
to think about but less likely to join a religion or group with an
established program of activities.

With Theosophy as it is currently presented we're given a body of
occult doctrines to *think about* but not an established practice
to follow. Granted we are given general discussions of ethics and
a description of the Bodhisattva path but there is not any specific
vows code of life nor organization with gurus priests or oracles
producing wonders and promising us liberation or enlightenment. We're
basically left up to ourselves.

A number of cults and religious groups target college-age people
because they are ripe as followers. They want something to believe
in. Older people are too established in their thinking and less
likely to be become followers. If someone sets up an organization
with the right social formula flattery of members and rhetoric
and slogans for its followers to parrot it will draw a large crowd.

There's no such appeal for a philosophy that doesn't come out and
promice to give all the answers in an easy-to-understand form and
provide a social nexus for its members to feel that there's finally
somewhere that they belong!

As it currently stands I don't think that the modern presentation
of Theosophy is suitable for a mass-appeal public movement since
it's not geared to attracting followers. Granted people inclined
to be followers may end up in the ranks of the T.S. groups but this
is because they don't really try to read the books and live the life.

If we want to specifically target college-age students we can
look at those organizations both political and religious that
attract large followings among college students and see how they
present themselves. From this knowledge we could design an
organization or program that would follow the same formula.

Before we attempt to do so though we have to ask ourselves
what are we trying to promote? If we're moving away from a simple
goal of making the philosophy accessible to the public what
new or different goals do we seek to achieve?

If these new goals don't involve the use of the philosophy in
some manner and represent an alternate approach to the spiritual
then we don't need to achieve them by changing theosophical groups
or the philosophy. Completely different approaches can be done
in parallel with our theosophical work we don't need to make
masks for the pure philosophy in order to make it more appealing.

>I think we all should put our heads together and come up with
>creative ideas to attract younger generation to Theosophy.

Before you establish this as a goal you need to determine what
you are attempting to accomplish by doing this. Is Theosophy
intended to minister to the masses or does it consist of fragments
of occult truth that for certain individuals there's an irresistible
appeal and for others no interest at all?

Does it matter at what stage of *the current lifetime* that
Theosophy makes its appeal? Won't karmic seeds be planted that
will still germinate in later lifetimes? Won't Theosophy also
benefit even the senior citizens even if they don't first come
across it until their 70's?

Granted different formulations of Theosophy will appeal to
different demographic groups. We could write childrens books
and have a formulation for the MTV crowd and another for the
college-age and young adult. But the formulation may not be
in the form of a rewriting of the core concepts of the basic
truths of the philosophy. It may be in social educational
and religious organizations.

>If not we can see a day when most of the current members pass
>away what may be left will be a shell sitting on a lot of money
>and property and the TPH.

The median age of new members has been perhaps in the low 40's.
This has not been changing. And about 3/4 of the membership has
turned over in a four-year period. Why? Because I think we don't
offer specific *things to do* a specific spiritual practice.
There is philosophy and general ethics but few are interested and
able to take the raw materials offered members and devise an ad hoc
approach to the spiritual. People are looking for an occult church
temple or politicalmovement not for abstract philosophy. Until and unless
we make some living religious movements arise out of the raw materials
of the theosophical philosophy religions suitable to the western
psyche we'll continue in the same course generation after generation.

The T.S. membership is not aging. The average age is not rising.
What we have is that the T.S. appeals to older people people with
a specific background. Other groups and movements appeal to people
of different ages. I don't think that the T.S. is in danger of dying.
It is just specialized in its approach to a certain segment of the
western spiritual "market".

>Cyberspace being a great equalizer and a place where a lot of
>younger generation browse we may be able to take advantage of their
>presence in presenting Theosophy and make them interested in it.

Many of the basic ideas found in Theosophy also appear in Buddhism
and are becoming popular in the west. The deeper aspects of the
philosophy are being rejected or ignored. Since they boarder on the
Mystery Teachings perhaps it is not important.

Since theosophical groups don't have an exclusive claim on
propagating the basic ideas like reincarnation and karma and
the deepest Teachings are not meant for the masses is there any
particular work left for the theosophical groups apart from
keeping a foothold for a certain approach to the Mysteries alive
in the west?

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 20 Nov 1995 23:40:49 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Keith and Synthesis of Ideas

RI:

>... when a person considers the "overall philosophy" to be the
>result of a Divine Dispensation of some sort "synthesis" may just
>be the throwing away of the new perspectives which do not fit very
>well with the way the philosophy was originally articulated.

Only if the new part of our thinking is at risk of change and
what we've thought before is considered sacrosanct. If we allow
both the old and new ideas to be *at risk* and freshly rethink
things each time then the synthesis involves a new version of
both the old and the new.

There are many issues involved here. The idea of a divine dispensation
involves the issue of authority and how knowledgable the source of
what we study is. Finding an authentic source of occult knowledge to
study is similar to finding an authentic guru to study under -- it is
something that we have to do on an individual basis.

Another issue is regarding how we *know* something. I'd say that
there are different ways that we can know things. One is the traditional
way of "going there and doing it". There is a second-hand way of learning
from those with knowledge and experience that we don't yet have. But
there is also I'd say a third way of knowing by the power of mind
a manner of knowing things through "inner sight" where "sight" is a
metaphor and not literally the sense of vision.

You're right in your point where you indicate that what we've known
before should be subject to change during the process of synthesis.

>Could this be the underlying reason why Paul's book continues to get
>such a sustained negative reaction from certain people? I mean by
>suggesting that actual human beings were the basis for the Masters
>does it not open up the possibility that the overall
>philosophy-cum-verbiage "conveyed" by them through H.P.B. is not
>indefectible enough to be in the category of Things Not to Be Changed?

It challenges a number of misconceptions about the Masters. They
are living men not mythical angels. And HPB's writings are subject
to error as are any writing. I haven't closely followed the debate
over Paul's books but get the impression that the disagreement is
not so much over the human nature of the Mahatmas as much as it is
over the specific individuals identified as the Masters.

In the absence of a living teacher to train us and help us understand
the occult truths we're on our own to make sense of the materials
found in the literature of the past including the theosophical
materials. Certainly there are veils exoteric blinds and other
manners in which deeper truths are conveyed under camouflage. We're
on our own to mine for these truths or to walk away from them if
we don't have much success digging for them. There are many sources
for the Buddhadharma and Mahatmadharma or Theosdharma; we seek out
the one that works best for us and honor it.

>I like Keith's attitude actually.

His writings show that he is trying to freshly think things through
for himself which is an important practice. My basic comment to
him was that since all the truths are interconnected we need to
bring them back together again after such an analysis. His description
was focused upon the power of the ancestors and the *living status quo*
of life to define the parameters of our existence. I was trying to
bring this back into connection with the idea of us as Monads as
imperishable sparks of divinity transcending existence and participation
in space and time.

I think that through a number of iternations of freshly thinking
through the theosophical philosophy our understanding grows and
we get closer and closer to true knowledge. Of course that knowledge
is of *thisness* of the fullness of life and needs to be supplemented
by its dual nature of *thatness* of the emptiness or transparency
of life.

-- EldonM
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 00:29:27 GMT
From: Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com
Subject: Re: Astrological Karmic and Genetic Twins

<Keith says re our ancestors "We relive their lives their loves their
hates". Yes but your mission is to become aware of this & modify it
to your own likeing. You go around in circles until you become
aware & then stop yourself from circling. Liesel>

'Tis true we go around in circles until we become aware; however my thoughts
are more that we do not modify it to our own likeing -- rather we keep
repeating ourselves until we learn the lessons we have set forth to ourselves.
We come into this life deliberately blind bound by flesh and blood in the
hopes that we will learn those lessons we set out to understand. If we do not
if we perhaps take the easy way in a lifetime then we commit ourselves to
doing it again and again until we learn. Of course perhaps there are times
when we enter into a life deliberately to assist the lessons for another. It
is in my humble opinion pretentious to assume we have so much control over
the universe to modify anything to our own liking."
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 00:31:48 GMT
From: Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com
Subject: Attracting Younger Individuals

<Recently Dr. Anton Lysy Director of Olcott Institute visited our lodge
and I attended one of his lectures. His presentation was excellent and
was very appreciated by the audience present. What was noticeable was that
almost all present were around middle age and older and none from the younger
generation. I have seen a similar situation in some other lodges in this part
of the country. I do not know if this is peculiar to this part of the country
or it is generally the case with rest of the lodges. I think we all should put
our heads together and come up with
creative ideas to attract younger generation to Theosophy. If not we can see a
day when most of the current members pass away what may be left will be a
shell sitting on a lot of money and property and the TPH.
yberspace being a great equalizer and a place where a lot of younger generation
browse we may be able to take advantage of their presence in presenting
Theosophy and make them interested in it. Any ideas? MK Ramadoss >

Ideas no ... but would it help to know that I am 31 years old? Does that
qualify as the younger generation? There may be more of us than you think
particularly with the coming of the new Millenium.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 01:40:00 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Theosophy International

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises those who subscribe to the the
three objects of the TS but in a more up to date form based on
suggestions by John Mead J.Crocker and others of the internet
community and expressed thus:

1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family without
discrimination with regard to sex including sexual
orientation creed class or color.

2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative religion
theosophy philosophy and the scientific method according to
individual ability and inclination.

3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized
human potential and abilities.

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is simply a Theosophical Network
whereby it is sufficient to declare one's sympathy and/or
allegiance to the three objects and to be registered as having
done so. No belief system is required *nor assumed to be held*
by any member.

There are fees no subscriptions although voluntary
donations and/or contributions *could* be made to specific
projects or even individuals for particular and specified
purposes. As THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not
need rules whether anyone participates in or supports any such
activity is an entirely personal matter.

The following have so far signed up:

Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Richtay@aol.com
Sy Ginsburg

Incidentally I found in my archives the Theosophical Network
Directory for Spring 1989 .....

Travelling hopefully

Alan
--
Member Theosophy International.
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 01:45:15 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: Comments on the Theosophical Network

>
> ... in the
> short run I'd suggest that a humbler start would be a Web page
> describing projects would be good. People on the computer would
> "belong" by subscribing to theos-news to indicate an interest in
> project announcements where active participation in the on-going
> theos-l discussions is not required. And an email newsletter
> could be maintained with someone in America England Australia
> and perhaps the Far East could print out and distribute paper copies
> to smail subscribers. These are just some basic ideas though and
> need further work ...
>
> The important thing with any approach is to not take on too much
> but just what we are capable of carrying to completion and actually
> doing it. If what we are doing is good and of benefit to the world
> it will take on and grow. Otherwise we move on to other activities.
>
> -- Eldon

I agree 100% - anyone able to set up a Web page? I already
print out a newsletter from another organisation for a few
interested people. Locally we could do the same for local
smail members. Finance where required would in the same way
be raised locally

Will Eldon I ask myself sign up?

Alan
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 03:01:17 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Attracting Younger Individuals

Yeah Doss

How about ... Let's start talking Theosophy as it touches the concerns
of today's young people. Let's start with trying to find out & listing
what these concerns are & then let's discuss them in
the light of the ancient wisdom. We have enough knowledge on theos-l
to be able to pull that off.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 03:09:31 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Bye

JRC

Why don't you rather come along with Doss' idea of trying to attract
young people. If you feel you don't want to talk anymore about your
own experiences you know enough Theosophy to be able to converse on
different levels. Let's get off "traditional" Theosophy. Where does it
say that theos-l has to stick to that? And never mind what anyone
else is doing. Let's make people feel welcome on theos-l & let's
discuss the practical side of theosophy as the "now generation" can
use it.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 03:24:28 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Keith2DON+ELDON

Re the infallibility of HPB CWL & AB

Why don't we just garner from them whatever is useful for us today & go on from
there? Who cares about 100 year-old lies ... Maybe we can use them to
deal with the lies coming out of DC today. Who's more adept at lying?
HPB or Gingrich? Maybe we can convince the
Republicans that there's heavy collective karma ahead if they monkey too much
with all the social programs people have come to depend upon. Let
them see clearly the laws of cause & effect.

Liesel

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 04:07:40 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: discussion list to interest young people

I thought of 02 items for discussion to get the ball rolling:

1. Meditating is cheaper than smoking pot.

2. If Annie Besant were alive today would they still put her in jail?

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 05:11:56 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Phists vs. Phers

Richard's comments about Theosophists and theosophers resonate
with how I've been feeling about the former. Herewith some
contrasts:

Theosophists are passive; theosophers active.

Theosophists see HPB as a unique mediator between humanity and
the Masters a Messenger with a capital M. Theosophers see HPB
as a role model someone who sought and found direct contact
with sources of inspiration and information rather than taking
anything 3rd hand.

Theosophists when presented with a new idea ask "how does
this fit with what I already know and believe?" Theosophers
in the same circumstances ask "does this have the ring of
truth regardless of my preconceptions?"

Theosophists see the Theosophical Movement as central to their
view of history. Theosophers are centered in the eternal now.

Theosophists consume theosophers produce.

Theosophists analyze; theosophers synthesize.

Just some variations on a theme.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 05:19:14 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Keith and past lives

Thanks to Keith for a forward-thinking discussion of several
issues notably heredity which must find its proper place in
any religio-philosophical explanation of human individuality.

My comment is on the reading of past lives. In studying the
Cayce material I'm finding plenty of evidence that the
collective unconscious was indeed the source of archetypal
patterns appearing in alleged past lives. Also that Cayce's
personal unconscious interfered by interjecting themes
consistent with previous readings. But the dubious past-life
material seems to be remote in time; details about Atlantis or
Egypt or Palestine that just don't jive with history appear in
these readings. On the other hand the more recent past-life
material seems much more specific authentic and likely to
check out when investigated. This suggests that the ability to
access recent lives with accurate detail is greater than the
ability to go into the distant past. Don't know how this
relates to the collective unconscious but it seems to factor
into the general theme Keith is addressing.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 07:00:03 GMT
From: mike@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com Michael W. Grenier
Subject: Re: Keith2DON+ELDON

>Re the infallibility of HPB CWL & AB
>
>Why don't we just garner from them whatever is useful for us today & go on
from
>there? Who cares about 100 year-old lies ... Maybe we can use them to
>deal with the lies coming out of DC today. Who's more adept at lying?
>HPB or Gingrich?

It figures I respect them both.

>Maybe we can convince the
>Republicans that there's heavy collective karma ahead if they monkey too much
>with all the social programs people have come to depend upon. Let
>them see clearly the laws of cause & effect.

I suppose we could let the social programs consume all federal revenue as
projected
for about 15 years from now. At which point when money is no longer
available we'll
just have everybody go cold turkey. Hmmm.... I wonder what the karma would
be then.
It is because some are seeing the laws of cause & effect that change is being
proposed today in DC. The answer is not to have lots of people dependent on
social programs but to have social programs that teach people how NOT to be
dependent.

In some ways people were wiser in HPB's time.

-Mike Grenier
----
Michael W. Grenier mike@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com
612-456-7869 Loral - Air Traffic Control
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 08:46:30 GMT
From: Aprioripa@aol.com
Subject: Esoteric Theosophy Illustrations

Hello

These images are now available at the ftp site below:

Based upon eastern esoteric philosophy this is a color illustration of
the spiritual cycles of evolution - 07 Chains 07 Globes 07 Rounds etc.

Based upon eastern esoteric philosophy this is a color symbolism of the
evolution of our solar system - the manifest and higher planets.

This is a color symbol/illustration of the multi-dimensional evolution
of the planetary chains in our solar systyem. Based upon esoteric holistic
philosophy Tibetan Hindu A. Bailey etc.. Uploaded with the artist's
permission.

A diagram of the relationships between the different fields symbols
motion types evolution of holistic psychology psychosophy.

at ftp://users.aol.com/aprioripa/PrimeRadiantImages

Namaste
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 11:19:28 GMT
From: "Lewis Lucas" <LLUCAS@Mercury.GC.PeachNet.EDU>
Subject: Theosophy & young people/membership

It seems to me that the baby boomer generation has been giving the
social political and religious values of their parents a second
look. Many left their famalies and churches to join the peace/love
hippie movement in the '60's. Later faced with the responsibilities of
an adult many returned to the models of the previous generation
finding it impractical to work and raise children "stone free" as
Jimi Hendrix put it.

Theosophy has moral values and principles which could prove to be
much more practical and effective tools for guiding their and their
childrens lives. Within it are the keys which help "make sense" of
the experiences -- both those drug induced and those from the school
of "hard knocks". It is the hope of future generations.

It is our responsibility to find ways to place these ideas before
them and to support these ideas with "unimpeachable facts" drawn from
modern science and the collective experiences we all share.

As I look around me and listen I hear my coworkers talking about
the problems at home -- a sister on drugs a drinking husband
emotional scares from abuse by a previous spouse a son who has
dropped out of school and is continually unemployed a parent with
alzhemier or suffering from depression. With these burdens they come
to work dutifully to earn the money they need to provide food
clothing and shelter. These issues have faced each generation and
each has turned to the leaders of its generation for guidance.

Currently the most prominent voices in our society are telling
them to return to the values idealized in tv and movies from the
'50's which depicted two god-fearing but loving parents with
obedient and respectful children who managed to solve most problems
in 30 minutes -- though some took a little over an hour if it was a
feature film. Rugged individualism paired with a reluctant acceptance
of assistance from a close relative or friend and only after a
sufficent show of pride was the most frequent formula to happiness
with a cursory thank you to the All-mighty.

We are told if we will only attend our local church services
regularly offering our unquestioning devotion our children's open
minds and as much of our paycheck as our guilt will allow us to part
with we will be rewarded in heaven if not in this life. Our children
will grow up to be obedient and respectful our spouse will
faithfully nuture us meeting all our needs here on earth and God or
Jesus will take care of us after death. Oh and if any of this
doesn't work out just right blame it on Satan!

As time and experience march along many are finding this formula
doesn't work for them. And there are all those questions to which the
only reply they can get is "You must have faith." It is through
these cracks the light of thesophy must shine. If we can keep the
fire lit maybe others will be able to find it when the need arises
which is inevitable.

The epistles according to Luke:
Lewis

llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 11:25:16 GMT
From: "Lewis Lucas" <LLUCAS@Mercury.GC.PeachNet.EDU>
Subject: Re: Bye

JRC

Very sorry to hear you will no longer be sharing your
experiences and ideas with us. Have enjoyed reading them and will
miss you.

Lewis
llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 14:16:26 GMT
From: "Lewis Lucas" <LLUCAS@Mercury.GC.PeachNet.EDU>
Subject: Re: Social programs dependence/independence myth

Mike Grenier wrote:
>
> I suppose we could let the social programs consume all federal revenue as
> projected
> for about 15 years from now. At which point when money is no longer
> available we'll
> just have everybody go cold turkey. Hmmm.... I wonder what the karma would
> be then.
> It is because some are seeing the laws of cause & effect that change is being
> proposed today in DC. The answer is not to have lots of people dependent on
> social programs but to have social programs that teach people how NOT to be
> dependent.
>
> In some ways people were wiser in HPB's time.

HPB reportedly was not above offering those less fortunate than
herself assistance. To site one example read the story of her
unselfish sacrifice of her first class ticket aboard the steamer
which brought her to this country so that another woman traveling
with small children would not have to make the trip in bowles of the
ship.

If the American public was not constantly encouraged by its leaders
to resent every penny in taxes collected within the current plans to
balance the budget is a reduction of the onerous tax of over 28
percent on captial gains to a more acceptable -- for the time being --
19+ percent this nation might be able to provide some assistance for
those not fortunate enough to happen upon such a altruistic soul as
HPB. Perhaps in HPB's time there were more like her?!

Lewis

llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 15:40:27 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: theosophy & young people

Lewis Lucas:
> It seems to me that the baby boomer generation has been giving the
>social political and religious values of their parents a second
>look. Many left their famalies and churches to join the peace/love
>hippie movement in the '60's. Later faced with the responsibilities of
>an adult many returned to the models of the previous generation
>finding it impractical to work and raise children "stone free" as
>Jimi Hendrix put it.

Speaking as one of those aging boomers this stereotype of my generation has
been around as long as we have. While I do know people such as you described I
have known many more that had nothing to do with the image the media thrust upon
us in those days. Wishing to splash something sensational across the front
pages and TV screen they played up the few people who were chasing a dream
through drugs and alternative life styles.

Ninety-five percent of the people I went to college with 1968 to 1971 were
middle-class kids trying to pay their tuition with part-time jobs as well as
hitting the books. They just didn't have time for anything else. The wildest
we got was to cruise over to a Greek restaurant for wine after our finals.
Girls only no men allowed at those parties.

As for myself my contribution to the search for alternative lifestyles and
philosophies was joining the Liberal Catholic Church and reading Edgar Cayce
books.

Point is don't believe everything the media throws at ya.

> As time and experience march along many are finding this formula
>doesn't work for them. And there are all those questions to which the
>only reply they can get is "You must have faith." It is through
>these cracks the light of thesophy must shine. If we can keep the
>fire lit maybe others will be able to find it when the need arises
>which is inevitable.

Yes there has to be someone holding out a candle in the darkness. Outreach is
important. It certainly was to me back in the bad old days of my youth.

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 16:03:39 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Astrological Karmic and Genetic Twins

RI:
>However when a person considers the "overall philosophy" to be the result of
>a Divine Dispensation of some sort "synthesis" may just be the throwing away
>of the new perspectives which do not fit very well with the way the
>philosophy was originally articulated. Could this be the underlying reason
>why Paul's book continues to get such a sustained negative reaction from
>certain people? I mean by suggesting that actual human beings were the
>basis for the Masters does it not open up the possibility that the overall
>philosophy-cum-verbiage "conveyed" by them through H.P.B. is not indefectible
>enough to be in the category of Things Not to Be Changed?

As usual you present here much to ponder. The problem with
seeing theosophy as a divine dispensation is that our worldview will
stagnate with theosophy *as we currently understand it.* Sooner or later
we will have an experience called a Significant Emotion Event which
cannot be ignored or forgotten that will not "fit" into our current
understanding.
This will result in either death failure to assimiliate or a change in our
worldview. Thus those of us with relatively flexible minds will grow while
those of us who are more rigid will stagnate and have to grow at a later time.

But the bottom line is that truth cannot be put into words and you can't put
it into a box with a pretty ribbon around it -- for very long. This is true for
theosophy and anything else.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 16:03:42 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Channelling

You make some very good points regarding actual experience
versus book-knowledge Bee. I never thought about this in
terms of channeling before but I suppose you are right. I have
found it to be true in terms of pathworking meditation rituals
and other occult "experiences." Thanks for sharing this.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 16:24:03 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Theosophy & young people/membership

Lewis

Re: if the formula doesn't work out "you must have faith".
The thing is theosophy *does* have answers to live by not only
faith. Just for instance I was taught that if one thing doesn't work
to use my smarts & try something else until
I find something that'll work in a particular situation.

The thing is
if you just talk philisophically about it it has a tendency to sound
boring. Somehow we have to make it sparkle & bring our experience in
the form of examples which mean something in the lives of young
people. For instance I was taught that when you have sex with someone
even if it's just a 01 night stand that act creates a Karma tie to that
person. That makes you think twice I think before you do a 01 night
stand. I don't know whether it'll make you go a different way if
you're 13 & "want a little baby to love real bad" but it's worth a try.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 17:21:00 GMT
From: LLUCAS @ Mercury.GC.PeachNet.EDU "Lewis Lucas" @ internet
Subject: Re: Social programs dependence/independence myth

Mike Grenier wrote:
>
> I suppose we could let the social programs consume all federal revenue as
> projected
> for about 15 years from now. At which point when money is no longer
> available we'll
> just have everybody go cold turkey. Hmmm.... I wonder what the karma would
> be then.
> It is because some are seeing the laws of cause & effect that change is being
> proposed today in DC. The answer is not to have lots of people dependent on
> social programs but to have social programs that teach people how NOT to be
> dependent.
>
> In some ways people were wiser in HPB's time.

HPB reportedly was not above offering those less fortunate than
herself assistance. To site one example read the story of her
unselfish sacrifice of her first class ticket aboard the steamer
which brought her to this country so that another woman traveling
with small children would not have to make the trip in bowles of the
ship.

If the American public was not constantly encouraged by its leaders
to resent every penny in taxes collected within the current plans to
balance the budget is a reduction of the onerous tax of over 28
percent on captial gains to a more acceptable -- for the time being --
19+ percent this nation might be able to provide some assistance for
those not fortunate enough to happen upon such a altruistic soul as
HPB. Perhaps in HPB's time there were more like her?!

Lewis

llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 17:31:46 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Channelling

Hi all
I have just come back from a few days in Auckland attending a Theo exec
meeting and catching up with my daughters. I found quite a lot of mail and
to my surprise channelling has appeared again. I read your two posts with
interest and slept on it.
It seems to me that ideas on a topic and personal experience of it are two
different things. You theorise and expound much energy debating this and
that yet from a 'personal experience' point of view none of what you say
has relevance. It is like myself reading volumes on 'enlightenment' and
pursuing a path to it. I do not 'know' what enlightenment really is apart
from the idea that my reading has given me about the experience which is
far removed from the actual experience itself. If I had experienced it I
would be a different person because of it and I think channelling or rather
my personal experience of channelling has had an effect on my life because
of access to a source of wisdom better that my own whereever it may come
from. It has proved itself reliable over a period of time so I now listen to
it whether it is done aloud to others or comes silently within.
It is impossible to pass on personal experience to another except in
descriptive words and that has many pitfalls. Someone talks to me of their
personal experience of channelling and I have a better idea of what they are
trying to say than if I had no experience myself yet their experience is
not the same as mine no two people do things the same way. You will never
really understand what it feels like to channel until you have done so
yourself and it is the same with most things. We can talk about things and
get an idea what we are talking about and argue for our own theory but
personal experience of any of the spiritual ideas brings a 'knowing' that
passes beyond understanding and partakes of a different realm.
I could rack my brain for ways to explain what it feels like but words are
poor substitutes so I won't. I just ask you to be aware that much that is
said about it has not much bearing on what the actual experience is. I
reckon that would apply to most things so until you have walked a mile in
the other persons shoes be careful of what you say because personal
experience is a fragile thing and brings with it a sort of isolation from
others who do not understand what has been happening.
I have a friend who suffers from depression and I find myself wanting to
shake her into life sometimes but on reflection I try to understand but I
know by my initial reaction that I do not understand how it is for her and
how it feels inside her. I can only try to remember my idea of what it might
be like and approach her from that point of view. It is that same with many
things.
Well that is my cents worth for now.
Love to you all Bee
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 17:43:37 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Re: Theosophy International

>
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises those who subscribe to the the
>three objects of the TS but in a more up to date form based on
>suggestions by John Mead J.Crocker and others of the internet
>community and expressed thus:
>
>1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family without
>discrimination with regard to sex including sexual
>orientation creed class or color.
>
>2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative religion
>theosophy philosophy and the scientific method according to
>individual ability and inclination.
>
>3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized
>human potential and abilities.
>
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is simply a Theosophical Network
>whereby it is sufficient to declare one's sympathy and/or
>allegiance to the three objects and to be registered as having
>done so. No belief system is required *nor assumed to be held*
>by any member.
>
>There are fees no subscriptions although voluntary
>donations and/or contributions *could* be made to specific
>projects or even individuals for particular and specified
>purposes. As THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not
>need rules whether anyone participates in or supports any such
>activity is an entirely personal matter.
>
>The following have so far signed up:
>
>Jerry Hejka-Ekins
>Richtay@aol.com
>Sy Ginsburg

Me too Bee Brown. Sounds ok to me.

>
>Incidentally I found in my archives the Theosophical Network
>Directory for Spring 1989 .....
>
>Travelling hopefully
>
>Alan
>--
>Member Theosophy International.
>Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>-----------------------------------------------
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 22:30:31 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Theosophy International

Alan B:

>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises those who subscribe to the the
>three objects of the TS but in a more up to date form based on
>suggestions by John Mead J.Crocker and others of the internet
>community and expressed thus:

You don't need to say "more up to date form". Whatever objects
are arrived at should simply stand on their own merits and not
have to claim that they are better than what has appeared before.

Also "based on the suggestions by John Mead J. Crocker and others
of the internet community" makes it a personalized thing. I don't
think your intent is to call it the Crocker & Mead T.S.

.. At this point appears a slightly-reworded version of the
three objects of the T.S. ...

>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is simply a Theosophical Network
>whereby it is sufficient to declare one's sympathy and/or
>allegiance to the three objects and to be registered as having
>done so. No belief system is required *nor assumed to be held*
>by any member.

As it is described above TI is basically a T.S. without any
theosophical doctrines. Any belief goes. The agenda follows
that of the Adyar T.S. Let's contrast that with the approach
taken by the Theosophical Network. The Statement of Purpose
published in the Spring 1985 "Theosophical Network Newsletter"
reads:

The purpose of the Theosophical Network is to disseminate
information about Theosophy and theosophical activities and
to facilitate intercommunication between people who share a
common interest in Theosophy.

The goals of the Theosophical Network are a to enhance
communication and encourage interrelating of ideas within
the Theosophical Movement and b to encourage initiative
and cooperation in similar projects and research.

To further these goals the Theosophical Network will a
publish a quarterly newsletter b publish an annual
directory and c provide a computer information service.

While working cooperatively within the Movement the
Theosophical Network is independent and unaffiliated
with any Theosophical or other organization.

The emphasis here is a sharing of a common interest in Theosophy
not in an organization with a stated agenda like promoting
brotherhood the study of comparative religion and the study of
the occult or hidden side of life. The agendas are left up to
the individuals and not part of the Network itself.

>There are fees no subscriptions although voluntary
>donations and/or contributions *could* be made to specific
>projects or even individuals for particular and specified
>purposes.

This part is fine.

>As THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not
>need rules whether anyone participates in or supports any such
>activity is an entirely personal matter.

If it doesn't need rules why the same three objects as the T.S.?
Why not take a broader approach like that taken by the Theosophical
Network?

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 21 Nov 1995 23:14:08 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

Paul:

I'd partly agree with your posting if you substitute the term
"typical T.S. member" for "Theosophist" and "Theosophist" for
"theosopher".

>Theosophists are passive; theosophers active.

To the extent that we allow our lives to be controlled by
external events and don't act with forsight and deliberation
we are passive. To the extent that we take control of our lives
we are active.

In another sense to the extent that we are unensouled and
asleep to the spiritual life we are passive. And the opposite
would be when we have awakened an inner "fire" and have
engaged a spiritual process within that makes wake up to
life for the first time.

>Theosophists see HPB as a unique mediator between humanity and
>the Masters a Messenger with a capital M. Theosophers see HPB
>as a role model someone who sought and found direct contact
>with sources of inspiration and information rather than taking
>anything 3rd hand.

Theosophists see HPB as *one* spiritual teacher in what might
be called the Mahatma-dharma lineage. There is a direct
transmission to her of the teachings of the Masters. But she
is a chela not a guru in this lineage and it is carried by
many individuals.

And she *also* sought and found direct contact with sources
of inspiration and information rather than taking things
third-hand. This is something we all should do. Reading the
dead-letter of the books falls far short of living wisdom.

It is possible to *go beyond the words* into a form of
direct understanding so a study of the books could be
considered a spiritual practice. But each individual is
responsible to take whatever is at hand and make use of it
including the theosophical books. If your house is burning
down you urgently look for something to put out the fire
you don't debate the merits or relative value of different
kinds of fire-fighting materials. The theosophical literature
has a particular use and it's up to the individual to
benefit by it or not.

>Theosophists when presented with a new idea ask "how does
>this fit with what I already know and believe?" Theosophers
>in the same circumstances ask "does this have the ring of
>truth regardless of my preconceptions?"

Both looking for the ring of truth with an unbiased fresh
mind and assimilation and integration of the new idea are
important. We don't learn anything new if we don't take both
steps. Both the new idea and what we knew before have to be
open and at-risk of change as we combine them in a new
understanding of life.

>Theosophists see the Theosophical Movement as central to their
>view of history. Theosophers are centered in the eternal now.

Theosophists don't typically care much for history even of
the Theosophical Movement. They appreciate the fruits of a
fellow student's life and try to kindly overlook character
defects. We do the same thing with classical music where we
enjoy great musical works without concern over the scandalous
nature of the composer's life.

We become centered in the eternal now when we become aware of
the timeless part of our natures of our highest principles.
The sense of "eternal" when applied to time is the same thing
as the sense of "empty" when applied to space or forms. In
either case it's the experience of emptiness or sunyata one
aspect or mode of experiencing life. The other approach being
of course the sense of fullness or absolute reality of life
with resulting compassion and concern for the karma of others.

Having a genuine experience of the eternal now -- and not just
an idea about it -- requires a spiritual practice. Unfortunately
Theosophists find no established practice to follow offered to
them by their various theosophical societies. They have to go
elsewhere to find a practice or have to device an ad hoc
practice apart from any spiritual lineage on their own.

>Theosophists consume theosophers produce.

We are all consumers -- that is required for existence. But life
is interconnected and the byproducts of our existence benefit
others. That means that we also produce. But do we do so
self-consciously? Do we produce to the fullest measure that we
are capable? Not I think until we have an awakened spirituality.
An awakened spirituality regardless of our state of advancement
leads us to become creative forces in the world. Compassion and
selflessness arise out of the spirituality. We produce all of
us each in our own unique way.

>Theosophists analyze; theosophers synthesize.

These are two sides to a process of understanding. Analysis is
a form of intellectual reductionism that reduces things to their
essential components so that we can better understand them.
Carried too far we kill the thing under analysis and lose all
sense of what it is about. Carried to just the right degree we
gain clarity and insight.

With synthesis we find how things fit back together again and
we reestablish an essential unified view of life.

>Just some variations on a theme.

You seem to be giving a "good guy / bad guy" theme where the
negative and less-developed aspects of a theosophical student
go under one term and the positive and more-advanced aspects
under another term. I don't see this dichotomy. We're all
students with various strengths and weaknesses students in
study hall with no guru or teacher to conduct the class. This
is the status quo of theosophical groups as they are currently
being run.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 00:01:57 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

Coherence:

>If all of you will bear with me while I list some quotes
>I am attempting to set the general tone and drift of thought.

I'll make a comment or two about the quotes that you've selected
then respond to your commentary. At least some of the passages
are out-of-context and seem to say something different than the
general discussion that they were taken from. Perhaps you did
not read enough of the messages related to some of the discussions
to find their proper context and ended up misreading them?

>>People leave theosophical groups after finding
>>nothing there that is spiritual nourishing to them

Apart from the esoteric sections of the T.S.'s and ULT there
are no spiritual organizations or approaches outlined as a
path for a student to follow.

>>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.

This is what distinguishes theosophical groups from say
Tibetan Buddhism or Mystery Schools. There is not a
practice that someone undertakes overseen by spiritual
coaches or gurus.

>>There is no well-defined theosophical practice
>>for Westerners to give their whole being to

We have general descriptions of what a Theosophist is
and bits and pieces of spiritual teachings found scattered
in places like Judge's or the Mahatmas' Letters. It is
not organized into a specific practice but is knowledge
presented sometimes by pundits other times by people
that don't really understand it.

>>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.

A lineage of spiritual teachers and teaching coming from
the Buddha a Sixth Rounder is certainly as valuable as
that coming from a pair of Mahatmas Fifth Rounders.

>>I need to put in my 02 cents worth about this self-sacrifice bit
>>because I believe it's overdone in Christianity...I take
>>self-sacrifice to mean that your main purpose in life is to
>>serve other people. But I don't think that it means that you
??need to turn into a masochist & continually deprive yourself.

We first learn to live with the thought of serving others.
This approach has merit. We picture ourselves as separate
individuals in a form of self-sacrifice. But this approach
is a preliminary spiritual practice. The notion of being
*a separate person serving others* needs to go. When there
is simply a sense of the greatest good for all life and
no notion of self-sacrifice we are in the higest form of
service.

>>So that's the way we learn... by moving towards pleasure
>> away from pain.

The pleasure/pain model of motivation is one way of looking
at life. It's possible to perceive things from that standpoint.
But it's a fairly low mode of experience; there are far higher
standpoints to experience life by. I'd say that all the
standpoints are true but they are like different "stations"
on a radio; there are many available for us to tune in.

>>Go be a good girl scout and help old people cross streets
>>and then in your next life continue this way and seven lifetimes
>>on down the road you will be a Chela and have wisdom and etc.

Deferred gratification is a sign of emotional maturity. We
curb our impulse buying in order to achieve more important
financial goals. The same is true of bigger things in life.

>>This kind of stuff doesn't work on most people It doesn't work on
>>me either. I reject the notion that I have to wait 07 lifetimes or even
>>one.

The nature of life cannot be overruled by wishful thinking.
There is *process*. It takes time for a flower bud to grow
to the point where it can open to the sun. Wanting to be open
it finds itself motivated towards that growth. But it cannot
instaneously be the opened flower. That desire if contained
is a good motivating force a power that drives the growth.
If the desire is out of control and gets pathological it
consumes one creates a state of denial and puts one in
disharmony with the actual nature of life at the present moment.

>>I also reject the notion that if I am good I will obtain gnosis
>>or enlightenment or whatever you want to call it. Christianity
>>tells me that if I am good I will go to heaven. Theosophy tells
>>me that if I am good I will have a better life next time around.
>>I fail to see much difference in these two views and reject both

The simplest model for the spiritual is one that teachings us
to accumulate merit by being good. This will lead to a rebirth
in a heaven world or lead to pleasurable surroundings in a
future lifetime. This model is for those still attached to the
notion of pleasure and pain.

>>There simply is no real theosophical path to tread other than that
>>of karma yoga of doing good deeds like some kind of boy/girl
>>scout for many lifetimes - which requires more faith than
>>Christianity when it says to do this and you will gain heaven.

This is simply denial of jnana yoga and most spiritual paths.
These paths exist are true and valid and don't go away nor
cease to benefit many people due to their being denied by some.

>Needless to say I had a rude awakening this morning as I opened my mail. I
>read the various posts containing the above in utter disbelief. Being a
>relative newcomer to this list I have thoroughly enjoyed the intelligent
>discussion of the teachings of Theosophy with participants clearly
>knowledgable and thoughtful on such matters even if I personally disagree
>with certain approaches ideas and conclusions. But I had never seen such a
>concentrated display of thought from people who seem to have completely
>missed the essence of Theosophy.

But perhaps you're missing the value of theos-l? Here you have an
opportunity to practice skillful presentation of the theosophical
doctrines in new and different ways. You can experiment without being
concerned that you'll mislead anyone. There's so much opinion here
that a new person would have a hard time matching the textbook
Theosophy that he may study with what is being said. Have some fun.

>The purpose of "showing off" and "practicing my typing skills" such
>bitchy comments by one wanting to be an Adept in a day by posting a
>lengthy list of quotes from the Key to Theosophy was to point out
>that HPB was showing us the way.

There's a small degree of name-calling and emotions get high at
times. It's just important that you write in a manner that doesn't
inflame things and at the same time ignore comments by others that
might tend to anger you. I get blasted at times but continue writing
because I find merit in doing so. The same is true of most of the
theos-l participants.

>Now I see most people rejecting this Path even though it is pure
>occultism. "Man know thyself" is reiterated constantly and what
>greater power over occult force could there be than from the
>"knowing" the ability to "conquer" our lower natures and make
>then serve us for the benefit of all?

Self-knowledge and self-genesis are highly important. And also
important is as you say conquering our lower natures. But what
does this mean? And how do we describe the process? Could you
put this in your own words like when you might be trying to
explain the process in a classroom setting to someone reading
a passage on the subject? Although there are people on the list
with varying degrees of understand of and agreement with Theosophy
we're all trying to put our understandings in our own words to
become skillful in expressing higher philosophy.

>If there was a hint of understanding of the meaning of true Brotherhood you
>would see the powerful and occult forces that come into play in Duty Charity
>and Selflessness leading to true Self-Consciousness. Isn't this the what the
>Masters epitomize? They have their powers because of the above virtues not
>the other way around.

Here's another possible topic for discussion if you were
to go into a bit more detail about what you mean by Duty
Charity and Selflessness.

>I guess I will continually be amazed at my naivete in these matters
>i.e. what being a Theosophist means to many people.

The problem is with the broad definition of the requirements of
T.S. membership. You can believe anything and call yourself a
Theosophist if you accept brotherhood and keep an open mind regarding
comparative religion and regarding the investigation of the occult.

>All I can say now is Thank You for the insight. I have learned a
>great deal.

There's a lot more to gain from participation in theos-l. In addition
to the opportunity to practice skillful writing you are exposed to
a vast spectrum of differing beliefs and have a chance for immediate
interaction with people of those beliefs. You can see how well various
manners of presenting Theosophy work out and can experiment with
different words to clothe the Teachings. It's both eductional and
a fun laboratory for working with words and practice in the propagation
of Theosophy.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 02:00:59 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Meditation

MEDITATION - something to *do*.

This meditation is based upon a very simple principle: that in
order to truly know and understand ourselves we try to set aside
from our usual awareness everything that is seen to be "not us"
or "not me." The usual method for this meditation is as follows:

First establish awareness in the place where you are. Establish
awareness of _body_ by giving attention to its physical location
the place where it is the chair upon which it sits the
pressures of weight clothing warmth cold air etc. which may
be sensed by it. This is the starting and finishing "place" of
the meditation the body within which our true self or spirit
temporarily resides.

Having established this keen awareness of the physical we ask
ourselves "Is this body with all its sensations truly me?"
Clearly if we can ask the question the answer is "No it is not
me." While retaining as much awareness of the body as is
essential for us to know where we are and what we are doing we
then withdraw our attention from body and simply _let it be_.

It is soon observed that attention goes immediately inward that
thoughts about what we are doing crowd in offering intellectual
attempts to "explain" this or that aspect of whatever may take
our fancy. At this stage we must repeat the question in a more
subtle way asking of the thoughts "Are these thoughts me?"
Again if we can ask the question the answer is clearly "No."

So we proceed by eliminating everything which is _not me_ to
discover or uncover the true "Me" or "I" who is able to ask the
questions in the first place.

At the level of rushing thoughts we may need to withdraw
attention from individual single thoughts over and over again
letting them go in the sense that one may hold something between
the fingers and by opening them let the something drop. Drop
the thoughts.

Thoughts we have observed are inspired by feelings feelings
of like and dislike - "Am I my likes and dislikes?" No.

So the process is really quite simple to understand if difficult
to practice. Am I my body? No so let awareness of body go. Am
I my thoughts? No so let go of thoughts. Am I my feelings? No
so let go of feelings.

The process is simple but difficult to do and has to be worked
at. Subtleties arise such as thoughts about feelings feelings
about thoughts speculations about the practice itself. Even the
smallest observation will promote an immediate reaction of
thought and feeling urging the body to some form of action
which because attention is being consciously held to a minimum
prompts physical restlessness. Let it go - there is nothing for
the body to do in this meditation other than to sit peacefully
and quietly leaving us to get on with the process of discovery.

Some small disciplines can help. A straight-backed chair can be
useful for many people enabling them to sit upright holding the
spine erect. Allowing the eyes to shut once the settling of the
body has been established can be a great help.

Experience has shown that at least twenty minutes may be required
simply to settle the activities within us sufficiently for the
"letting go" to be truly effective and so this meditation
practice is usually undertaken for half an hour the most
favourable results coming if they come during the final ten
minutes.

Finally this form of meditation can be difficult; some may find
it needs to be varied according to individual needs and what is
set out here is essentially a set of guidelines. The important
thing is to work for the principle:

Once I have let go of all that is not I then the true and
indivisible I that I AM remains and thus I may come to KNOW
MYSELF.

NB: This can be practised as a group activity or solo in the
privacy of one's own quiet place - preferably both!

Alan.
--
Member Theosophy International
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 02:05:18 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Theosophy International

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises those who subscribe to the the
three objects of the TS but in a more up to date form based on
suggestions by John Mead J.Crocker and others of the internet
community and expressed thus:

1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family without
discrimination with regard to sex including sexual
orientation creed class or color.

2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative religion
theosophy philosophy and the scientific method according to
individual ability and inclination.

3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized
human potential and abilities.

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is simply a Theosophical Network
whereby it is sufficient to declare one's sympathy and/or
allegiance to the three objects and to be registered as having
done so. No belief system is required *nor assumed to be held*
by any member.

There are fees no subscriptions although voluntary
donations and/or contributions *could* be made to specific
projects or even individuals for particular and specified
purposes. As THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not
need rules whether anyone participates in or supports any such
activity is an entirely personal matter.

The following have so far signed up:

Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Richtay@aol.com
Sy Ginsburg
Liesel F. Deutsch
Bee Brown

Suggestion: Let's use theos-buds to work out where to go next
like Web page mutual aid projects whatever?

Travelling together

Alan
--
Member Theosophy International.
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 05:15:20 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Is "Tradition" really impregnable?

>
> I read JRC's comments with some empathy for obvious reasons
> but also some concern that theos-l may be taken as
> representative of the entire Theosophical movement when it is
> not.
>
> This will be somewhat rambling and personal but relevant I
> hope. Bill Clinton's mother used to say that she and her sons
> shared a characteristic: if any of them were in a room with 100
> people 99 of whom adored them and 01 who hated them they'd
> spent 100% of their time worrying about the 01 person. While
> allowing that more than 1% of Theosophists-- perhaps 10%-- feel
> something for my books that walks and talks like
> hate although of course they'd deny that it IS hate-- I
> must admit that the amount of time I've spent worrying about
> them has been grossly disproportionate to their numbers. In a
> way it is unfair to the great majority of FTS I've known who have shown
> openness and encouragement for me to give up on the whole
> movement because of a few. But why are those few so vivid in
> my thoughts and feelings and the many seem to fade into the
> background? Because people who hate a book are 100 times more
> likely to express their reaction to an author than are people
> who like it perhaps. Similarly I'd suggest that the silent
> majority are more supportive of JRC than he realizes.
>
> JRC has had bad experiences here and elsewhere with
> Theosophists who tend to pooh-pooh or at best patronize
> discussion of inner experience. Not knowing about the Montana
> Theosophists I can only guess that they are not any more
> dogmatic than the ones here in the East. Which means if my
> observation is correct that no more than one in ten is a
> know-it-all out to stifle and humiliate anyone with new and
> different perspectives. Unfortunately human nature being what
> it is the other nine are not very likely to challenge that one
> authoritarian dogmatist and may thus be misinterpreted as
> supporting him/her. This is especially likely when the
> dogmatist is a member of long standing well-connected
> articulate and inexhaustible. People go along to get along
> not because they agree.
>
> The good news is that even the worst offenders in this regard
> have some glimmering of understanding that the Movement has
> some bad habits to unlearn and that the reflex of stifling
> condescending humiliating etc. is a long-term bad habit. But
> while it's easy to recognize when it's directed
> against us it's also horribly easy to direct the same energy
> at others with blithe disregard for its destructiveness.
>
> So JRC the bottom line is that *most* Theosophists have room
> for you and your experiences in their hearts and minds. Those
> who have excluded you in various ways are excluders by habit
> and it's nothing personal. You may be right that the
> rigidity and dogmatism has gone too far to be reversed; there
> may be too much resistance to creativity to make it worthwhile
> to stay. But theos-l is a self-selected microcosm and
> therefore not a very accurate mirror of the overall Movement
> IMHO.
>
> Perhaps those on theos-l who regret JRC's departure might let
> him know by private email since he won't be reading the list.
>
> Namaste
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 06:30:28 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: discussion

Liesel:
>I thought of 02 items for discussion to get the ball rolling:

>1. Meditating is cheaper than smoking pot.

So true. And you can meditate anywhere and at almost anytime even on public
transit.

>2. If Annie Besant were alive today would they still put her in jail?

My memory fails me. When and why was she in jail?
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 06:47:19 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Steiner schools

KPJ:
>A friend who is managing editor of Education Week published in
>Washington sent me two recent issues because the second
>contains the publication's first ever mention of HPB. It is in
>a letter to the editor written in response to a glowing article
>the previous week about a Waldorf School. . .

I just read this post today so it has taken a while.

Is there much difference between a school that promotes the Steiner view and any
Roman Catholic school?

I remember attending a girls Catholic high school where all kinds of crazy stuff
was taught but it was tolerated because everyone was Catholic and had Catholic
parents. Even if a parent didn't believe a particular idea themselves they
kept their mouths shut because they wanted their kid in a nice safe parochial
high school. As opposed to the public one that had had gangs and bullets
whizzing over your head.

Perhaps the gentleman who wrote the letter needs to find a school for his
children that fits his viewpoint.

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 07:22:44 GMT
From: "Lewis Lucas" <LLUCAS@Mercury.GC.PeachNet.EDU>
Subject: Re: theosophy & young people

Ann wrote:
> Speaking as one of those aging boomers this stereotype of my generation has
> been around as long as we have. While I do know people such as you described
> I have known many more that had nothing to do with the image the media thrust
> upon us in those days. Wishing to splash something sensational across the
> front pages and TV screen they played up the few people who were chasing a
> dream through drugs and alternative life styles.
>
> Ninety-five percent of the people I went to college with 1968 to 1971 were
> middle-class kids trying to pay their tuition with part-time jobs as well as
> hitting the books. They just didn't have time for anything else. The wildest
> we got was to cruise over to a Greek restaurant for wine after our finals.
> Girls only no men allowed at those parties.
>
> As for myself my contribution to the search for alternative lifestyles and
> philosophies was joining the Liberal Catholic Church and reading Edgar Cayce
> books.
>
> Point is don't believe everything the media throws at ya.
>
Lewis:

So Ann did those of you who don't fit the sterotype maintain
your religious/philosophical associations of your parent's
generation? What prompted you to "search for alternative lifestyles
and philosophies"?

llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 07:27:22 GMT
From: "Lewis Lucas" <LLUCAS@Mercury.GC.PeachNet.EDU>
Subject: Re: Meditation

Thanks Alan. I have been looking for something to give my 17 year-
old daughter. Printed it and will pass along. Love to see her learn
to practice meditation.

Lewis
llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 07:51:43 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Taking Heaven by Storm

Me I think:
>>Go be a good girl scout and help old people cross streets
>>and then in your next life continue this way and seven lifetimes
>>on down the road you will be a Chela and have wisdom and etc.

Eldon:
>Deferred gratification is a sign of emotional maturity. We
>curb our impulse buying in order to achieve more important
>financial goals. The same is true of bigger things in life.

Your first statement is absolutely correct. However
I can't see that it applies to this situation. To say that we will
not TRY in this life but will wait until a later life is the lazy
albeit safe road to take IMHO that has no hope of working.
The spiritual Path is only gained in a measure proportionate to
our effort -- this effort being expended in this or future lives or
both. In other words we each have a choice now in this life to
take the bull by the horns and TRY or to do good deeds and be
a nice person and expend the necessary effort in a future life.
What I have been trying to say for some time is that the goal will
never be attained without the sincere effort being made and if we
truly desire to wait until the next life then this very desire will
carry over to that next life and we will once again wait and
so on forever. If we have the desire to Tread the Path now in this
life then and only then will this desire carry over to our next
life and we can take up where we left off. I am sorry Eldon
but Heaven can only be taken by storm not in bits and pieces
although we can certainly approach it in degrees that way but
any incremental approach to infinity will never actually get us there
will it?.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 08:35:41 GMT
From: "john.d.tullis" <john.d.tullis@ac.com>
Subject: Re: Social programs dependence/independence myth

Regarding the comments below about the "onerous tax of over 28
percent on capital gains" I would like to comment as follows:
1 The total percentage of taxes collected from capital gains is not significant
compared to taxes collected from other sources income tax and corporate tax.
2 Encouraging people with money to invest in stock means that corporations
have a source of funding to invest in factories machine tools computers etc.
3 Factories need workers machine tools need operators computers need
people to program and repair and run them.
4 Therefore money invested in stock issues eventually equals more jobs.
5 Reducing capital gains taxes means that people who invest in stocks
make more money. People allocate their investments in the areas that offer
them the greatest return. If they make more from stocks than bonds real estate
or other asset allocations they will reinvest more money in stocks.
6 Therefore reducing capital gains taxes means that in general people
investing in stocks will tend to reinvest their gains in stocks.
7 See items 02 through 04 again.

Therefore in conclusion I would argue that reducing capital gains taxes tends
to
be an indirect but causal influence on job creation. The best thing for poor
people is more opportunities for jobs.

Therefore in the specific case of capital gains taxation the optimal way
to help the poor is not to tax capital gains and then through an inefficient
bureaucracy which expends a large portion of those taxes on federal salaries
and paperwork pass the remaining funds directly to the poor.

The optimal way is to not tax capital gains and let the result be availability
of jobs.

** NOTE ** - this does not mean that I advocate doing away with the "safety net"
for the poor - just that in this specific example taxing capital gains results
in a net
negative for the poor.

Its like eating your seed corn!

Regards
John
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 09:10:35 GMT
From: RIhle@aol.com
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

ET to Paul

You seem to be giving a "good guy / bad guy" theme where the
negative and less-developed aspects of a theosophical student
go under one term and the positive and more-advanced aspects
under another term. I don't see this dichotomy. We're all
students with various strengths and weaknesses students in
study hall with no guru or teacher to conduct the class. This
is the status quo of theosophical groups as they are currently
being run.

RI

Or perhaps this is exactly the insult which is in most need of redress. Of
all the things about organized Theosophy which have amazed me over the years
none has amazed me more than this: that it begins with a call to the
Master-Wisdom in each of us and that it ends only after most of those who
remain have been reduced to the status of lowly students in a study hall.

Again: "I like to think of a theosopher as a person whose own transcendental
progress has resulted in at least some personal knowledge of certain things
otherwise
inaccessible." Who else really belongs in a theosophical society? Someone
whose purpose is merely to study and perhaps worship those figures distant
in time and space who had such progress and knowledge? No what individuals
already know for themselves but can not yet satisfactorily say is the whole
and entire reason theosophers seek one another out in societies and out of
societies. *Theosophist* would be a good term for those who just sort of
like the idea of the real thing.

Let us meet as kings and queens or not at all. . . .

I like Paul's attitude actually.

Richard Ihle
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 12:23:36 GMT
From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com>
Subject: Genetics and Spirituality and BYE

I am sorry if JRC is really going to unsubscribe. I feel that theos-l is not
set in stone but is evolving. If it seems sometimes to focus on historical
details and intense subtle analysis this is because this is what some want at
the time. Other times it seems more flexible and open to almost outright
silliness dribble boxes quiet rooms and other in jokes.

I tend toward intense speculation and have learned to take and enjoy the
comments of most as constructive criticism to bring me back to the "foundations
of occultism" and not as personal attacks. I think RI Leisel Ann and others
have started threads and until further notice if any anyone can add to the
directions of this list. I'm sure there are other places to discuss the hot
topics of the day but not on such a high level as can go on here IMHO.

Bye for now JRC
---------------------------
A case in point is my introduction of genetics. I have thought about this for a
long time but have not allowed the topic really careful thought or criticism.
I think Eldon and others have offered needed differing more traditional
perspective. Also I realize there is the problem as Eldon noticed that the
physical genes carry information more than they CAUSE everything. The genes
seem to be more passive than active really but still have an obvious effect on
the functioning of the physical emotional and intellectual vehicles.

This is one of the themes of Ken Wilber actually He criticizes attempts to
seem quantum indeterminacy as a validation for Hindu and Budhist views about
maya and the illusory nature of reality and the fact that the mind can effect at
a distance the results of a measurement of particle speed or placement. He is
very critical that quantum physics says a lot about physics but very little
about the next step up- biology- much less unltimate spiritual reality. But the
mind is quick to make these assupmtions and jumps between the levels.

Thus genetic research will probably have a lot to say about biological reality
but speculation upon its meaning as causation from below is difficult to prove
especially on the effects on spritual levels.

However it does seem that man is the thinking animal and the spiritual animal
and seems to be born that way. If we didn't have language we would create it
anew. If we didn't have a God or religion we would create it anew wherever or
whenever humans appear.

And on the wild speculative side: I thought I read somewhere that we have five
fingers and in the sixth round we will have six fingers and enlarged craniums
and frail bodies - this seems to be the general description of the aliens known
as the Greys. Are they from globes that are near us occultly but obscured.
Are they sixth rounders? Could we genetically engineer sixth or seventh
rounders? What would we become to them? Are the Masters sixth rounders born
prematurely?

Namaste

Keith Price
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 12:46:03 GMT
From: Peter Walstra <pwalstra@pi.net>
Subject: RE: Attracting Younger Individuals

><Recently Dr. Anton Lysy Director of Olcott Institute visited our lodge
>and I attended one of his lectures. His presentation was excellent and
>was very appreciated by the audience present. What was noticeable was that
>almost all present were around middle age and older and none from the younger
>generation. I have seen a similar situation in some other lodges in this part
>of the country. I do not know if this is peculiar to this part of the country
>or it is generally the case with rest of the lodges. I think we all should put
>our heads together and come up with
>creative ideas to attract younger generation to Theosophy. If not we can see a
>day when most of the current members pass away what may be left will be a
>shell sitting on a lot of money and property and the TPH.
>yberspace being a great equalizer and a place where a lot of younger generation
>browse we may be able to take advantage of their presence in presenting
>Theosophy and make them interested in it. Any ideas? MK Ramadoss >
>
>Ideas no ... but would it help to know that I am 31 years old? Does that
>qualify as the younger generation? There may be more of us than you think
>particularly with the coming of the new Millenium.
>

IMHO anyone below 40 can be seen as part of the younger generation considering
the general age of people in theosophical circles I know of. Friends of about
my age 26 sometimes have affinity with theosophy but somehow a theosophical
society is not exactly what they are looking for. Not very suprising because
there is a rather large barrier to take when approaching a small society with
so many older people and with lectures as the default means for communication.
I'm speaking here about things in Holland but it doesn't seem to be much
different elsewhere...

Certainly Internet communication has a lot of potential. We could indeed
be surprised to see the numbers of young individuals with spiritual interests
rising very quickly.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 12:53:44 GMT
From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com>
Subject: Wilber on Sex Ecology and Spirituality

I just picked up Ken Wilber's new book "Sex Ecology and Spirituality". I
purused it voraciously. I highly recommend it as it is a very serious attempt
to reintroduce spiritual issues into academic type discussions regarding issues
usually termed off limits i.e. sex politics and religion see title. Actually
there's no steamy sex it's about GENDER ecofeminism and the Gaia hypothesis
and God vs. Goddess etc.

But it is thorough about a fifth of the book must be notes well researched
enough to keep you chasing footnotes for years if you cared. He is demanding
that spirit unity the One universal consiousness as plentiude and emptiness
be given a hearing in publice. Wow! He has worked hard to get his chance and I
hope it works! I must say I am a envious. He is doing what many would attempt.

But I warned you! Nary a mention of such suspected nut cases as Blavatsky et
al. George Bateson and Bertanffly yes. Blavatsky no! Yet theosophy seems to
ooze from every page. However he is more directly imitating Hegel's
"Phenemonolgy of Spirit" as he says so more or less.

He seems to want to be the Hegel of the 20th century. Does he make it? We will
have to wait for two more lengthy tomes portentously titled; 'KOSMOS'.

He has a critical eye on a lot of politically correct issues like feminism
ecology and new age psychology.
He thinks people are trying to jump past rationality in an effort for easy
answer to things like "multiculturalism".
How can we honor a bunch of supersticious cultures that would gladly burn us
and our noble tolerance at the stake??

Also it is systematic and schematic more charts that simplify and
cross-reference things than you would believe. Hegel wanted to explain God's
Spirit's working plan through time. Wilber maps the whole universe on a
Cartesian Coordinate system. Give me a break!

If Hegel had his Marx and Nietsche had his Hitler will Wilber have his
World-Teacher or will we just all zone out in a planetary meditation-liberation?
Hmmm...

Check his picture. I can't help thinking he's Hegel with a Zen hair-do!

Namaste

Keith Price
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 16:42:26 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Thanks for the Help

I have been on the Internet for a couple of months and it was not
till a few weeks ago that I finally located Theos-L. I had a vague
recollection that there was a news group on the cyberspace dealing with
Theosophy. It was a chance conversation with one of the participants in
Theos-L who is a member of TSA that I did find out the specifics of
subscribing to the newsgroup. The individual immediately faxed me one page
document giving all the information needed to subscribe and I joined you all
and I have enjoyed and greatly benefitted.

I owe a lot of thanks and gratitude to this individual. No need to
mention the good Karma he has earned by doing the good deed.

There are two reasons that I am posting this here. Firstly I felt
that I should publically acknowledge by debt of gratitute. Secondly to
point out that since even I who has been around Theosophy for some time
had difficulty in finding out newsgroup info we have to find out a better
way for others who may be currently or potentially interested in Theosophy
to find out about Theos-L easily and quickly.

The second is very important. I sent a e-mail msg in Sep 05
1995 to TSA in Wheaton theos@netcom.com and either it was not received
which I doubt or must have fallen thru the cracks of the administration
since I never received any reply. May be a reply was sent and was lost in
cyberspace which I highly doubt. This is not a complaint. We may be missing
opportunities by not promptly leading inquirers to the right spot in cyberspace.

Happy Thanksgiving.

...Doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 20:56:03 GMT
From: "Lewis Lucas" <LLUCAS@Mercury.GC.PeachNet.EDU>
Subject: Re: Steiner schools

Ann wrote:

> Is there much difference between a school that promotes the Steiner
> view and any Roman Catholic school?
>
Lewis: Good point Ann. We have several schools run by "Christians"
who are busily indoctrinating all the children they can get their
hands on. But doesn't that bother you?

> I remember attending a girls Catholic high school where all kinds of crazy
> stuff was taught but it was tolerated because everyone was Catholic and
> had Catholic parents. Even if a parent didn't believe a particular idea
> themselves they kept their mouths shut because they wanted their kid in
> a nice safe parochial high school. As opposed to the public one that had
> had gangs and bullets whizzing over your head.
>
> Perhaps the gentleman who wrote the letter needs to find a school for his
> children that fits his viewpoint.
>
> - ann
>
Lewis: I have watched my sister-in-law's children change over the
past several years seeing them only at holidays. Their father did
just as you suggest and moved his family to Texas so he could send
his kids to his christain sects school. It seems like a crime the way
those kids have been ruined. They were kind affectionate kids only a
few years ago. Now they appear quite sullen and supicious of
everyone. They have been isolated from others who might question the
ideas they are being taught including their grandparents. I don't
know if encouraging the parochalism of our schools is such a good
idea.
llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 21:01:06 GMT
From: "Lewis Lucas" <LLUCAS@Mercury.GC.PeachNet.EDU>
Subject: Re: Annie Besant in jail

Ann

It was her efforts to relieve the terrible working conditions of
the "match girls" in London which landed her in jail.

John Tullis

Another example of the problem of unbridled selfishness and
greed.llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 21:12:27 GMT
From: "Lewis Lucas" <LLUCAS@Mercury.GC.PeachNet.EDU>
Subject: Re: Taking Heaven by Storm

> Eldon:
> >Deferred gratification is a sign of emotional maturity. We
> >curb our impulse buying in order to achieve more important
> >financial goals. The same is true of bigger things in life.

Jerry S.:
>
> Your first statement is absolutely correct. However
> I can't see that it applies to this situation. To say that we will
> not TRY in this life but will wait until a later life is the lazy
> albeit safe road to take IMHO that has no hope of working.
> The spiritual Path is only gained in a measure proportionate to
> our effort -- this effort being expended in this or future lives or
> both. In other words we each have a choice now in this life to
> take the bull by the horns and TRY or to do good deeds and be
> a nice person and expend the necessary effort in a future life.
> What I have been trying to say for some time is that the goal will
> never be attained without the sincere effort being made and if we
> truly desire to wait until the next life then this very desire will
> carry over to that next life and we will once again wait and
> so on forever. If we have the desire to Tread the Path now in this
> life then and only then will this desire carry over to our next
> life and we can take up where we left off. I am sorry Eldon
> but Heaven can only be taken by storm not in bits and pieces
> although we can certainly approach it in degrees that way but
> any incremental approach to infinity will never actually get us there
> will it?.
>
> Jerry S.
Lewis:

Good point Jerry. Reminded me of this quote from Mahatma Letters
to A.P. Sinnett:

"The fact is that to the last and supreme initation every chela -
- and even some adepts -- is left to his own device and counsel. We
have to fight our own battles and the familiar adage -- 'the adept
*becomes* he is *not made*' is true to the letter."

K.H.
M.L.309

llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 21:30:51 GMT
From: "Lewis Lucas" <LLUCAS@Mercury.GC.PeachNet.EDU>
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

> RI

> <snip>...

> Again: "I like to think of a theosopher as a person whose own transcendental
> progress has resulted in at least some personal knowledge of certain things
> otherwise
> inaccessible." Who else really belongs in a theosophical society?

Lewis:

At the risk of becoming the target of that great wit of yours I
wonder if you are familiar with the idea that we can learn from
others' experiences as well as our own? Or that we can improve
ourselves by association in thought word or deed with those who
already possess the virtues we seek?

Someone
> whose purpose is merely to study and perhaps worship those figures distant
> in time and space who had such progress and knowledge? No what individuals
> already know for themselves but can not yet satisfactorily say is the whole
> and entire reason theosophers seek one another out in societies and out of
> societies. *Theosophist* would be a good term for those who just sort of
> like the idea of the real thing.
>
> Let us meet as kings and queens or not at all. . . .
>
Lewis: Sounds very Leo-like. Once read a discription of a Leo as one
who keenly senses the royal nature of the soul and demands the same
respect accorded any monarch. However they also magnanimously confer
that respect upon all they meet.

llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 23:05:39 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: Theosophy International

Eldon:
>
> As it is described ..... TI is basically a T.S. without any
> theosophical doctrines. Any belief goes. The agenda follows
> that of the Adyar T.S.

Any reason why it should not? It also updates it and at the
same time remains in sympathy with the *original* unitary TS of
1875 - Adyar does not need to come into it. Mind you if the
International President wants to sign up :-

> Let's contrast that with the approach
> taken by the Theosophical Network. The Statement of Purpose
> published in the Spring 1985 "Theosophical Network Newsletter"
> reads:
>
> The purpose of the Theosophical Network is to disseminate
> information about Theosophy and theosophical activities and
> to facilitate intercommunication between people who share a
> common interest in Theosophy.
>
> The goals of the Theosophical Network are a to enhance
> communication and encourage interrelating of ideas within
> the Theosophical Movement and b to encourage initiative
> and cooperation in similar projects and research.
>
> To further these goals the Theosophical Network will a
> publish a quarterly newsletter b publish an annual
> directory and c provide a computer information service.
>
> While working cooperatively within the Movement the
> Theosophical Network is independent and unaffiliated
> with any Theosophical or other organization.

The 1875 TS would not have quarreled with most of this I
shoudn't think. Trouble is those who came after *did*.

> >There are fees no subscriptions although voluntary
> >donations and/or contributions *could* be made to specific
> >projects or even individuals for particular and specified
> >purposes.
>
> This part is fine.

Yep.

> >As THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not
> >need rules whether anyone participates in or supports any such
> >activity is an entirely personal matter.
>
> If it doesn't need rules why the same three objects as the T.S.?
> Why not take a broader approach like that taken by the Theosophical
> Network?

Not the same. Similar.

Be logical: If it doesn't need rules and doesn't define
objects it doesn't have any reason to exist. From what I have
seen in "official" theosophical publications in recent times
the same approach as the ~Network~ is now the regular approach.

Is the Theosophical Network still networking? If so I have
seen no sign of it. The broad-based "Adyar" and I am told
ULT approach is still going but it could do with a booster
shot or two.

Quiting from the Autumn 1989 issue of the ~Theosophical
Network~:

"The Network is dedicated to Theosophy as outlined in the Mahatma
Letters to A.P.Sinnett and the writings of H.P.Blavatsky."

That's too narrow a prescription for me as it is for a number
of other theosophically-minded folk.

I thought we had all moved on from the "Back to Blavatsky"
movement? TI can incorporate such a viewpoint however. The
reverse clearly is not the case. I rest mine.

Alan.
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 23:30:24 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

> Richard's comments about Theosophists and theosophers resonate
> with how I've been feeling about the former. Herewith some
> contrasts:
>
> Theosophists are passive; theosophers active.
>
> Theosophists see HPB as a unique mediator between humanity and
> the Masters a Messenger with a capital M. Theosophers see HPB
> as a role model someone who sought and found direct contact
> with sources of inspiration and information rather than taking
> anything 3rd hand.
>
> Theosophists when presented with a new idea ask "how does
> this fit with what I already know and believe?" Theosophers
> in the same circumstances ask "does this have the ring of
> truth regardless of my preconceptions?"
>
> Theosophists see the Theosophical Movement as central to their
> view of history. Theosophers are centered in the eternal now.
>
> Theosophists consume theosophers produce.
>
> Theosophists analyze; theosophers synthesize.
>
> Just some variations on a theme.

I guess I'm a theosopher then! Well trying to be.

Alan
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 23:41:57 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Genetics and Spirituality

> Are the Masters sixth rounders born
> prematurely?
>
> Namaste
>
> Keith Price

Modesty forbids a direct reply ......

Alan :-
--
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 22 Nov 1995 23:58:37 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Attracting Younger Individuals

At 114800 AM 11/21/95 -0500 Donna_Faber wrote:

>Ideas no ... but would it help to know that I am 31 years old? Does that
>qualify as the younger generation? There may be more of us than you think
>particularly with the coming of the new Millenium.

Sure. Glad to see your reply. The future is in the hands of younger
generation. I have seen from time to time individuals in their late teens
and early twenties in some lectures and programs of TS Lodges.

Keep up your participation in Theos-L.

.Doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 00:47:42 GMT
From: "Murray Stentiford Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"
Subject: JRC's departure

Hi everybody. I haven't left theos-l etc but have just been unable to
put time into writing for the list for several weeks.

I'm sorry to see that JRC is withdrawing. His insights and way of expression
have opened doors onto new ways of thinking for me yet are thoroughly
realistic.

Perhaps he will consider becoming active again in the near future.
I certainly hope so.

I shall send a copy of this to him privately.

Murray Stentiford
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 04:44:24 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

At 110200 AM 11/23/95 -0500 RIhle wrote:
>
>No we all showed up as theosophers but were willing to call ourselves
>"theosophists" as long as we thought that term included our own spiritual
>advancement and the unique perspectives and articulations which necessarily
>flow from it. If we find however that we are more and more being
>"screened" for orthodoxy and "graded" for book-knowledge *theosophers* some
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of us shall be again until things change.

I hope this does not happen. The strength of Theosophy has always
been lack of orthodoxy and non requirement of any book knowledge. In
practice there is going to be some who cannot get out of their shell of
screening others and grading for book knowledge due perhaps to long
standing habit.

After all any amount of orthodoxy and book knowledge is of no
substitute for implementation of theosophical knowledge in our minute to
minute action with the welfare of our fellow beings as the foundation. If
all the knowledge and information does not aid in helping our fellow beings
they are just another intellectual exercise satisfying the self.

...doss
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 04:54:07 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Parochial Schools

At 113100 AM 11/23/95 -0500 Ann wrote:
>>Lewis: Good point Ann. We have several schools run by "Christians"
>>who are busily indoctrinating all the children they can get their
>>hands on. But doesn't that bother you?
>
>It particularly bothers me considering I spent four years of my teen years
>stuck in a dark medieval high school. When I graduated and went to the
>University of Illinois I thought I'd died and went to "heaven". But these
>places do soothe the minds of parents who believe their children are "on the
>right track" by going there.
>

I guess blind indoctrination is what is generally accepted as you do
not have to think. Just believe. Thinking takes time and energy.

Some months ago one of the 08 yr old child of one of my co-workers
started questioning the what was told at their church about what happens to
everone after death. To the little boy who was obviously using his logic
it did not make sense. So I told the boy's mother to let me speak to the
child for about 1/2 hour and told her I could give a possible hypothesis
based on Theosophy. I told her no one can be certain as what we all have
is not first hand knowledge. The mother was frightened that if her child
spoke with me he might end up completely rejecting what the parents and the
church wanted him to believe. I never had a chance to talk to the child.

...doss

>>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 06:01:11 GMT
From: RIhle@aol.com
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

ET to Paul

You seem to be giving a "good guy / bad guy" theme where the
negative and less-developed aspects of a theosophical student
go under one term and the positive and more-advanced aspects
under another term. I don't see this dichotomy. We're all
students with various strengths and weaknesses students in
study hall with no guru or teacher to conduct the class. This
is the status quo of theosophical groups as they are currently
being run.

RI

Or perhaps that is exactly the unintentional insult most in need of redress.
Of the things about organized Theosophy which have caused me to shake my
head over the years few have produced a wider arc than this: that it begins
by calling to the Master-Wisdom in each of us and that it ends by reducing us
to the status of lowly students in a study hall.

One becomes a Jehovah's Witness and is instantly transformed enough to go
door to door in the new and glorious raiment of God's Chosen; one becomes a
"Theosophist" and even the good suit we arrived in can no longer be worn
until each thread is properly footnoted and cross-referenced to some garment
someone supposedly far more worthy than we used to wear. We are considered
to be on our best best behavior when we simply "study"; on our worst when we
speak from personal authority.

If the term *theosopher* has to be another coin put into circulation because
the old coin *theosophist* no longer gives much if any recognition to an
individual's "own transcendental progress which has resulted in at least some
personal knowledge of things otherwise inaccessible" so be it. Who else
could a theosophical society be for anyway? Someone who shows up on
Theosophy's doorstep so empty-handed that his or her only excuse for being
there could be the study and perhaps worship of dead people who had such
progress and resulting knowledge?

No we all showed up as theosophers but were willing to call ourselves
"theosophists" as long as we thought that term included our own spiritual
advancement and the unique perspectives and articulations which necessarily
flow from it. If we find however that we are more and more being
"screened" for orthodoxy and "graded" for book-knowledge *theosophers* some
of us shall be again until things change.

In the meantime let us leave the atmosphere of the study hall and meet as
kings and queens or not at all. . . .

I like Paul's attitude actually.

Richard Ihle
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 06:24:48 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Parochial Schools

>Lewis: Good point Ann. We have several schools run by "Christians"
>who are busily indoctrinating all the children they can get their
>hands on. But doesn't that bother you?

It particularly bothers me considering I spent four years of my teen years
stuck in a dark medieval high school. When I graduated and went to the
University of Illinois I thought I'd died and went to "heaven". But these
places do soothe the minds of parents who believe their children are "on the
right track" by going there.

>Lewis: I have watched my sister-in-law's children change over the
>past several years seeing them only at holidays. Their father did
>just as you suggest and moved his family to Texas so he could send
>his kids to his christain sects school. It seems like a crime the way
>those kids have been ruined. They were kind affectionate kids only a
>few years ago. Now they appear quite sullen and supicious of
>everyone. They have been isolated from others who might question the
>ideas they are being taught including their grandparents. I don't
>know if encouraging the parochalism of our schools is such a good
>idea.

Not from the angle we are looking at it but to your brother's view it is the
solution. Just like the Catholic church there is a notion that if you raise
and indoctrinate children with the rules and philosophy of a particular
religious sect then they will continue on that path till the day they die also
teaching their offspring to believe the same ideas. In my experience this is
not the case. Many people who are raised as Catholics drop out from the church
in their twenties. If the philosophy never made sense to them in the first
place they are never going to continue with it.

Nothing is ever so neat and simple as people think. In their blindness many
may try to sqeeze their offspring down a certain religious path not realizing
these people have past life memories that are stronger than any conditioning
they are receiving in this life. They also have their own personalities that
may not be suited to their parents' religion.

As you can imagine I can talk about this because I lived through it. I came
from a Eastern European Roman Catholic family. I felt like I slept through my
catechism classes just waiting to grab that first Edgar Cayce book. I'd
finally found something that I could really believe in. Where did that strong
@catechism classes just waiting to grab that first Edgar Cayce book. I'd
feeling come from? Certainly not from my genetic background or rigorous
religious training. Where DOES it come from?

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 09:49:24 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: parochial schools

At 035500 PM 11/23/95 -0500 Ann wrote:
>Doss:
>> I guess blind indoctrination is what is generally accepted as you do
>>not have to think. Just believe. Thinking takes time and energy.
>
>Yes and many religous structures do not condone individual thinking. It is
>considered hazardous especially if all the members came to different
>conclusions about various spiritual and practical aspects of life. That's what
>got the gnostics into trouble. Thinking against the accepted norm can be
>dangerous to your salvation . . . and your physical form.
>
> > Some months ago one of the 08 yr old child of one of my co-workers
>>started questioning the what was told at their church about what happens to
>>everone after death. To the little boy who was obviously using his logic
>>it did not make sense. So I told the boy's mother to let me speak to the
>>child for about 1/2 hour and told her I could give a possible hypothesis
>>based on Theosophy. I told her no one can be certain as what we all have
>>is not first hand knowledge. The mother was frightened that if her child
>>spoke with me he might end up completely rejecting what the parents and the
>>church wanted him to believe. I never had a chance to talk to the child.
>
>As children we are pretty much "owned" by our parents and there is little that
>can be done about it. It is only when we are past twenty-one and able to
>financially support our own chosen lifestyle that we can be free to think and
>believe what we wish. Since the child you mentioned is so interested in life
>after death at an early age maybe he will explore it later when he is
older and
>freer to come to his own conclusions and do his own research.
>
>- ann

Ann:

You are right. The parents of child mentioned above are very good
and honest people and are not of the rigid "fundamentalist" type and hence I
am confident that when the child grows up he is going to explore for
himself as to what is out there. Actually the husband's family are Roman
Catholic and the wife is Baptist or Methodist. The family goes to a
Methodist church. I inquired of the mother how they chose the particular
church I was told that they liked the pastor and his style. So they are
open minded to a degree. I am optimistic.

..doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 10:52:28 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: parochial schools

Doss:
> I guess blind indoctrination is what is generally accepted as you do
>not have to think. Just believe. Thinking takes time and energy.

Yes and many religous structures do not condone individual thinking. It is
considered hazardous especially if all the members came to different
conclusions about various spiritual and practical aspects of life. That's what
got the gnostics into trouble. Thinking against the accepted norm can be
dangerous to your salvation . . . and your physical form.

> Some months ago one of the 08 yr old child of one of my co-workers
>started questioning the what was told at their church about what happens to
>everone after death. To the little boy who was obviously using his logic
>it did not make sense. So I told the boy's mother to let me speak to the
>child for about 1/2 hour and told her I could give a possible hypothesis
>based on Theosophy. I told her no one can be certain as what we all have
>is not first hand knowledge. The mother was frightened that if her child
>spoke with me he might end up completely rejecting what the parents and the
>church wanted him to believe. I never had a chance to talk to the child.

As children we are pretty much "owned" by our parents and there is little that
can be done about it. It is only when we are past twenty-one and able to
financially support our own chosen lifestyle that we can be free to think and
believe what we wish. Since the child you mentioned is so interested in life
after death at an early age maybe he will explore it later when he is older and
freer to come to his own conclusions and do his own research.

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 12:13:32 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: parochial schools

Ann

Thinking against the accepted norm is frowned upon in many circles
not only religious ones. People like to stay in their accustomed rut.

I've had similar experiences with other people's children. Someone
didn't know how to handle a grammar school aged child who very evidently
had some kind of ESP. I asked to be able to talk to him but never got a
chance. People just like to take care of their own kids & never mind
whether you have something constructive to contribute or not. I've
gotten so I seldom give parents advice anymore or not at all. It's
just not wanted. Besides suppose you really say something wrong.
You'll never hear the end of it.

Liesel

Liesel.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 12:22:41 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Parochial Schools

Ann

I think it's difficult to lateron change away from what you've been
indoctrinated with but it's not impossible. The things I live by now
aren't at all the ones I was brought up with. It took a lot of effort
& a number of years but it can be done to a great degree. You can't
remake yourself 100% but you can remake a goodly percentage to your
liking.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 12:33:59 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Thanks for the Help

At 060600 PM 11/23/95 -0500 Liesel wrote:
>Doss
>
>If you still have the message that didn't get a reply from
>theos@netcom.com try ruben@ netcom.com. I find that Ruben usually
>answers his messages whereas on the other address a message seems
>sometimes does seem to fall into the cracks.
>
>L:iesel
>
Yes I do. I have also sent a copy of Thanks for the Help msg to
theos@netcom.com. I hope we do not miss any future inquirers.

...doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 12:58:10 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Annie Besant in jail

> From: "Lewis Lucas" <LLUCAS@Mercury.GC.PeachNet.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Annie Besant in jail

Ann

It was her efforts to relieve the terrible working conditions of
the "match girls" in London which landed her in jail.

John Tullis

Another example of the problem of unbridled selfishness and
greed.llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu

It was also another example of complete disregard for the value of
other human beings.

Thanks John for supplying the answer. I guess nowadays she wouldn;t
land in jail for that but the owners of the match factory would do
their best to slander her.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 13:06:56 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Thanks for the Help

Doss

If you still have the message that didn't get a reply from
theos@netcom.com try ruben@ netcom.com. I find that Ruben usually
answers his messages whereas on the other address a message seems
sometimes does seem to fall into the cracks.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 15:31:47 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: parochial schools

Liesel:
>I think it's difficult to lateron change away from what you've been
>indoctrinated with but it's not impossible. The things I live by now
>aren't at all the ones I was brought up with. It took a lot of effort
>& a number of years but it can be done to a great degree. You can't
>remake yourself 100% but you can remake a goodly percentage to your
>liking.

Yes I'm sure that is true for some people especially if you're whole family is
involved a particular religion. There can be a lot of social pressure to stay
with the crowd.

Speaking from exprerience it took only a few months for me to turn my thinking
towards the ideas given out by Cayce. My parents weren't too happy with it but
eventually changed their mind after I left home and got married. Maybe the act
of leaving the nest and marriage make one look different in the mind of one's
parents. You have left childhood and taken on the responsibilites of adulthood
causing them to see you in a different way.

Since I survived till adulthood I hold out joyful hope for any children that
may be gifted or have questions. The answers may be there when they least
expect them when they get older.

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 16:30:45 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

RI:
>Of the things about organized Theosophy which have caused me to shake my
>head over the years few have produced a wider arc than this: that it begins
>by calling to the Master-Wisdom in each of us and that it ends by reducing us
>to the status of lowly students in a study hall.

Interesting dichotomy isn't it?

> We are considered
>to be on our best best behavior when we simply "study"; on our worst when we
>speak from personal authority.

Only the historians among us will be able to figure out how
this sad pass came to be. But JRC had a good point when he said that
this is a major reason for losing so many good TS members a short
list of the most famous has already been posted. There is a fear
almost a paranoia about personal experience within the theosophical
community probably going all the way back to CWL. And this in
spite of the work by Dora Kunz and others--which many theosophists
find appalling simply because these folks dare to present information
that HPB never wrote about.

>No we all showed up as theosophers but were willing to call ourselves
>"theosophists" as long as we thought that term included our own spiritual
>advancement and the unique perspectives and articulations which necessarily
>flow from it. If we find however that we are more and more being
>"screened" for orthodoxy and "graded" for book-knowledge *theosophers* some
>of us shall be again until things change.

This is one reason why I have preferred to remain a member at large.

>In the meantime let us leave the atmosphere of the study hall and meet as
>kings and queens or not at all. . . .
>I like Paul's attitude actually.

Me too your Highness.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 22:26:41 GMT
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" <guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers


> After all any amount of orthodoxy and book knowledge is of no
> substitute for implementation of theosophical knowledge in our minute to
> minute action with the welfare of our fellow beings as the foundation. If
> all the knowledge and information does not aid in helping our fellow beings
> they are just another intellectual exercise satisfying the self.
>
> ...doss

ditto.

Alan
--
Member Theosophy International
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 22:40:31 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Theosophy International

Alan B:

>> As it is described ..... TI is basically a T.S. without any
>> theosophical doctrines. Any belief goes. The agenda follows
>> that of the Adyar T.S.

>Any reason why it should not? It also updates it and at the
>same time remains in sympathy with the *original* unitary TS of
>1875 - Adyar does not need to come into it. Mind you if the
>International President wants to sign up :-

No particular reason not to do it except that it would
effectively be creating yet another T.S. since its stated
purpose is along the same lines.

>> The purpose of the Theosophical Network is to disseminate
>> information about Theosophy and theosophical activities and
>> to facilitate intercommunication between people who share a
>> common interest in Theosophy.

Disseminating information about theosophical activities and people
is I'd think one of our intentions.

>> The goals of the Theosophical Network are a to enhance
>> communication and encourage interrelating of ideas within
>> the Theosophical Movement and b to encourage initiative
>> and cooperation in similar projects and research.

This also matches what I've heard. We're encouraging initiative
and cooperation in various projects and research.

>> To further these goals the Theosophical Network will a
>> publish a quarterly newsletter b publish an annual
>> directory and c provide a computer information service.

But here we would be slightly different with a email and smail
newsletter a Web page and a mailing list for annoucements.

>> While working cooperatively within the Movement the
>> Theosophical Network is independent and unaffiliated
>> with any Theosophical or other organization.

And we want to maintain independence from existing theosophical
groups.

>> >As THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not
>> >need rules whether anyone participates in or supports any such
>> >activity is an entirely personal matter.
>>
>> If it doesn't need rules why the same three objects as the T.S.?
>> Why not take a broader approach like that taken by the Theosophical
>> Network?

>Not the same. Similar.
>
>Be logical: If it doesn't need rules and doesn't define
>objects it doesn't have any reason to exist.

Here's the distinction. The purpose of the Network was to
provide communication and make known the different groups
projects and individuals. It was not to encourage any
particular kind of work but just to put people in touch
with each other. Any objects in addition to that process
make the Network itself into a project itself.

>From what I have
>seen in "official" theosophical publications in recent times
>the same approach as the ~Network~ is now the regular approach.

If so it's a good sign.

>Is the Theosophical Network still networking? If so I have
>seen no sign of it. The broad-based "Adyar" and I am told
>ULT approach is still going but it could do with a booster
>shot or two.

The TN ended several years back.

>Quiting from the Autumn 1989 issue of the ~Theosophical
>Network~:

>"The Network is dedicated to Theosophy as outlined in the Mahatma
>Letters to A.P.Sinnett and the writings of H.P.Blavatsky."

>That's too narrow a prescription for me as it is for a number
>of other theosophically-minded folk.

The way that it was defined it would exclude many people.
It is too narrowly defined to suit theos-l which represents
a much-wider spectrum of belief and approaches to the spiritual.

>I thought we had all moved on from the "Back to Blavatsky"
>movement? TI can incorporate such a viewpoint however. The
>reverse clearly is not the case. I rest mine.

You're right that a broad definition can include more people
and still tolerate pro-HPB ULT Point Loma pro-CWL etc.
approaches. How broad we define the group and what we state are
its purposes determine what people would join and what they
would get out of it.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 23:09:44 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

RI:

>Of all the things about organized Theosophy which have amazed me
>over the years none has amazed me more than this: that it begins
>with a call to the Master-Wisdom in each of us and that it ends
>only after most of those who remain have been reduced to the status
>of lowly students in a study hall.

My analogy of a study hall was with regard to the *absence of
a teacher*. In a study hall you are on your own without the
guidance of a skilled instructor. Theosophical groups are like
this because there is not an established spiritual practice.

The T.S. is also akin to an empty schoolyard where some kids come
to play ball. They're having fun but without a coach their play
is somewhat lacking. Or some kids splashing in a pool as compared
to some under skilled training for the Olympics with expert
coaches and a specific training plan.

What is different in theosophical groups from specific Mystery
Schools or specific spiritual practices like Vajarayana Buddhism
is that there is not a formal method of training nor instructors.
It is akin to study halls in the sense that there's no teacher at
the front of the room offering instruction. My comparison was
not in regard to the fact that in study halls all someone is doing
is simply reading books.

You're right that we *do* look to the Wisdom within. But it's also
true that Theosophy is not for the intellectually lazy and there
is valuable content in the books.

>Again: "I like to think of a theosopher as a person whose own
>transcendental progress has resulted in at least some personal
>knowledge of certain things otherwise inaccessible."

This is true of anyone that is starting to awaken spiritually.
It's not an exclusive experience of theosophers nor of Theosophists
nor of Neo-Spiritualists nor of historians of occult folklore.

>Who else really belongs in a theosophical society? Someone
>whose purpose is merely to study and perhaps worship those
>figures distant in time and space who had such progress
>and knowledge?

Everyone belongs in a T.S. that feels an attraction to the Path
that Theosophy talks about. One does need to engage a spiritual
practice in one's life. There are followers in theosophical groups
as well as elsewhere. An intellectual study of the great truths
is something quite important and of more real lasting value to
the individual than mere psychic experimentation. A growth in
wisdom and understanding carries from one life to the next; it
becomes an integral part of one's faculties. Developing the power
to see auras though is like learning to ice skate or touch type
on a computer keyboard; it is an attribute of the personality and
perishes.

While true that an intellectual study is insufficient in itself
and does not constitute a spiritual practice it is not a sign
of genuine spirituality when one rejects the use of the powers of
mind and the insights into life that it offers.

>No what individuals already know for themselves but can not
>yet satisfactorily say is the whole and entire reason theosophers
>seek one another out in societies and out of societies.

The ability to articulate one's experiences comes with practice
and requires both language and a philosophy to convey the ideas.
Having an experience and being inarticulate about it does not
mean one is so tremendously advanced that one's experiences are
beyond words.

>*Theosophist* would be a good term for those who just sort of
>like the idea of the real thing.

Rejection of the philosophy does not mean that one is on to the
"real thing". Nor does having access to phenomenal powers and
the sights and sounds of other planes. The real thing is related
to qualitative changes in consciousness to changes in one's
experience of life changes that aren't obvious in a tangible
way like being able to see auras read minds or find missing
objects.

>Let us meet as kings and queens or not at all. . . .

Let's respect the royalty in all things yet seek out whatever
training we need from both external and internal sources and
be more skillful in seeking and sharing the Light.

>I like Paul's attitude actually.

His attitude is fine. He is seeking the spiritual wherever he
can find it. Hopefully we all are doing this. We may not all find
it in the same places though and there may be disagreement over
if it can truly be found in *this* place or *that* palce. There
is no disagreement though over its precious nature and the
importance of going after it.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 23:34:24 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

RI:

You wrote your reply a second type with slightly different
ideas. I'm replying again this time to the second set of
words ...

>One becomes a Jehovah's Witness and is instantly transformed
>enough to go door to door in the new and glorious raiment of
>God's Chosen; one becomes a "Theosophist" and even the good
>suit we arrived in can no longer be worn until each thread is
>properly footnoted and cross-referenced to some garment
>someone supposedly far more worthy than we used to wear.

I agree that nothing is conferred by the act of membership in
any group. The only exception I'd make would be in a spiritual
organization where one is taking certain vows with a sincere
heart and dedicates one's life to carrying out those vows.
The biggest such vow would be of course the Bodhisattva Vow.

Your other point regarding having to footnote and cross-reference
everything we say is also something I've been making in the past
though from a different slant.

We need to put the philosophy in our own words to make it something
that is living in our minds and not merely a collection of
words that we parrot. If we limit ourselves to what we can
find quotes for we'd doing something that in the past I've
called "cite-ism". We can and should have original ideas on
Theosophy. What's important here though is that we make a
clear distinction between ideas that we clearly know are our own
and those we've taken from the Philosophy. Otherwise we need to
plainly state that everything we say is from personal opinion and
any resemblance to Theosophy is purely coincidental. <grin>

>We are considered to be on our best best behavior when we
>simply "study"; on our worst when we speak from personal authority.

Hopefully not. Again we can distinguish between our personal
opinions insights and experiences and what we're studying.
If we aren't careful the theosophical philosophy will dissapear
over several generations through compounding of personal opinions
and be lost from the public eye.

Regarding personal authority there are many kinds. Someone could
go into trance and wake up later and claim to speak on behalf
of God Rama of the Altair Star System. Another person may speak
of insights into appreciating life that has come from years of
meditation or from working on some volunteer project. Which person
is really speaking from personal authority and which is ungrounded?

>Someone who shows up on Theosophy's doorstep so empty-handed that
>his or her only excuse for being there could be the study and
>perhaps worship of dead people who had such progress and
>resulting knowledge?

This is a short-coming of theosophical groups. Besides the books
to study what else is there to do? Someone could read Leadbeater's
"Invisible Helpers" and decide to try to learn to astral project
in order to become a psychic social worker. Another might worship
the Masters as Demi-Gods and make the Path sound so vast so far
removed from life that no one could possible undertake it. This
would really of course be an excuse for *that* person for not
getting serious about the Path himself.

>No we all showed up as theosophers but were willing to call
>ourselves "theosophists" as long as we thought that term included
>our own spiritual advancement and the unique perspectives and
>articulations which necessarily flow from it.

We're more often I think like grade school children not wanting
to learn the alphabet and practice our handwriting. How many of
us are willing to undertake a specific discipline?

>If we find however that we are more and more being "screened"
>for orthodoxy and "graded" for book-knowledge *theosophers* some
>of us shall be again until things change.

There could hardly be grading for even book knowledge if the T.S.
has so few people who've studied the materials that even the
graders would get the answers wrong. <frown>

I really don't think that the distinction and potential disagreement
involves grading people on how well they've studied Theosophy
and are familiar with its ideas. The disagreement is over there's
a rich vein of gold found *behind those words* and an associated
spiritual practice similar to jnana yoga based upon that *inner
content*.

Some will superficially read the books and parrot the words that
they encounter. Others will look at the books and readily dismiss
them as out-of-date theories dismissing them as old broken wine
bottles with no contents of value. I would argue for a third view
where the exoteric words are more akin to a buried treasure chest
a chest full of wonders!

On the one hand we should not dismiss those who walk away from
the treasures as being blind to the spiritual. Perhaps their
path takes them to another approach. On the other hand we should
not dismiss those that say the've found treasures in the books
if we haven't. In either case from either approach we may be
speaking from personal experience. Can we tolerate both types of
experience to peacefully coexist?

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 23:46:42 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Taking Heaven by Storm

Jerry S:

>>Deferred gratification is a sign of emotional maturity. We
>>curb our impulse buying in order to achieve more important
>>financial goals. The same is true of bigger things in life.

>Your first statement is absolutely correct. However
>I can't see that it applies to this situation. To say that we will
>not TRY in this life but will wait until a later life is the lazy
>albeit safe road to take IMHO that has no hope of working.

When I wrote my comment I expected someone to reply and say
this. This is because I realize as is apparent that there is
a dual-path to growth and development. This has been described
with regard to enlightenment as the gradual and the sudden schools.

While we are genuinely concerned for the spiritual and exerting
a conscious effort even at this very moment in time we are yet
subject to grown progress and karmic law. Inwardly in our
deepest part we are able to instantaneously realize the emptiness
or Mystery of life. Outwardly in our external nature we are
subject to growth and progress.

My description from that second aspect of life that of external
growth and progress was to point out the importance of being
in-harmony with our external life. We cannot truly see and
participate in life as long as we go through it in a state of
denial arising out of *wanting to be* something that we're not.

>The spiritual Path is only gained in a measure proportionate to
>our effort -- this effort being expended in this or future lives or
>both. In other words we each have a choice now in this life to
>take the bull by the horns and TRY or to do good deeds and be
>a nice person and expend the necessary effort in a future life.

This is true. We need to take the initiative in our lives and
make things happen.

>What I have been trying to say for some time is that the goal will
>never be attained without the sincere effort being made and if we
>truly desire to wait until the next life then this very desire will
>carry over to that next life and we will once again wait and
>so on forever.

We don't want to some future life to make the effort. But on the
other hand we don't create a barrier between ourselves and the
pure experience of life by making a state of denial. We don't allow
the sense of wanting to be something different to keep us from
knowing what we are at this moment and appreciating it in a pure
manner.

>If we have the desire to Tread the Path now in this
>life then and only then will this desire carry over to our next
>life and we can take up where we left off.

True.

>I am sorry Eldon but Heaven can only be taken by storm not
>in bits and pieces although we can certainly approach it in
>degrees that way but any incremental approach to infinity
>will never actually get us there will it?.

Agreed. We try in all sincerity and with all our energy
much as we would rush into a burning house to save loved
ones without thought for personal safety but only of the
important and urgent need that we must fulfill.

My point though is with regard to the process of doing that.
We are operating out of a desire to achieve long-run goals
and the perspective of the short-run looses its hold on our
lives. We do things that may not come to fruition for numberless
lifetimes with the same dedication that we may have previously
given to things that will happen nextweek. We are operating
in a more perfect sense of timelessness a more perfect
detatchment from the sense of external time and a Kalpa seems
no farther away from us than next weekend might.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 23 Nov 1995 23:56:33 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

Doss:

>The strength of Theosophy has always been lack of orthodoxy and
>non requirement of any book knowledge.

The unique nature of the various theosophical groups is in that
they present a well-defined body of occult doctrines but don't
require either a belief in them nor even a study of the materials.
One can be a Fundamentalist Christian with an intense hatred of
Eastern Religions and be an accepted member even though one may
actively work against the ideas of reincarnation and karma etc.

There were many reasons for this approach. One is that western
religions need to be organized by westerners and could take
centuries to arise from the raw philosophical materials. Another
is that the materials presented are basically esoteric and one
has to as KH puts it "come to us or settle for crumbs". A
third reason was the general disrespect for Eastern thought at
Blavatsky's time where the philosophy needed to be presented as
a body of theories rather than as spiritual teachings so that
westerners would not out-of-hand reject them without reading
and considering what was in the books.

>In practice there is going to be some who cannot get out of
>their shell of screening others and grading for book knowledge
>due perhaps to long standing habit.

Or out of their shell of rejecting as 'mere book worms' those
who give serious attention to the theosophical books. The act
of rejecting the books is not necessarily a sign of spiritual
progress.

>After all any amount of orthodoxy and book knowledge is of no
>substitute for implementation of theosophical knowledge in
>our minute to minute action with the welfare of our fellow
>beings as the foundation. If all the knowledge and information
>does not aid in helping our fellow beings they are just another
>intellectual exercise satisfying the self.

Yes. We need to make the knowledge a living part of our lives
and to use it as part of a spiritual practice. The book-learning
is nothing without a *deeper study* alongside with a *living
practice*.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 00:07:51 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

Jerry S:

>> [The quote regarding a T.S. being like a study-hall at school
>> is here.]

>But JRC had a good point when he said that this is a major reason
>for losing so many good TS members a short list of the most famous
>has already been posted.

But rejection of the books and teachings is not proof of a
personal experience. And paranormal experiences are not necessarily
a sign of budding spirituality. I agree there is a lack of teaching
applied spirituality in T.S. groups. The groups tend to limit
themselves to a superficial study of the books and sometimes not
evey to that! They often become social clubs not much different
or better than hundreds of others found in any city.

JRC may be saying "don't waste your time there follow me I've
found gold over on this hillside". I might say "there *is* gold
here but suit yourself go where you prefer to mine it." I'm
not in support of the shortcomings of theosophical groups but
I am in support of what can genuinely be found in the theosophical
philosophy and the value that it can bring to the lives of people!

>There is a fear almost a paranoia about personal experience
>within the theosophical community probably going all the way
>back to CWL.

Not of "personal experiences of the spiritual" just of psychical
experiences and particularly of the cultivation of the psychical
and the practice of the occult arts. The idea is to leave all
that to other groups with gurus qualified to teach and oversee
such practices among their followers.

> ... many theosophists find appalling simply because these folks
>dare to present information that HPB never wrote about.

There are *many* sources of information. They don't have to
necessary come from a vision from someone in trance or from
someone's lucid dream. We certainly should be free to enhance
and go beyond the fragements of occult truth given us by the
Masters. But we must also carefully consider the source of
such information. In the final analysis for our own use we
must use our own best judgement as to what is true and useful
in our lives. This is different though from what we may choose
to teach others which requires a higher standard of provability
and demonstrated usefulness to others.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 03:45:43 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Is "Tradition" really impregnable?

Paul:

It's good to read how you feel about what's going on. You also
seem to be speaking for JRC perhaps you're writing from some
private communications you've received from him as well.

> I read JRC's comments with some empathy for obvious reasons
> but also some concern that theos-l may be taken as representative
> of the entire Theosophical movement when it is not.

I'd suggest that it's probably as close to representative as is
possible. There's not the control of any particular organization
and each of us can write on what we want. No one reviews and
allows or disallows anything that any of us choose to post.

> ... In a way it is unfair to the great majority of FTS I've known
> who have shown openness and encouragement for me to give up on
> the whole movement because of a few.

Why would you give up on the movement? Does it matter what
reception your books are given? Do you feel that you're on a
crusade to reform the beliefs of theosophical groups regarding the
Masters? Is it possible for you to benefit from and see merit in
promoting Theosophy to the general public apart from all that?
I'd say that there is tremendous merit to promoting Theosophy
regardless of what is thought about its history and the specific
occult status of Blavatsky's immediate teachers.

> But why are those few so vivid in my thoughts and feelings and
> the many seem to fade into the background? Because people who
> hate a book are 100 times more likely to express their reaction
> to an author than are people who like it perhaps.

As long as you make your books on the Masters a central theme in
your life you'll have this concern. And yes people are more
likely to write and say "I disagree with that" than they are to
voice agreement. But it's not just those two ways. Also useful is
when people write and say "Yes that's true and in addition ..."
offering further thoughts of their own on a subject.

> Similarly I'd suggest that the silent majority are more
> supportive of JRC than he realizes.

But supportive of what? We're all free to speculate on
metaphysics. He you I and everyone else can present various
theories about the way that life works. His experiences have not
been discounted only his metaphysics disagree with.

> JRC has had bad experiences here and elsewhere with
> Theosophists who tend to pooh-pooh or at best patronize
> discussion of inner experience.

The disagreement is not over "inner experience". There is some
disagreement over the validity of psychical experiences and what
they mean. Any of us may write about our experiences. But we
cannot thereby claim authority for what we say authority for our
metaphysics based upon them. We can quote from the writings of
the gurus and sages of the past for second-hand authority but
first-hand authority is self-conferred.

> Which means if my observation is correct that no more than
> one in ten is a know-it-all out to stifle and humiliate anyone
> with new and different perspectives.

New perspectives and original ideas are welcome. But how are they
presented and what reaction is appropriate? Are they presented as
the latest-word in spiritual insight where we're expected to
sweep aside everything we've learned in the past? Are they
presented as extremely-sensitive personal and beyond anything
but glowing praise? Is it a terrible insult and a brutal uncaring
attitude to compare and contrast new theories and descriptions
with the standard theosophical doctrines?

> Unfortunately human nature being what it is the other nine
> are not very likely to challenge that one authoritarian
> dogmatist and may thus be misinterpreted as supporting him/her.

If we feel that "a fight" is in progress we're often likely to
not get involved. But there may be times where you see an
"authoritarian dogmatist" where there is none. Is there anything
wrong about writing about the theosophical doctrines at though
there were some truth to them and to discuss standard Theosophy
alongside Cayce channelling seeing auras the tarot astrology
lucid dreaming politics and a wide spectrum of other topics?

> This is especially likely when the dogmatist is a member of
> long standing well-connected articulate and inexhaustible.
> People go along to get along not because they agree.

I'd say that it's a good thing that at least a few people on
theos-l are interested in writing about the basic theosophical
ideas. Wildly-different views on almost any subject are held by
our subscribers though and it's hard for us to agree on most
things.

Regarding selectivity we're at the open end of the spectrum.
Anyone can subscribe and write on things. The only person that
there was an open call for banishment was Daniel H. when he was
trying to save us from hellfire in Sep. My approach to him
was to simply contrast his writings with what I understood the
basic theosophical ideas to say. I always accepted his experiences
as valid though subjective and suggested that there were other
explanations for them than his having a direct relationship with
God or Jesus. Other people were more inclined to say something
like "Shut this guy up I'm sick of his bothersome nonsense!"

The opposite end of the spectrum of selectivity is found in a
theosophical group in the Netherlands. That group requires
prospective members to attend a year or two of classes and they
if they've demonstrated a reasonable knowledge of the teachings
and sincerity they're invited to join. Anyone regardless of
belief in or knowledge of the theosophical philosophy is not
allowed into membership.

> The good news is that even the worst offenders in this regard
> have some glimmering of understanding that the Movement has
> some bad habits to unlearn and that the reflex of stifling
> condescending humiliating etc. is a long-term bad habit.

We'll all agree that the Movement has bad habits to unlearn. But
the reflex of stifling condenscending humiliating etc. is a
fairly universal shortcoming and not exclusive to T.S. members.
It does not come from a positive belief and a willingness to
articulate it. It comes from a refusal to discuss beliefs with
others of different beliefs where others are simply denounced
told to shut up and listen or put down in various manners.

> But while it's easy to recognize when it's directed
> against us it's also horribly easy to direct the same energy
> at others with blithe disregard for its destructiveness.

I can see how JRC might feel that he is personally under attack
when his beliefs or theories are being disagreed with. And I can
see the same with you. You've mentioned in the past how you feel
under attack when someone is strongly disagreeing with what you
say.

I don't share this feeling and find the disagreement of
others usually as a challenge to better more-creative writing in
support of what I consider to be true.

I also think though that many typical members of theosophical
groups may feel under attack by you or JRC when either of you
would challenge their beliefs. This is for the very same reason
that either of you may feel under attack: through too personal an
identification with closely-held beliefs.

> So JRC the bottom line is that *most* Theosophists have room
> for you and your experiences in their hearts and minds.

There *is* openness for experiences. But don't expect to sweep
away everyone's thinking by the theories you offer with them. And
don't present them with the assumption that *they are true and the
theories of others are not*. Admit to the possibility that each of
us -- not just 'narrow-minded theosophists that only read books'
but JRC and others as well -- could be wrong.

> Those who have excluded you in various ways are excluders by
> habit and it's nothing personal.

The excluding can come from both directions. If JRC comes to
Theosophy with the attitude that he has the truth and
theosophists don't and that he's come to show us the light to
"push the envelope of our thinking" he is excluding the *genuine
truth* in Theosophy.

> You may be right that the rigidity and dogmatism has gone too
> far to be reversed; there may be too much resistance to
> creativity to make it worthwhile to stay.

Sometimes the appearance of "rigidity and dogmatism" is due to
one's relationship to something and not in the thing itself. If
someone does not readily agree with you viewpoint and continues
to think you wrong is that person rigid and dogmatic or do you
concede that it's possible for someone else to know anything that
you don't? The same can be said with regard with creativity.

Daniel H. would find us rigid and dogmatic because we won't accept
the Bible as ultimate truth and embrace Fundamentalist
Christianity and the one-and-only path to salvation. We might
think otherwise.

A healthier attitude which I try to take is not to consider
others with different views as being rigid and dogmatic but just
as people on another path people that's it's possible to talk
with to a certain extent but with which I may not be able to
share all that I think and experience.

> But theos-l is a self-selected microcosm and therefore not a
> very accurate mirror of the overall Movement IMHO.

I see it as a good microcosm but also find it somewhat lacking in
an understanding and appreciation of the theosophical doctrines.
What I find missing is more people willing to write about the
actual philosophy rather than on the one hand simply quote HPB
and on the other hand to dismiss everything as outmoded theories
of the 1800's.

> Perhaps those on theos-l who regret JRC's departure might let
> him know by private email since he won't be reading the list.

His stated reason for going was that he did not want his "sharing
of inner experiences" to be exposed to any more brutal treatment.
But it was his *beliefs* that were discussed and contrasted with
the typical theosophical ideas not his *feelings* nor the
subjective reality of his experiences.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 05:11:55 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

At 105700 AM 11/24/95 -0500 Eldon wrote:
>Doss:
>
>>The strength of Theosophy has always been lack of orthodoxy and
>>non requirement of any book knowledge.
>
>The unique nature of the various theosophical groups is in that
>they present a well-defined body of occult doctrines but don't
>require either a belief in them nor even a study of the materials.
>One can be a Fundamentalist Christian with an intense hatred of
>Eastern Religions and be an accepted member even though one may
>actively work against the ideas of reincarnation and karma etc.
>
>There were many reasons for this approach. One is that western
>religions need to be organized by westerners and could take
>centuries to arise from the raw philosophical materials. Another
>is that the materials presented are basically esoteric and one
>has to as KH puts it "come to us or settle for crumbs". A
>third reason was the general disrespect for Eastern thought at
>Blavatsky's time where the philosophy needed to be presented as
>a body of theories rather than as spiritual teachings so that
>westerners would not out-of-hand reject them without reading
>and considering what was in the books.
>
>>In practice there is going to be some who cannot get out of
>>their shell of screening others and grading for book knowledge
>>due perhaps to long standing habit.
>
>Or out of their shell of rejecting as 'mere book worms' those
>who give serious attention to the theosophical books. The act
>of rejecting the books is not necessarily a sign of spiritual
>progress.
>
>>After all any amount of orthodoxy and book knowledge is of no
>>substitute for implementation of theosophical knowledge in
>>our minute to minute action with the welfare of our fellow
>>beings as the foundation. If all the knowledge and information
>>does not aid in helping our fellow beings they are just another
>>intellectual exercise satisfying the self.
>
>Yes. We need to make the knowledge a living part of our lives
>and to use it as part of a spiritual practice. The book-learning
>is nothing without a *deeper study* alongside with a *living
>practice*.
>
>-- Eldon
>

Eldon:

Glad we agree. It is this kind of agreeing on some of the very
fundamental items that makes Theosophical students unique.

Hope the cyberspace will enable more discussion and exchange of
ideas and views and opinions.

..doss

PS: I would like to see more of the officers of the various TS groups sign
up here and participate in the discussions. If any of them do not have
computer knowledge or expertise or computer illiterate I am willing to
share my knowledge and expertise. I am only a call away. I can be reached at
1-800-615-1710 work and 1-800-693-3365 Home - anytime. The call will be
on my dime!!!
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 08:03:45 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Multiple Choice III

RI:

>"My humble opinions will just have to wait until I am done speaking." The
>foregoing statement was once made by a00 H.P.B. b Eldon Tucker c John R.
>Crocker d Richard Ihle e

Well ... As far as I know HPB is no longer speaking to us although
perhaps there's some channel claiming to represent her? I'm still a
student and finding myself learning new things as I read study and
write about Theosophy. JRC has left us but could always return to
tell us what we're missing on the other channels. And you've got your
work cut out for you if you're planning to get our grim faces to
crack a smile or two! <grin>

Seriously though the level of excitement and enthusiasm that we
bring to what we write about comes from our love of the material
from our love of the philosophy. And that takes us back to the meaning
of the term "philosophy": the love of wisdom. An important part of
the path is awakening the natural love of learning and wisdom in
both oneself and others. This leads to a desire to share what we're
exploring. We may show our new ideas like a proud father showing off
some baby pictures!

The problem comes when we take ourselves too seriously to the point
where the world stands or falls on whether we bring people over to
some particular point of view. We then get defensive angry when others
disagree with us and resort to fight or flight. We can come on like
a fire-breathing dragon ready to destroy all in our way or flee to
our hermit's cave never to see the world again. Is either good? No.
But we're defensive until we let ourselves be more open and willing
to discuss things in both friendly agreement and *friendly disagrement*.

When we come to the theosophical philosophy we can discuss what it
says and where we agree and disagree with it. But we don't have to
require absolute agreement with one viewpoint on it nor do we have
to allow for a blanket rejection of it. Our opinions of it are in a
way like a finger pointing at the moon. Let's make a respectful
choice of *which finger* to point with.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 08:20:56 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

At 105700 AM 11/24/95 -0500 Eldon wrote:

>Doss:
>
>>The strength of Theosophy has always been lack of orthodoxy and
>>non requirement of any book knowledge.
>
>The unique nature of the various theosophical groups is in that
>they present a well-defined body of occult doctrines but don't
>require either a belief in them nor even a study of the materials.
>One can be a Fundamentalist Christian with an intense hatred of
>Eastern Religions and be an accepted member even though one may
>actively work against the ideas of reincarnation and karma etc.
>
>There were many reasons for this approach. One is that western
>religions need to be organized by westerners and could take
>centuries to arise from the raw philosophical materials. Another
>is that the materials presented are basically esoteric and one
>has to as KH puts it "come to us or settle for crumbs". A
>third reason was the general disrespect for Eastern thought at
>Blavatsky's time where the philosophy needed to be presented as
>a body of theories rather than as spiritual teachings so that
>westerners would not out-of-hand reject them without reading
>and considering what was in the books.
>
>>In practice there is going to be some who cannot get out of
>>their shell of screening others and grading for book knowledge
>>due perhaps to long standing habit.
>
>Or out of their shell of rejecting as 'mere book worms' those
>who give serious attention to the theosophical books. The act
>of rejecting the books is not necessarily a sign of spiritual
>progress.
>
>>After all any amount of orthodoxy and book knowledge is of no
>>substitute for implementation of theosophical knowledge in
>>our minute to minute action with the welfare of our fellow
>>beings as the foundation. If all the knowledge and information
>>does not aid in helping our fellow beings they are just another
>>intellectual exercise satisfying the self.
>
>Yes. We need to make the knowledge a living part of our lives
>and to use it as part of a spiritual practice. The book-learning
>is nothing without a *deeper study* alongside with a *living
>practice*.
>
>-- Eldon
>

Eldon:

Glad we agree. It is this kind of agreeing on some of the very
fundamental items that makes Theosophical students unique.

Hope the cyberspace will enable more discussion and exchange of
ideas and views and opinions.

..doss

PS: I would like to see more of the officers of the various TS
groups sign up here and participate in the discussions. If any of them do
not have computer knowledge or expertise or computer illiterate I am
willing to share my knowledge and expertise. I am only a call away. I can be
reached at 1-800-615-1710 work and 1-800-693-3365 Home - anytime. The
call will be on my dime!!!
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 08:55:05 GMT
From: RIhle@aol.com
Subject: Multiple Choice III

"My humble opinions will just have to wait until I am done speaking." The
foregoing statement was once made by a00 H.P.B. b Eldon Tucker c John R.
Crocker d Richard Ihle e
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 11:00:32 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Highbrow Chat.

At 032700 PM 11/24/95 -0500 you wrote:
>Hi all
>Just to say that Wanganui Lodge is on the move. We sold our old house on
>22nd Nov new moon and lots of conjunctions? and now have to arrange the
>alterations on our next Lodge. It is an old shop and it is one very large
>room with kitchen etc at the back. We will divide a bit at the front for our
>library so it can be shut off and we can make the rest available to other
>groups to rent. We are taking the front right off and getting a new one
>built. We have to pack up our 1200 library books and our chairs and other
>bits and be gone by 15th Dec. I am excited about all this and look forward
>to a new energy and enthusiasm with which to promote theosophy in Wanganui.
>A new image may help with this. I guess we will be busy for the next month
>or two.
>Regards to you all
>Bee
>
Glad to know about the move. I hope the new location will be helpful in
the activities of the lodge and keep us informed of the progress. Best
regards to you all in the lodge.

.doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 11:00:35 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: parochial schools

At 035300 PM 11/24/95 -0500 Bee wrote:
>>Liesel:
>>>I think it's difficult to lateron change away from what you've been
>>>indoctrinated with but it's not impossible. The things I live by now
>>>aren't at all the ones I was brought up with. It took a lot of effort
>>>& a number of years but it can be done to a great degree. You can't
>>>remake yourself 100% but you can remake a goodly percentage to your
>>>liking.
>>
>>Yes I'm sure that is true for some people especially if you're whole
>family is
>>involved a particular religion. There can be a lot of social pressure to stay
>>with the crowd.
>>
>>Speaking from exprerience it took only a few months for me to turn my
thinking
>>towards the ideas given out by Cayce. My parents weren't too happy with
>it but
>>eventually changed their mind after I left home and got married. Maybe
the act
>>of leaving the nest and marriage make one look different in the mind of one's
>>parents. You have left childhood and taken on the responsibilites of
>adulthood
>>causing them to see you in a different way.
>>
>>Since I survived till adulthood I hold out joyful hope for any children that
>>may be gifted or have questions. The answers may be there when they least
>>expect them when they get older.
>>
>>- ann
>
>There is also the time in a person's life when they get the internal prompt
>to get on the Path and there isn't much that can be done to ignore it. If
>one has been indoctrinated then it no doubt is harder to find one's way to
>the proper path for oneself but somehow the urge will not go away. I think
>that our higher self is capable of manipulating our circumstances to help
>make connections come easier and we have to be able to recognise them when
>we come across them. That little voice within whispers to us when we need to
>notice something that relates to our quest.
>It seems to me that many are looking in all sorts of places and getting a
>bit lost in the process but something tells them to keep looking and after a
>few years hopefully they will find the Path that is right for them.
>Providing that help is how I see Theosophy. People come and go and maybe
>only stay for a while but in that time they have found some answers to help
>guide them onwards to where they are to be in this lifetime. Not all came
>here to be Theosophists but maybe next lifetime some more may appreciate
>what theosophy means.
>
>Bee>

Different people come in contact with Theosophy in different ways
and are affected differently. Some do not join TS or read another book. But
I have seen Theosophy making a significant change in the outlook of a person.

Years ago I took a course on General Systems Theory which was
taught by a leading authority in the subject. The gentleman was brought up
in traditional southwester baptist circles and I thought a man who is much
into General Systems Theory can appreciate Theosophical framework and I gave
him the First Principles of Theosophy by C Jinarajadas and after reading it
he told me it is as if a door is being opened to a whole new world. The man
was in late forties and all the years of indoctrination came to an end
perhaps in a day. While he never formally joined the TS I am sure the
Theosophy changed the way he looked at the world.

Some of you may be interested in the anecdote.

..Doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 11:00:38 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

At 044400 PM 11/24/95 -0500 Liesel wrote:
>I didn't think I was so different because I relate what I get from
>Theosophy to my own personal happenings. I fail to see how the
>teachings can mean anything to anyone unless they somehow fit into
>one's experience.
>
>I always thought all the theosophical quibbling came about because
>we're a bunch of individualists & everyone had to do their own
>thing.
>
>Liesel
>

How right you are. It is easy to be a follower especially one who
does not have to think. Thinking for oneself and solving one's problems in
an intelligent way requires courage originality and energy coupled with the
use of what we may have read in one or more books or what one may have heard.

Was not Buddha told everyone to concentrate and discuss about things
everybody can see because there is always different views on what one does
not see.

Quibbling may not lead anywhere. let see how we can help our fellow
human any time we have an opportunity.

...doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 11:00:40 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: RE: Attracting Younger Individuals

At 045400 PM 11/24/95 -0500 Peter Walstra wrote:
>>
>
>IMHO anyone below 40 can be seen as part of the younger generation
considering the
>general age of people in theosophical circles I know of. Friends of about
my age 26 sometimes
>have affinity with theosophy but somehow a theosophical society is not
exactly what they are
>looking for. Not very suprising because there is a rather large barrier to
take when approaching
>a small society with so many older people and with lectures as the default
means for communication.

Years ago when I was a member of a lodge everybody in the lodge was
retired except myself a youngster in early twenties. The favorite subject
for the lectures used to be Life after Death. I can relate to what you are
saying.

>I'm speaking here about things in Holland but it doesn't seem to be much
different elsewhere...
>
>Certainly Internet communication has a lot of potential. We could indeed be
surprised to see
>the numbers of young individuals with spiritual interests rising very quickly.

I am closely following the rise and use of Internet. Even very large
corporations in computer industry failed to see the coming of Internet and
are trying to play catch up.

In addition to discussion groups there is great potential in
automatic responses to inquiries from anyone interested in Theosophical
ideas on various subjects. For example in the business world they are using
what are known as Mailbot or Knowbot. These are computer programs which
continuously scan incoming e-mail messages for key words and automatically
generate fixed replies based on key words. These programs work 07 days a week
24 hours a day and the responses for inquiries are almost immediate. In
addition due to automation. the cost is very minimal.

In the USA there is one company which is in the process of offering
FREE Internet e-mail and one more is in the process of introducing a similar
e-mail. These are sponsored by advertisers and thus Internet e-mail us going
to go up exponentially in the near future. Let us hope Theosophy will make
full use of the new medium.

...doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 11:43:23 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

I didn't think I was so different because I relate what I get from
Theosophy to my own personal happenings. I fail to see how the
teachings can mean anything to anyone unless they somehow fit into
one's experience.

I always thought all the theosophical quibbling came about because
we're a bunch of individualists & everyone had to do their own
thing.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 11:48:34 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Highbrow Chat.

Bee

Luck in your new building!

As an aside you're "Wanganui" which I take to be New Zealand native
language. Our study center is called "Onondaga". The Onondagas are a
native American tribe who live around here but my town & my county
are also called "Onondaga". So luck from Onondaga to Wanganui.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 11:56:57 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

An intense hatred of anything isn't very theosophical.

I think books have their place if one is choosy & then lets one's
reading lead beyond the written page. "We need to make the knowledge
.. part of our lives".

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 13:09:53 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

At 075200 PM 11/24/95 -0500 Jerry S wrote:

>Eldon:<. I agree there is a lack of teaching
>>applied spirituality in T.S. groups. The groups tend to limit
>>themselves to a superficial study of the books and sometimes not
>even to that!
>
> This was my point. Something has to done
> if we are going to survive into the 2000s.
>
>>JRC may be saying "don't waste your time there follow me I've
>>found gold over on this hillside".
>
> I don't think that JRC was ever saying this. I think I
>understand his feeling because I have offered what I thought
>were some neat ideas only to have everyone come down hard
>on me too. However my reaction has been to re-write the
>ideas in other words and then try again after the depression
>passes in the same spirit that Eldon has championed. I think
>that owing to the nature of theos-l this is probably the best
>approach to take and I had hoped that JRC would so the same.
>
>>Not of "personal experiences of the spiritual" just of psychical
>>experiences and particularly of the cultivation of the psychical
>>and the practice of the occult arts. The idea is to leave all
>>that to other groups with gurus qualified to teach and oversee
>>such practices among their followers.
>
> This demonstrates what JRC was talking about.
>Many theosophists not just you Eldon think that they can
>tell the difference between "higher" and "lower" experiences
>and then accept the one which few if any will actually claim
>and totally reject the other out of hand. This black and white
>attitude goes all the back to HPB but was especially
>emphasized by Judge. If I mentioned a particular spiritual
>insight you may or may not accept it. But chances are that
>you would think about it objectively before reaching a
>conclusion. However if I added that I received this information
>from an Angel that I conversed with you would reject the
>insight out of hand a priori because you view all Angels
>as "lower" sources psychism etc and thus no truth can
>come from it. I think that this kind of "shooting from the hip"
>is what JRC was really objecting to.
>
>> We certainly should be free to enhance
>>and go beyond the fragements of occult truth given us by the
>>Masters. But we must also carefully consider the source of
>>such information.
>
> Agreed. But I submit that there is intuition and
>there is intuition. Some buddhi-manas material is right on
>while others is bogus maybe we just think it is buddhi-manas?
>There are no labels on the ideas that come to us. And again to
>"consider the source" with most theosophists means to reject
>all kama-manas material. Of course who is to say if something
>is kama-manas or buddhi-manas anyway. Except for some
>obvious examples only a handful of people would know the difference
>in those "grey" areas. All that I am suggesting is that theosophists
>look at the ideas provided by others objectively first and then decide
>its truth or falsehood. Try to see a little grey in between all that black
>and white.
>
> Jerry S.

I think that looking at all facts and ideas very objectively without
being distorted by our training reading indoctrination personal ideas
etc. is a indeed a very difficult and necessary task indeed. How else one is
going to see a truth when it presents itself.

There is a story in the life of Sankaracharya the greatest reformer
of Hinduism. He was on his way to a temple and there was on his way an low
class man. Shankaracharya's followers who were with him asked the low class
man to get out of the way. Soon the low class man revealed himself as the
God himself. I do not vouch for the full truth of story. But the lesson
seems to be that with an open mind if the low class man was just looked at
as a fellow human the problem would have never arisen. So much for being
blinded by tradition etc.

...doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 14:47:11 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

Eldon:<. I agree there is a lack of teaching
>applied spirituality in T.S. groups. The groups tend to limit
>themselves to a superficial study of the books and sometimes not
even to that!

This was my point. Something has to done
if we are going to survive into the 2000s.

>JRC may be saying "don't waste your time there follow me I've
>found gold over on this hillside".

I don't think that JRC was ever saying this. I think I
understand his feeling because I have offered what I thought
were some neat ideas only to have everyone come down hard
on me too. However my reaction has been to re-write the
ideas in other words and then try again after the depression
passes in the same spirit that Eldon has championed. I think
that owing to the nature of theos-l this is probably the best
approach to take and I had hoped that JRC would so the same.

>Not of "personal experiences of the spiritual" just of psychical
>experiences and particularly of the cultivation of the psychical
>and the practice of the occult arts. The idea is to leave all
>that to other groups with gurus qualified to teach and oversee
>such practices among their followers.

This demonstrates what JRC was talking about.
Many theosophists not just you Eldon think that they can
tell the difference between "higher" and "lower" experiences
and then accept the one which few if any will actually claim
and totally reject the other out of hand. This black and white
attitude goes all the back to HPB but was especially
emphasized by Judge. If I mentioned a particular spiritual
insight you may or may not accept it. But chances are that
you would think about it objectively before reaching a
conclusion. However if I added that I received this information
from an Angel that I conversed with you would reject the
insight out of hand a priori because you view all Angels
as "lower" sources psychism etc and thus no truth can
come from it. I think that this kind of "shooting from the hip"
is what JRC was really objecting to.

> We certainly should be free to enhance
>and go beyond the fragements of occult truth given us by the
>Masters. But we must also carefully consider the source of
>such information.

Agreed. But I submit that there is intuition and
there is intuition. Some buddhi-manas material is right on
while others is bogus maybe we just think it is buddhi-manas?
There are no labels on the ideas that come to us. And again to
"consider the source" with most theosophists means to reject
all kama-manas material. Of course who is to say if something
is kama-manas or buddhi-manas anyway. Except for some
obvious examples only a handful of people would know the difference
in those "grey" areas. All that I am suggesting is that theosophists
look at the ideas provided by others objectively first and then decide
its truth or falsehood. Try to see a little grey in between all that black
and white.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 14:47:15 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

Eldon:
>Or out of their shell of rejecting as 'mere book worms' those
>who give serious attention to the theosophical books. The act
>of rejecting the books is not necessarily a sign of spiritual
>progress.

I don't think anyone ever said otherwise. Personally
I love books have been president of our local library "friends"
group for many years. Reading and study is a necessary
part of the Path; conducted at first out of interest then out of
desperation and then out of joy.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 17:14:55 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Internet

>
> I just finished seeing some statistical material on Internet. Since
1988 the users are doubling each year. It is expected that by year 2000
there will be 100 million users world wide.
>
> What an opportunity for Theosophy be accessible to this many users
at very little cost?
>
>----end of msg----
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 17:14:57 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Internet

>
>> I just finished seeing some statistical material on Internet.
Since 1988 the users are doubling each year. It is expected that by year
2000 there will be 100 million users world wide.
>>
>> What an opportunity for Theosophy be accessible to this many users
at very little cost?
>>
>>----end of msg----
>>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 17:55:28 GMT
From: RIhle@aol.com
Subject: Re: Multiple Choice III

ET

Well ... As far as I know HPB is no longer speaking to us although
perhaps there's some channel claiming to represent her? I'm still a
student and finding myself learning new things as I read study and
write about Theosophy. JRC has left us but could always return to
tell us what we're missing on the other channels. And you've got your
work cut out for you if you're planning to get our grim faces to
crack a smile or two! <grin>

RI

Then it's a good thing all four of us have male-bonded. . . .
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 18:42:34 GMT
From: jem@vnet.net John E. Mead
Subject: Theosophy International - new info/welcome file

hi -

please send comments on the following "welcome/info" file for Theos-L
& theos-xxx etc.

thanks -

john mead
jem@vnet.net
-------------------------------------------
Welcome to the THEOSOPHICAL INTERNATIONAL discussion lists.

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises those who subscribe to the
three objects of Theosophy:

1. To form a nucleus within the family of humanity without
discrimination with regard to sex including sexual
orientation creed class or race.

2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative philosophy
religion and science per individual ability and inclination.

3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized
human potential and abilities.

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is simply a theosophical network
whereby it is sufficient to declare one's sympathy and/or
allegiance to the three objects and to be noted as having
done so. No belief system is required *nor assumed to be held*
by any member.

There are no fees and no subscriptions.

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not need rules nor
organizational structures. Participation and/or support for any
activities is an entirely personal matter.

Please be tolerant and respect the opinions and religious views of all
the members!
-------
John E. Mead jem@vnet.net
[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 18:42:34 GMT
From: jem@vnet.net John E. Mead
Subject: Theosophy International - new info/welcome file

hi -

please send comments on the following "welcome/info" file for Theos-L
& theos-xxx etc.

thanks -

john mead
jem@vnet.net

Welcome to the THEOSOPHICAL INTERNATIONAL discussion lists.

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises those who subscribe to the
three objects of Theosophy:

1. To form a nucleus within the family of humanity without
discrimination with regard to sex including sexual
orientation creed class or race.

2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative philosophy
religion and science per individual ability and inclination.

3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized
human potential and abilities.

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is simply a theosophical network
whereby it is sufficient to declare one's sympathy and/or
allegiance to the three objects and to be noted as having
done so. No belief system is required *nor assumed to be held*
by any member.

There are no fees and no subscriptions.

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not need rules nor
organizational structures. Participation and/or support for any
activities is an entirely personal matter.

Please be tolerant and respect the opinions and religious views of all
the members!

John E. Mead jem@vnet.net
[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]

Date: 24 Nov 1995 18:42:34 GMT
From: jem@vnet.net John E. Mead
Subject: Theosophy International - new info/welcome file

hi -

please send comments on the following "welcome/info" file for Theos-L
& theos-xxx etc.

thanks -

john mead
jem@vnet.net
-------------------------------------------
Welcome to the THEOSOPHICAL INTERNATIONAL discussion lists.

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises those who subscribe to the
three objects of Theosophy:

1. To form a nucleus within the family of humanity without
discrimination with regard to sex including sexual
orientation creed class or race.

2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative philosophy
religion and science per individual ability and inclination.

3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized
human potential and abilities.

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is simply a theosophical network
whereby it is sufficient to declare one's sympathy and/or
allegiance to the three objects and to be noted as having
done so. No belief system is required *nor assumed to be held*
by any member.

There are no fees and no subscriptions.

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not need rules nor
organizational structures. Participation and/or support for any
activities is an entirely personal matter.

Please be tolerant and respect the opinions and religious views of all
the members!
-------
John E. Mead jem@vnet.net
[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 18:42:34 GMT
From: jem@vnet.net John E. Mead
Subject: Theosophy International - new info/welcome file

hi -

please send comments on the following "welcome/info" file for Theos-L
& theos-xxx etc.

thanks -

john mead
jem@vnet.net
-------------------------------------------
Welcome to the THEOSOPHICAL INTERNATIONAL discussion lists.

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises those who subscribe to the
three objects of Theosophy:

1. To form a nucleus within the family of humanity without
discrimination with regard to sex including sexual
orientation creed class or race.

2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative philosophy
religion and science per individual ability and inclination.

3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized
human potential and abilities.

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is simply a theosophical network
whereby it is sufficient to declare one's sympathy and/or
allegiance to the three objects and to be noted as having
done so. No belief system is required *nor assumed to be held*
by any member.

There are no fees and no subscriptions.

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not need rules nor
organizational structures. Participation and/or support for any
activities is an entirely personal matter.

Please be tolerant and respect the opinions and religious views of all
the members!

John E. Mead jem@vnet.net
[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 20:25:01 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Highbrow Chat.

Hi all
Just to say that Wanganui Lodge is on the move. We sold our old house on
22nd Nov new moon and lots of conjunctions? and now have to arrange the
alterations on our next Lodge. It is an old shop and it is one very large
room with kitchen etc at the back. We will divide a bit at the front for our
library so it can be shut off and we can make the rest available to other
groups to rent. We are taking the front right off and getting a new one
built. We have to pack up our 1200 library books and our chairs and other
bits and be gone by 15th Dec. I am excited about all this and look forward
to a new energy and enthusiasm with which to promote theosophy in Wanganui.
A new image may help with this. I guess we will be busy for the next month
or two.
Regards to you all
Bee
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 20:33:54 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

>RI:
>>Of the things about organized Theosophy which have caused me to shake my
>>head over the years few have produced a wider arc than this: that it begins
>>by calling to the Master-Wisdom in each of us and that it ends by reducing us
>>to the status of lowly students in a study hall.
>
> Interesting dichotomy isn't it?
>
>> We are considered
>>to be on our best best behavior when we simply "study"; on our worst when we
>>speak from personal authority.
>
> Only the historians among us will be able to figure out how
>this sad pass came to be. But JRC had a good point when he said that
>this is a major reason for losing so many good TS members a short
>list of the most famous has already been posted. There is a fear
>almost a paranoia about personal experience within the theosophical
>community probably going all the way back to CWL. And this in
>spite of the work by Dora Kunz and others--which many theosophists
>find appalling simply because these folks dare to present information
>that HPB never wrote about.
>
>>No we all showed up as theosophers but were willing to call ourselves
>>"theosophists" as long as we thought that term included our own spiritual
>>advancement and the unique perspectives and articulations which necessarily
>>flow from it. If we find however that we are more and more being
>>"screened" for orthodoxy and "graded" for book-knowledge *theosophers* some
>>of us shall be again until things change.
>
> This is one reason why I have preferred to remain a member at large.
>
>>In the meantime let us leave the atmosphere of the study hall and meet as
>>kings and queens or not at all. . . .
>>I like Paul's attitude actually.
>
> Me too your Highness.
>
> Jerry S.
Just finished one of the essays in de Purucker's Studies in Occult
Philosohpy and it fits nicely into this discussion.
'A Theosophist likewise is not one who talks about Theosophy nor one
whoknows our exoteric Theosophical books by heart who can converse or
lecture learnedly upon Theosophical topics; but the Theosophist is he who
-does it-. "Theosophist is who Theosophy does" as HPB once so nobly wrote;
and I think that this is the test by which we may know the genuine
Theosophist or indeed the genuine Occultist for the twain are really
one. He practices the doctrine that he preaches.' Page 387
Bee>
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 24 Nov 1995 20:52:25 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Re: parochial schools

>Liesel:
>>I think it's difficult to lateron change away from what you've been
>>indoctrinated with but it's not impossible. The things I live by now
>>aren't at all the ones I was brought up with. It took a lot of effort
>>& a number of years but it can be done to a great degree. You can't
>>remake yourself 100% but you can remake a goodly percentage to your
>>liking.
>
>Yes I'm sure that is true for some people especially if you're whole
family is
>involved a particular religion. There can be a lot of social pressure to stay
>with the crowd.
>
>Speaking from exprerience it took only a few months for me to turn my thinking
>towards the ideas given out by Cayce. My parents weren't too happy with
it but
>eventually changed their mind after I left home and got married. Maybe the act
>of leaving the nest and marriage make one look different in the mind of one's
>parents. You have left childhood and taken on the responsibilites of
adulthood
>causing them to see you in a different way.
>
>Since I survived till adulthood I hold out joyful hope for any children that
>may be gifted or have questions. The answers may be there when they least
>expect them when they get older.
>
>- ann

There is also the time in a person's life when they get the internal prompt
to get on the Path and there isn't much that can be done to ignore it. If
one has been indoctrinated then it no doubt is harder to find one's way to
the proper path for oneself but somehow the urge will not go away. I think
that our higher self is capable of manipulating our circumstances to help
make connections come easier and we have to be able to recognise them when
we come across them. That little voice within whispers to us when we need to
notice something that relates to our quest.
It seems to me that many are looking in all sorts of places and getting a
bit lost in the process but something tells them to keep looking and after a
few years hopefully they will find the Path that is right for them.
Providing that help is how I see Theosophy. People come and go and maybe
only stay for a while but in that time they have found some answers to help
guide them onwards to where they are to be in this lifetime. Not all came
here to be Theosophists but maybe next lifetime some more may appreciate
what theosophy means.

Bee>
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 25 Nov 1995 01:05:30 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

> I didn't think I was so different because I relate what I get from
> Theosophy to my own personal happenings. I fail to see how the
> teachings can mean anything to anyone unless they somehow fit into
> one's experience.

IMHO if they don't fit into one's experience they are just
"mind-games".

> I always thought all the theosophical quibbling came about because
> we're a bunch of individualists & everyone had to do their own
> thing.
>
> Liesel

Yes - and some peoples' thing is quibbling!

Alan
--
Member Theosophy International
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 25 Nov 1995 01:10:33 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: On the move

GOOD LUCK GOOD KARMA GOOD TIMES!

Alan
--
Member Theosophy International
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 25 Nov 1995 01:25:45 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: TI!

Greetings fellow theosophers or -ists!

So far we have 06 of us signed up for THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL.

That's twice as many as started the T.S. in N.Y. in 1875!

Eldon has asked in effect "why bother" - the answer is simple:
to restate the original objects in today's terms and
perspectives and to reach out into cyberspace and real-time
space to "the folks out there."

My sig now has "Member Theosophy International" added.
Wherever I send e-mail this message goes with it. Someone is
going to ask "What' that?" and I will try to reply!

Soon I will begin to state the identical message to theosophists
in and around my own Lodge. When some sign up you'll all know
about it.

So - why not add the same tag to your own sig?

In peace and smiles

Alan
--
Member Theosophy International
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 25 Nov 1995 08:18:26 GMT
From: RIhle@aol.com
Subject: Multiple Choice IV

A true theosophist is not defined by beliefs; rather by a the number of
by-laws which curtail his or her ambitions b the degree to which his or her
bookstore smells like kitty litter c the increasing reluctance just to buy
another tea cup d the questions he or she thinks it is possible to get an
answer to.

Richard Ihle
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 25 Nov 1995 09:19:48 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: theosophy & young people

Lewis:

> So Ann did those of you who don't fit the sterotype maintain
>your religious/philosophical associations of your parent's
>generation?

This is hard question to answer since I have lost touch with most the them.
The few I am still in contact with never strayed from their parents' religions.
Back then a boyfriend of mine and a close girlfriend tried to disuade me from
exploring alternative any religious paths. One guy saw the yoga book I was
reading and told me not to bother looking for anything in heaven. "There's
nothing up there but air" he said pointing to the sky. Sage advice from
someone who was barely 21.

Perhaps my experience was different in that I attended a commuter college in the
conservative Midwest rather than on the wild and woolly west coast. Maybe all
the action and all the photographers and reporters were out in California.

A Jewish couple I know have been faithful followers of Kriya Yoga for over 20
years. They still observe the high holidays with their family. One of the
things that got them involved in yoga was a class in Kabbalah that was being
taught by the swami.

>What prompted you to "search for alternative lifestyles
>and philosophies"?

Utter boredom. Philosophical loose ends and dead ends. Pat answers that made
no sense.

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 25 Nov 1995 10:10:33 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: theosophy & young people

My parents didn't believe in anything. We had a Christmas tree &
exchanged presents but they wanted my brother & me to marry
someone Jewish. I did for some reason but my sister-in-law is Scotch.
My husband said he didn't believe in
anything. Lateron I found out that his mother was orthodox Jewish. So I
learned about being kosher & the Jewish holidays. Also because of her my
2 sons got Bar Miztwahed. Both of them married Catholic girls. One's
divorced & 1's happily married. My grandsons don't believe in
anything except that when they went to school in Europe for a number
of years they went to Catholic schools. When they became of age
recently I devised a brief ceremony 1/2 Catholic 1/2 Jewish to
welcome them into young manhood. That's at least something. My cusins
on my father's side are all Jewish. On my mother's side they're all
Protestant. One cusin married an African American & one of his kids is
just getting married to a Vietnamese. I also have a distant cusin who named
his daughter Shanti. With that eclectic family background I guess Theosophy
is a natural.

While my kids were getting Bar Mitzwah lessons I was searching
around in the Jewish religion. The only 02 things I remember is that
1. I committed the cardinal sin of on a high holiday coming to Temple
with the same hat as the School directrice; and
2. telling the Rabbi that our glorious heritage which he always
talked about wasn't enough for me to to live by I needed a
faith by which I could live today. I never got an answer. I never
found an answer to that in the Jewish faith until I knew a lot about
Theosophy & by then I didn't need anything but theosophy anymore.
I found theosophy when I was in my 40ies by accident ... well karma.
Before that no body & no book had ever shown me anything I thought
I could live by not the Rabbi not the Minister who taught
Comparative Religions in college. Theosophy & theosophists did. So here I am.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 25 Nov 1995 10:14:17 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: On the move

> From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
> Subject: On the move

GOOD LUCK GOOD KARMA GOOD TIMES!

Alan
--
Member Theosophy International
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
Merry Christmas?

Liesel

Member Theos. International & Human Race
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 25 Nov 1995 10:15:38 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

> I didn't think I was so different because I relate what I get from
> Theosophy to my own personal happenings. I fail to see how the
> teachings can mean anything to anyone unless they somehow fit into
> one's experience.

IMHO if they don't fit into one's experience they are just
"mind-games".

> I always thought all the theosophical quibbling came about because
> we're a bunch of individualists & everyone had to do their own
> thing.
>
> Liesel

Yes - and some peoples' thing is quibbling!

Alan
--
Member Theosophy International
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
Yeah

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 25 Nov 1995 10:50:32 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: RE: Attracting Younger Individuals

Doss

re: Theosphical "lectures as a default means for communication" ...
I wonder whether anyone on this list has ever come across Linda Jo
Pym's "Self Training Workshop Manual". It was a way of everyone
participating in the workshop ... whatever they had to contribute.
It was also pliable. It was published in 1982 & was featured at 01 of the
conventions. At the time & made a copy of it
for everyone in my Lodge about 10 because I wanted to use its
ideas. It went over like a lead baloon. They wanted lectures. Mary Abdill
went around training on it. Whatever happened to it? It's still good & very
different from "lectures". I think it should be resurrected as a
starting point for new happenings within the TS.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 25 Nov 1995 11:00:07 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: RE: Attracting Younger Individuals

PS

Dear Doss

I'm sorry you belonged to a group that talked about nothing but death
& dying. I'm of the age to be interested in that too so I went &
took a course in it at OCC. So I got all the info I wanted from that
course. I'm in a senior citizen's apartment
complex & unfortunately most of the people in here talk about their
illnesses the possessions they left behind & sing nostalgic songs
of the '20ies. So I know whereof you speak. One would think though
that Theosophists who are supposed to be more alert & aware would
be interested in items besides their aches pains & an imminent
trips to devachan. Young people are our future. If we don't attract
those what's the good of it. Who needs 1/2 dead old fossils! The thing is
Theosophy has something to offer to the younger generations
especialy the new agers. We need to somehow get it out to them. I
think some of us are looking for ways. So what do you suggest?

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 25 Nov 1995 16:42:30 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: RE: Attracting Younger Individuals

>
>At 040000 PM 11/25/95 -0500 Liesel wrote:
>>
>>Dear Doss
>>
>>I'm sorry you belonged to a group that talked about nothing but death
>>& dying. I'm of the age to be interested in that too so I went &
> ^^^^^^^

There were three lodges in the city and I went to "all" the three
and so it was a mixture of various things I received. It did not bother me
at all since any one could die at any time; don't we all think life goes on
in a straight line.

>
>>took a course in it at OCC. So I got all the info I wanted from that
>>course. I'm in a senior citizen's apartment
>>complex & unfortunately most of the people in here talk about their
>>illnesses the possessions they left behind & sing nostalgic songs
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

The best talk I ever heard was that of a very famous philosopher and
teacher who told the audience to look around and see other peoples problems.
He said "if you look at other's problems which in most cases are more
serious than yours" and added that "you will not cry over your petty
problems." What a true statement! I have used this in many instances when I
am around my friends and acquaintances and I am yet see anyone who disagrees
with it.

>
>>of the '20ies. So I know whereof you speak. One would think though
>>that Theosophists who are supposed to be more alert & aware would
>>be interested in items besides their aches pains & an imminent
>>trips to devachan.
>
>Young people are our future. If we don't attract
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
What many do not understand is that young people have to take over
and in many cases I feel they are likely to be more advanced souls than most
of us and will take the world from we have it now. This is just my thinking
and I cannot "prove" this to anyone.

>
>>those what's the good of it. Who needs 1/2 dead old fossils! The thing is
>>Theosophy has something to offer to the younger generations
>>especialy the new agers. We need to somehow get it out to them. I
>>think some of us are looking for ways. So what do you suggest?
>

I feel that Internet is the medium of the future. It is going to
overtake print and other medium and is going to have very lasting effect on
large number of people all over the world.

Theosophical discussions on Internet will definitely yield results.
We may not see a ground swell of formal dues paying members [the need for
dues would disappear with all accompanying problems that organizations
create such as the administration asset/money management etc]; But I forsee
Theosophical principles and ideas gradually permeating the daily action of
masses all over the world. Afterall it is affecting the individuals all
over the world that is going to lead to a better peaceful world. I hope we
will see this in our life time.

So let us come up with creative ideas that can be implemented on
Internet!!!

>>
>>Liesel
>>
...doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 25 Nov 1995 21:22:19 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Re: On the move

>Date: 24 199511 215825 -0500
>Reply-to: theos-l@vnet.net
>From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
>To: Multiple recipients of list <theos-l@vnet.net>
>Subject: On the move
>
>GOOD LUCK GOOD KARMA GOOD TIMES!
>
>Alan
>--
>Member Theosophy International
>Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>Merry Christmas?
>
>Liesel
>
>Member Theos. International & Human Race
>
Many thanks for all your good wishes. I will pass them on at our meeting
this afternoon. How's this for omens!! We signed the deal on 22/11/95 to buy
our new place at 22 Dublin St. I believe 22 is a power no so watch us fly.
love to you all.>
Bee Brown
Member Theosophy International
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 25 Nov 1995 21:47:29 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: RE: Attracting Younger Individuals

>PS
>
>Dear Doss
>
>I'm sorry you belonged to a group that talked about nothing but death
>& dying. I'm of the age to be interested in that too so I went &
>took a course in it at OCC. So I got all the info I wanted from that
>course. I'm in a senior citizen's apartment
>complex & unfortunately most of the people in here talk about their
>illnesses the possessions they left behind & sing nostalgic songs
>of the '20ies. So I know whereof you speak. One would think though
>that Theosophists who are supposed to be more alert & aware would
>be interested in items besides their aches pains & an imminent
>trips to devachan. Young people are our future. If we don't attract
>those what's the good of it. Who needs 1/2 dead old fossils! The thing is
>Theosophy has something to offer to the younger generations
>especialy the new agers. We need to somehow get it out to them. I
>think some of us are looking for ways. So what do you suggest?
>
>Liesel
>
We have been having a 06 weeks course by our resident astrologer and
librarian on the outer planets Pluto Jupiter and Uranus. Now she came up
with an interesting idea. The outer planets take years to go from sign to
sign so a generation of people are born under a specific influence. This is
of course mixed up with the rest of their charts but it means that us older
ones have a certain orientation towards rules regulations institutions
etc which limits our ability to really put something in place that speaks to
young people. It is they who are born under a completely different
influence that will change the way of the world as they see it. Even when
they get oldies they will retain their ideas and in turn be displaced by
the next generation.
We need to take more notice of the younger ones because they will bring
about a different way of doing things to suit themselves and according to
the influence of their inner rulers. It is hard for the older ones to give
up the reins to younger people but I think we need to give their ideas
respect and help them develop a new way. The overview presented by the outer
planets was very enlightening and gave us food for thought. We will get
dragged into the new age whether we like it or not. Just what it will be
remains to be seen but many things are disintergrating now and will be
replaced with other ideas that may in the end be better than what has been
done so far. I sure hope so.
Regards>
Bee Brown
Member Theosophy International
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 25 Nov 1995 21:52:12 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: Theosophy International - new info/welcome file

> hi -
>
> please send comments on the following "welcome/info" file for Theos-L
> & theos-xxx etc.
>
> thanks -
>
> john mead
> jem@vnet.net
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Welcome to the THEOSOPHICAL INTERNATIONAL discussion lists.
>
> THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises those who subscribe to the
> three objects of Theosophy:
>
> 1. To form a nucleus within the family of humanity without
> discrimination with regard to sex including sexual
> orientation creed class or race.
>
> 2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative philosophy
> religion and science per individual ability and inclination.
>
> 3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized
> human potential and abilities.
>
> THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is simply a theosophical network
> whereby it is sufficient to declare one's sympathy and/or
> allegiance to the three objects and to be noted as having
> done so. No belief system is required *nor assumed to be held*
> by any member.
>
> There are no fees and no subscriptions.
>
> THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not need rules nor
> organizational structures. Participation and/or support for any
> activities is an entirely personal matter.
>
> Please be tolerant and respect the opinions and religious views of all
> the members!
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> John E. Mead jem@vnet.net
> [Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------

Seem to have red this already somewhere :-

Alan
--
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 25 Nov 1995 21:58:05 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Theosophy & Judaism

> My parents didn't believe in anything. We had a Christmas tree &
> exchanged presents but they wanted my brother & me to marry
> someone Jewish.

<mighty snip>

> Liesel

My theosophy is the theosophy of Kabbalah - which came out
of Israel and into Christianity via the apostle Paul whi sat at
the feet of Gamaliel who came after Hillel in the Pharisee
"line of succession" - all the way from Abraham - thanks Abe!

Alan
--
Member Theosophy International.
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 25 Nov 1995 22:03:42 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: On the move


> Many thanks for all your good wishes. I will pass them on at our meeting
> this afternoon. How's this for omens!! We signed the deal on 22/11/95 to buy
> our new place at 22 Dublin St. I believe 22 is a power no so watch us fly.
> love to you all.>
> Bee Brown
> Member Theosophy International

Don't be *too* opimistic - I was born on the 22nd! You get
problems. May you solve all yours!

:-

Alan
--
Member Theosophy International.
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 26 Nov 1995 02:06:44 GMT
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" <guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: none

The following has been adapted by me for local non-internet
well-wishers and potential members for distribution among those
who do not as yet have internet access but wish to support
our endeavours. TI members are welcome to use it for the same
purpose:

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises those who subscribe to the
objects of Theosophy but in a more up to date form based on
suggestions by John Mead J.Crocker and others of the Internet
community and expressed thus:

1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family without
discrimination with regard to sex including sexual
orientation creed class or color.

2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative religion
theosophy philosophy and the scientific method according to
individual ability and inclination.

3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized
human potential and abilities.

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is simply a Theosophical Network
whereby it is sufficient to declare one's sympathy and/or
allegiance to the three objects and to be registered as having
done so. No belief system is required *nor assumed to be held*
by any member.

There are fees no subscriptions although voluntary
donations and/or contributions *could* be made to specific
projects or even individuals for particular and specified
purposes. As THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not
need rules whether anyone participates in or supports any such
activity is an entirely personal matter.

Travelling together

Alan Bain.
--
Member Theosophy International.
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
Yes I wish to be associated with the International Theosophical
family and declare my support for the objects as stated above!

NAME
ADDRESS

Signed:
------------------------------------------------
I am willing to keep a register of members and to publish the
same on the theos lists from time to time.

Any mailshots are I suggest best organized locally by local
members. As I am geared up to booklet and newsletter
production I am willing to undertake the collation and editing
of *short* articles and news items promoting our objects. I
could issue a newletter locally and also upload an ASCII text
version for theos readers possibly for them to download and
issue a printed version in their own local areas. as also with
this text.

????????????

Alan.
--
Member Theosophy International.
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 26 Nov 1995 02:35:40 GMT
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" <guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: TI

Oops!

My last posting suggesting a form for non-internet potential
members to Theosophy International should read:

"There are no fees etc."

NOT

"There are fees ..." [gulp]

If anyone download this please correct it before doing anything
else!

Apologies

Alan
--
Member Theosophy International.
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 26 Nov 1995 02:48:32 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: PC Usage and TV

The following newsreport appeared in the local newspaper. The trend
reported seems to indicate a good trend and we Theosophist may want to take
notice of. Future access to younger generation may lie in PC and Internet.

PC USAGE PUTS DENT IN TV VIEWING
USA Today Services

New York: - Look out TV networks. People watch less TV when they
buy personal computers recent studies show.

"The PC is unquestionably taking people away from the television
set" says Tom Miller. VP of Emerging Technologies Research Group at
FINDSVP. "I would guess it's on the average of one to two hours a night over
all PC household."

Hard data remains scarce. Only about 35 percent of all homes have a
PC. 13 percent have CD-ROMs and 7.5 percent use on-line services.

Yet TV viewing is off slightly compared with last year for the TV
season that began in Sep. And one new study shows that PCs lure lots
of young people from TV.

Viewers under 18 watch less TV in 64 percent of all homes with PCs
according to a survey of 1200 families conducted by FIND-SVP and Grunwald
Associates.

The figure grows to 75 percent when there's a multimedia PC and to
88 percent in homes where kids use on-line services. And most young people
use PCs during TV's lucrative prime time.

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 26 Nov 1995 05:32:56 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: different ways to program

You could have a pot luck vegetarian dinner. people could exchange
recipes. You could assemble them into the beginnings of a cook book.
You could end the happening with some sort of a video tape or not.

We once did Buddhism.
I wanted to cover Karma Reincarnation Ignorance & Bodhisattva
ideal.
I got quotes together from my Buddhist books covering
these 04 subject matters & typed them onto strips of paper.
We put all the Karma strips into a hat & each person drew one out.
Then that person talked about whatever the strip said & we all talked about it.
Then we put the reincarnation ones into the hat etc.

We once did healing
I kow Serge King's sort of so we used part of a video with him
demonstrating. after each section we tried out the healing method he'd
demonstrated. At the end we did a group healing with a
chant which was on the video.

Shirley Nicholson put out a manual "A Program for Living the
Spiritual Life". According to Shirley living a spiritual life has 04
facets.... study meditation self-improvement service. You can
discuss these 04 items with your group & you can mix in some of
Shirley's suggestions.

I'm just reading an anthology published in "95 "Buddism Through American
Women's Eyes".
one small episode: she's standing in a post office line playing
secret agent. She's doing her secret agent thing by radiating good feelings
towards everyone waiting there. Very apropos for Xmas time.
Here are some selection headings:
The Bodhisattva Peace Training
Buddhism & the 12 Step
Mothering & Meditation
Dealing with Stress
Abortion: A Respectful Meeting Ground
it contains a meditation for women contemplating abortion & also
those who've had one ... very human very loving very touching.
Forging a Kind Heart in an Age of Alienation

Starting in Jan hopefully my group is going to do a course Miami did last
year. At each meeting we're going to take up a chapter of "Stalking
the Wild Pendulum". We're going to take turns facilitating chapters.
Hopefully we'll do some of the experiements described in the
book & hopefully people will bring in & discuss periferal articles
from magazines. Angie from Miami sent me a whole folder ful of
articles her class collected. The book was published in 1988.
So maybe there's something more recent to use but I don't know it. I
think "Stalking the Wild Pendulum" is a good book to stimulate some
Theosophical thought.
Here are some of the chapter headings:
Sound Waves & Vibrations
An Experiment with Time
Quantity & Quality of Consciousness
Relative Realities
The"How To" of Intuitive Knowledge
Some Reflections on the Creator.

Maybe that'll give you some ideas. It doesn't have to be dull
lectures if you use a bit of imagination.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 26 Nov 1995 06:42:21 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: RE: Attracting Younger Individuals

Doss

Re young people taking over. That'll happen eventully in the natural
course of things anyway as the older ones get more feeble. In the meantime
I don't think it needs to be a dog eat dog type thing. I think anyone
who belongs to a study center or lodge ought to have some input &
be listened to no matter what age they are. It's only when you get a
bunch of old fogies you can't move that you'd better either look for
or start up another group. Seems to me that if you can establish a
give & take situation the younger ones & the older
ones can learn from each other. Each has a different outlook.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 26 Nov 1995 08:49:33 GMT
From: Ruben Cabigting <ruben@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Theosophy International - new info/welcome file

John

Looks good to me even if I am not with it yet.

Ruben
........................................................................

On 24 199511 John E. Mead wrote:

> hi -
>
> please send comments on the following "welcome/info" file for Theos-L
> & theos-xxx etc.
>
> thanks -
>
> john mead
> jem@vnet.net
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Welcome to the THEOSOPHICAL INTERNATIONAL discussion lists.
>
> THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises those who subscribe to the
> three objects of Theosophy:
>
> 1. To form a nucleus within the family of humanity without
> discrimination with regard to sex including sexual
> orientation creed class or race.
>
> 2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative philosophy
> religion and science per individual ability and inclination.
>
> 3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized
> human potential and abilities.
>
> THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is simply a theosophical network
> whereby it is sufficient to declare one's sympathy and/or
> allegiance to the three objects and to be noted as having
> done so. No belief system is required *nor assumed to be held*
> by any member.
>
> There are no fees and no subscriptions.
>
> THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not need rules nor
> organizational structures. Participation and/or support for any
> activities is an entirely personal matter.
>
> Please be tolerant and respect the opinions and religious views of all
> the members!
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> John E. Mead jem@vnet.net
> [Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 26 Nov 1995 09:48:11 GMT
From: theos <theos@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Thanks for the Help

Mr M K Ramadoss

This is about your concern on theos prompt replies to your messages:

23 195508 133345 - Re: Info
23 199508 121627 - Re: Info
28 199508 092921 - Re: Info
29 199508 065771 - Re: TPH Catalog
29 199508 070748 - Re: E-mail address
29 199508 071049 - Re: E-mail address
29 199508 132228 - Re: Library Info
31 199508 072442 - Re: E-mail address for TPH
1 199509 093906 - Re: E-mail address for TPH
5 199509 064805 - Re: E-mail address for TPH
5 199509 080532 - Re: Information
5 199509 081432 - Re: Newsgroup on TS
5 199509 083838 - Re: Information
21 199511 073053 - Re: Attracting Younger Individuals fwd

Did we miss some of your messages or did you miss some of ours?

If we did please accept our humble appologies.

Ruben - theos@netcom.com

........................................................................

On 22 199511 M K Ramadoss wrote:

> I have been on the Internet for a couple of months and it was not
> till a few weeks ago that I finally located Theos-L. I had a vague
> recollection that there was a news group on the cyberspace dealing with
> Theosophy. It was a chance conversation with one of the participants in
> Theos-L who is a member of TSA that I did find out the specifics of
> subscribing to the newsgroup. The individual immediately faxed me one page
> document giving all the information needed to subscribe and I joined you all
> and I have enjoyed and greatly benefitted.
>
> I owe a lot of thanks and gratitude to this individual. No need to
> mention the good Karma he has earned by doing the good deed.
>
> There are two reasons that I am posting this here. Firstly I felt
> that I should publically acknowledge by debt of gratitute. Secondly to
> point out that since even I who has been around Theosophy for some time
> had difficulty in finding out newsgroup info we have to find out a better
> way for others who may be currently or potentially interested in Theosophy
> to find out about Theos-L easily and quickly.
>
> The second is very important. I sent a e-mail msg in Sep 05
> 1995 to TSA in Wheaton theos@netcom.com and either it was not received
> which I doubt or must have fallen thru the cracks of the administration
> since I never received any reply. May be a reply was sent and was lost in
> cyberspace which I highly doubt. This is not a complaint. We may be missing
> opportunities by not promptly leading inquirers to the right spot in
> cyberspace.
>
> Happy Thanksgiving.
>
> ...Doss
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 26 Nov 1995 12:14:43 GMT
From: jem@vnet.net John E. Mead
Subject: Re: THEOS-ROOTS digest 41

>Seem to have red this already somewhere :-
>
>Alan
>--
>Member Theosophy International.
>Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>-----------------------------------------------

yup :-
I just tried to make it more terse without losing the basic concept.

peace

john mead
-------
John E. Mead jem@vnet.net
[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 26 Nov 1995 14:43:36 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: PC usage and TV

MKR:
> The following newsreport appeared in the local newspaper. The trend
>reported seems to indicate a good trend and we Theosophist may want to take
>notice of. Future access to younger generation may lie in PC and Internet.

I've overheard a conversation between my husband and someone from Olcott about
tenative plans to let TS have their own web pages. There would also be
something set up for greater communication between theosophists all over the
world. The fulfillment of this project hinges on getting needed funding -
something in the neighborhood of fifty thousand dollars - to provide dedicated
equipment and software.

The web the internet IMHO is the tenative shoots of the Aquarian Age. It's
electric Uranian equalitarian. Everyone can get their say regardless of sex
creed or almost anything else. I've seen a story on televison about a deaf
college girl that enjoyed being on the internet because no one knew she had a
handicap.

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 26 Nov 1995 16:12:00 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Thanks for the Help

Mr. Ruben - Theos@netcom.com

I have reviewed my message base and see my following separate
message. You did reply to all my messages and they did arrive. Nothing was
missed at your end.

As explained in the following message my Apologies are due to you.
Please accept my humble apologies.

Keep up the good work.

MK Ramadoss

===================================================================
At 085100 PM 11/26/95 -0500 Mr. Ruben wrote:
>
>Mr M K Ramadoss
>
>This is about your concern on theos prompt replies to your messages:
>
>23 195508 133345 - Re: Info
>23 199508 121627 - Re: Info
>28 199508 092921 - Re: Info
>29 199508 065771 - Re: TPH Catalog
>29 199508 070748 - Re: E-mail address
>29 199508 071049 - Re: E-mail address
>29 199508 132228 - Re: Library Info
>31 199508 072442 - Re: E-mail address for TPH
>1 199509 093906 - Re: E-mail address for TPH
>5 199509 064805 - Re: E-mail address for TPH
>5 199509 080532 - Re: Information
>5 199509 081432 - Re: Newsgroup on TS
>5 199509 083838 - Re: Information
>21 199511 073053 - Re: Attracting Younger Individuals fwd
>
>Did we miss some of your messages or did you miss some of ours?
>
>If we did please accept our humble appologies.
>
>Ruben - theos@netcom.com
>
>........................................................................
>
>On 22 199511 M K Ramadoss wrote:
>
>> I have been on the Internet for a couple of months and it was not
>> till a few weeks ago that I finally located Theos-L. I had a vague
>> recollection that there was a news group on the cyberspace dealing with
>> Theosophy. It was a chance conversation with one of the participants in
>> Theos-L who is a member of TSA that I did find out the specifics of
>> subscribing to the newsgroup. The individual immediately faxed me one page
>> document giving all the information needed to subscribe and I joined you all
>> and I have enjoyed and greatly benefitted.
>>
>> I owe a lot of thanks and gratitude to this individual. No need to
>> mention the good Karma he has earned by doing the good deed.
>>
>> There are two reasons that I am posting this here. Firstly I felt
>> that I should publically acknowledge by debt of gratitute. Secondly to
>> point out that since even I who has been around Theosophy for some time
>> had difficulty in finding out newsgroup info we have to find out a better
>> way for others who may be currently or potentially interested in Theosophy
>> to find out about Theos-L easily and quickly.
>>
>> The second is very important. I sent a e-mail msg in Sep 05
>> 1995 to TSA in Wheaton theos@netcom.com and either it was not received
>> which I doubt or must have fallen thru the cracks of the administration
>> since I never received any reply. May be a reply was sent and was lost in
>> cyberspace which I highly doubt. This is not a complaint. We may be missing
>> opportunities by not promptly leading inquirers to the right spot in
cyberspace.
>>
>> Happy Thanksgiving.
>>
>> ...Doss
>>
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 26 Nov 1995 16:17:49 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Newsgroup on TS

Mr. Ruben - theos@netcom

I have reviewed my incoming messages and my profound Apologies to you.

The msg I was referring to was the following. I should have stated
"any newsgroup on Theosophy" instead of "any newsgroup on TS". So your
answer was correct response to inquiry.

It may help directing any cyberspace TS/TSA/Theosophy inquirer to
theos-l as this is the only newsgroup in Internet at this time.

Keep up the good work.

MK Ramadoss

===============================================================================

>Date: 05 199509 081432 -0700
>From: theos <theos@netcom.com>
>Subject: Re: Newsgroup on TS
>To: ramadoss@eden.com
>
>On 05 199509 M K Ramadoss wrote:
>
>>
>> Do you know of any newsgroup on TS? If there is one or more what is the
>> name and contact for subscription?
>>
>> M K Ramadoss - ramadoss@eden.com
>>
>There is none yet and that part of our project.
>
>Ruben Cabigting - theos@netcom.com
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 26 Nov 1995 16:18:07 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: PC usage and TV

At 074700 PM 11/26/95 -0500 Ann wrote:
>MKR:
>> The following newsreport appeared in the local newspaper. The trend
>>reported seems to indicate a good trend and we Theosophist may want to take
>>notice of. Future access to younger generation may lie in PC and Internet.
>
>I've overheard a conversation between my husband and someone from Olcott about
>tenative plans to let TS have their own web pages. There would also be
>something set up for greater communication between theosophists all over the
>world. The fulfillment of this project hinges on getting needed funding -
>something in the neighborhood of fifty thousand dollars - to provide dedicated
>equipment and software.
>
>The web the internet IMHO is the tenative shoots of the Aquarian Age. It's
>electric Uranian equalitarian. Everyone can get their say regardless of
sex
>creed or almost anything else. I've seen a story on televison about a deaf
>college girl that enjoyed being on the internet because no one knew she had a
>handicap.
>
>- ann
>

Ann:

Glad you overheard and glad to know about the plans of TSA to have
its own web pages. I also saw a msg from John E Mead about something in the
works. Will be looking forward to see it implemented. If you or anyone else
find out more about it please keep us all informed.

Like all other projects may be a fund raising appeal can be made to
the members and any contributions to the project should help speed up the
implementation unless funding has already been found or arranged. I would
be willing to make a contribution if such a fund raising project is initiated.

BTW one institution I am following up in the Cyberspace is the
Krishnmurti Foundation of America. Their WWW is up for several months. It's
is nice. Have you visited it? If not worth a try. The address is
http://www.rain.org/~KFA.

...doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 26 Nov 1995 16:18:10 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: RE: Attracting Younger Individuals

At 114400 AM 11/26/95 -0500 Liesel wrote:
>Doss
>
>Re young people taking over. That'll happen eventully in the natural
>course of things anyway as the older ones get more feeble. In the meantime
>I don't think it needs to be a dog eat dog type thing. I think anyone
>who belongs to a study center or lodge ought to have some input &
>be listened to no matter what age they are. It's only when you get a
>bunch of old fogies you can't move that you'd better either look for
>or start up another group. Seems to me that if you can establish a
>give & take situation the younger ones & the older
>ones can learn from each other. Each has a different outlook.
>
>Liesel
>

Liesel: I agree 100% with you. I have seen lodges overseas where there were
four generations of theosophists present at some of the important meetings.

..doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 26 Nov 1995 22:33:06 GMT
From: "Murray Stentiford Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"
Subject: Another TI-er

I'd like to sign up for THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL as I subscribe to the
theosophical objects as stated in JEM's recent posts.

I would personally like to see the 3rd of the objects read something like
"To investigate unexplained laws of nature and encourage the realization
of human potential and abilities."

However as the currently proposed wording is more of less a subset of
this I am just as happy to support it.

Thanks Allan for spearheading this.

Murray Stentiford
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 26 Nov 1995 23:33:12 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: THEOS-ROOTS digest 41

>
> >Seem to have read this already somewhere :-
> >
> >Alan
> >--
> >Member Theosophy International.
> >Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
> >-----------------------------------------------
>
> yup :-
> I just tried to make it more terse without losing the basic concept.
>
> peace
>
> john mead
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> John E. Mead jem@vnet.net
> [Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> .... which you did!
>
Alan
--
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 26 Nov 1995 23:37:30 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: TI

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises those who subscribe to the the
three objects of the TS but in a more up to date form based on
suggestions by John Mead J.Crocker and others of the internet
community and expressed thus:

1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family without
discrimination with regard to sex including sexual
orientation creed class or color.

2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative religion
theosophy philosophy and the scientific method according to
individual ability and inclination.

3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized
human potential and abilities.

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is simply a Theosophical Network
whereby it is sufficient to declare one's sympathy and/or
allegiance to the three objects and to be registered as having
done so. No belief system is required *nor assumed to be held*
by any member.

There are no fees no subscriptions although voluntary
donations and/or contributions *could* be made to specific
projects or even individuals for particular and specified
purposes. As THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not
need rules whether anyone participates in or supports any such
activity is an entirely personal matter.

The following have so far signed up:

Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Richtay@aol.com
Sy Ginsburg
Liesel F. Deutsch
Bee Brown
Peter Walstra
Murray Stentiford
Alan Bain

Travelling together and growing together

Alan
--
Member Theosophy International.
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 27 Nov 1995 02:09:59 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Waking up

WAKING UP TO LIFE

or It may not be Auntie Lulu

The Human Trinity

We all tend to think of ourselves as single unique individuals
and essentially this is true. What we may be mostly unaware of
is that our human nature during our passage through this world
of time and space is a composite of three basic natures only one
of which may be regarded as the essential "I" for each one of us.

Religion has classified this threefold nature as consisting of
body soul and spirit which is as convenient a way as any to
think of it. The way in which these terms are used here may not
coincide with the orthodox religious view but it is one which
may be verified by experience whereas much of the religious
thought properly belongs in the realm of philosophy which in its
practical expression is more concerned with ideas and hypotheses
than with verifiable experience.

Body

Firstly then let us consider each of these three categories
separately. The human body is an incredibly complex mechanism
and modern science has discovered things about it and its compo-
nents which make miracles look like party tricks. This has led
some people to regard the totality of the human being as no more
than an incredibly complex and wonderful expression of our multi-
miracled physical nature.

Body is composed as most of us know of this extraordinary
complicated arrangement of flesh bones blood and nerves all
of which are fed in various and often subtle ways. Mostly
however it is self-regulating and once we have taught it to
walk and talk we can safely rely on it to take us to and from
the places we wish to visit be it the kitchen or some far
country on the other side of the globe.

Stop for a moment and consider your own body. Are you your legs?
Your arms? Your liver? Hair ears eyes? Very simple observation
makes it immediately apparent that you are none of these things.
Are you any two three or four of them bundled together? Clearly
not. Why then should we suppose that however we add up the
various physical components of the human body its totality of
parts adds up to being you or me or anyone else?

So though we may each individually be genuinely unique in that
I am not you and you are not me we are clearly not our bodies.
We have bodies it is true and perhaps because no two bodies are
identical in every respect not even in the case of "identical"
twins we tend easily to identify with them. When a friend or
loved one dies we speak of their remains being disposed of in
personal terms. We say that so-and-so using his or her name has
been burned or cremated but this is not true it IS only their
REMAINS that have been so treated. They are demonstrably no
longer present.

Body then may be regarded as an incredible and wonderful
machine by means of which we are able to move about and experi-
ence the world but that is all it is. It is not us but a
valuable possession which serves us as well as it can but only
for our natural life span in the world. To use a modern term its
"shelf life" rarely exceeds a hundred years.

Soul

Soul is often regarded as being the essential immortal or
eternal part of our nature which we can clearly and truly
identify as "I". Unfortunately the term "Spirit" is also used in
the same way by different people so that it is essential to
understand the way in which the use of the word soul is employed
here.

Mystics psychics and others have for a long time spoken about
a second "body" of an "etherial" nature which has also been
given various names such as the "astral" or "etheric" body. That
such a FORM to distinguish it from our use of "body" exists is
virtually undeniable. To people who have had conscious experience
of it its existence it is totally undeniable!

Quite ordinary people have had what is called the "Out of the
body" experience so our testimony does not depend upon the
witness of mystics and psychics alone. Under ordinary circum-
stances this subtle form may indeed be regarded as analogous to
a second "body" but there is more to it than just this function.
In appearance it is often described as a kind of misty replica
of the physical with which it normally coincides and
interpenetrates. The out of the body experience occurs when
someone wakes up in this subtle form at a time when this
coincidence of place is not happening. The most startling
experience to have is to be in this condition and from it to be
able to look at one's own physical body lying asleep in the bed
breathing away as usual - snoring even - and to realise that you
are not in it but somewhere outside it in another state of
being.

This other state of being where we exist in this subtle form in-
dependently of the physical is what is meant here by "soul". Or
rather the subtle form itself is "soul". Because of the confusion
in many people's minds between the terminology of soul and
spirit we shall use a term which is in fact found throughout the
Hebrew scriptures the "Old Testament". The reason for using
this term NEPHESH is that this seems to have been precisely
what it meant to the ancient Hebrews. When we read the English
word "soul" in our translations of the books of the Hebrew
scriptures we are almost certainly reading a translation of this
very word.

This subtle form this Nephesh or soul appears to subsist for
a time after the death of the physical body but is essentially
linked to it during earthly life and is possibly another energy
source for the physical. This subtle form the Nephesh separates
from the physical to a greater or lesser degree during sleep.
When a person separates some distance from the physical in this
state and then wakes up then this is when we experience one
form of the out of the body experience. Under normal everyday
circumstances however the two "bodies" - the physical and the
Nephesh - clearly work in tandem. The Eastern system of "chakras"
or "psychic centres" relates to the Nephesh and we shall return
to this later on. To be more accurate it is not a "system" at
all but a description of psychic fact. It is interesting to
observe that the word psychic also concerns the "soul" as it
derives from the Greek word PSYCHE also translated as "soul" in
the scriptures. It is also the root of the word "psychology".

Spirit

Spirit as used here actually does refer to the essential
immortal eternal human essence which each one of us IS. For the
moment there is little more to be said about it except to say
that it is the Spirit which HAS a Nephesh and which HAS a body.

The Human Animal

That's what the body is - an animal a beast or creature among
the other mammalian creatures such as apes dolphins and whales.
Furthermore our bodies have a limited intelligence of their own
an intelligence which is of a very basic nature. Its main
requirements are simply food warmth shelter and sex.

Without the animating Nephesh which actually makes it both alive
and human it is no more than a collection of meat bones blood
nerves and so on. In a sense it might be said that we as human
beings are parasites living within this animal host. Clearly we
have to treat it with a reasonable amount of care and respect
as without it we cannot function in this material world at all.
At the same time it quite clearly has a will of its own as well
as needs desires and functions which can more often than not
be a definite nuisance in our attempts to follow our own will in
preference to its. Even astronauts exploring the glories of space
have to make provision for urinating and the passing of excre-
ment! Such is the paradoxical grandeur of the human race and its
achievements.

However provided we make suitable and sensible provision for the
body's needs it makes little demands upon us and we are free
to use it to explore the wonders of planet Earth. And it is our
temporary stay upon planet Earth which is the main concern of
this treatise. We may well - and do - speculate on where we were
before we were born or where we will be after death but in the
meantime there is plenty to do a great deal to explore exciting
and not so exciting things to discover and learn. Discovery and
learning - are these not the main preoccupations of all of us?
Did you ever meet a human being who did not want to know about
something?

The animal creature with whom we have a sometimes uneasy alliance
may share a certain amount of this curiosity with us but its
version is severely limited to those basic needs mentioned above.
Ours is far more complicated and ingenious. Let's put it this
way: the animal will be content to discover the nearest corn-
field grab the husks of wheat just as they are and stuff them
into its mouth. The human soul or Nephesh dwelling in and along-
side it will in the course of the same discovery eventually go
on to invent the pop-up toaster.
The greater part of our human existence therefore is clearly
determined by the needs and curiosities of the Nephesh or soul
nature by means of which we are able to co-exist in a uniquely
human way with the creature.

Human Mechanics

By and large then the human body can safety be left to take care
of itself sending us appropriate information as and when it sees
its needs as being neglected as in the need for food and warmth
for example or if it is a state of disorder when it sends us
signals of pain or distress. Because we spend our lives surround-
ed by the manifestations of material existence we fondly sup-
pose that we live in the "real" material world. All we ever see
however is the outward appearance of things their surfaces.
When we look at a tree we do not see the inside of the trunk
or the sap - the life blood of the tree - rising and falling; nor
do we see the internal workings of the other human bodies among
which we pass from day to day.

Obvious as this is it is true to say that even if we could we
would still be seeing only yet another surface appearance for
science has demonstrated that in the material world even within
the surface of the immediately interior object - such as the
ordinary human heart - there is a material activity of molecules
and atoms which can only be seen with the aid of another
material mechanical device such as a microscope with its
interior molecules and atoms.

What we are most unlikely to see in any of these things is the
life-energy which gives those same molecules and atoms their
ability to function. What we have been able to discover is that
all these things are subject to laws each according to its kind.
cf. the Creation accounts in the Book of Genesis. Essentially
therefore the human body with its incredible complexity is a
mechanical device animated by - WHAT?

How much of the "real" world do we actually see? Very little
most of the time unless perhaps we are in a strange place whose
surroundings are unfamiliar to us. In our own neighborhood are
we normally aware of the local tree with or without its sap or
is our attention elsewhere? It is elsewhere invariably occupied
with thoughts and images circling round in the mind.

The Human Mind

What is this mind? It is clearly more than the aggregate of human
brain and nerve activity though damage to these areas can
seemingly affect its ability to communicate quite seriously.
However it has been established that people who are physically
paralysed or otherwise disabled and unable to communicate because
of such damage are likely as not as lucid and intelligent -
sometimes more so - as anyone else. We have all seen television
programs which demonstrate this where someone with an apparently
crippling complaint has been able to demonstrate that there is
nothing wrong with their minds whatever once we have been able
to provide them with mechanical or electronic aids which
compensate for their disability.
Mind then is clearly not dependent upon totally efficient
physical mechanisms in order both to function and to exist. Mind
is a function of Nephesh or soul; and because most of our waking
lives - and probably a large part of that one third of our lives
we spend sleeping - are spent engaged in mental activity the
living human being is in fact not a physical creature at all
at least not as ordinarily understood.

Anyone can easily demonstrate this fact for themselves. When we
are on our way to the local shopping mall passing trees and
other familiar landmarks our attention our thoughts our
imaginings - these are ahead of us already at the store buying
various items debating which ones to get picturing ourselves
actually taking items from the shelves calculating the cost
etc. The existence of the local tree occupies only a minimal part
of our attention and then only in passing.

In short we are not in the ordinary course of events fully
aware of our material surroundings at all. We live as the
popular saying recognises "in a world of our own."

Motivation

What we perceive as mental activity be it thinking in words or
imaging imagining in pictures is an activity operating within
the soul the Nephesh and it is this activity which "animates"
the body.

When we are very small babies we have no control to speak of over
our bodies. As we learn by responding to the various stimuli we
receive from our parents guardians and surroundings we are
receiving information directly into Nephesh and are able to form
images and sounds to imitate. Thus we become able to walk and
talk and increasingly to think to reason and calculate. For
example by watching the way in which other people walk the
child takes the image of this into its mind; the immediate result
of this is translated directly to the body which attempts to
duplicate what the image has informed it. Gradually the body
learns and we begin to take our first wobbly steps in the
material world. The same process is repeated for all other human
activity increasing in complexity and subtlety for all of the
necessary activities of everyday life as we grow older.

The innate human curiosity which in many ways actually
identities us as human beings rather than some other species
does from quite an early age begin to use its imaging facility
for speculation and becomes able to do what we ordinarily call
imagination whereby we are actually able to postulate images in
the mind/soul/nephesh of objects and scenarios which do not and
possibly cannot exist. Imagine a pigeon with a cow's head -
anyone can do this. Imagine winning the lottery or inheriting
a fortune - easy fun - but unlikely.

First thoughts

A little intelligent observation will soon show us that the first
kind of thought we have is in fact an image a picture in the
mind. Once we have learned to talk using language to describe
the picture that we image we have discovered a kind of shorthand
labelling method. For example the word "pigeon" used above calls
up from memory the whole bird complete with feathers stick-like
legs beak and funny walk. Substituting the cow's head for that
of the pigeon involves a whole series of complex imagining but
we can do it using the same basic mechanism provided of course
we already have images of pigeons and cows in our memories.

As we grow older the use of this language shorthand becomes
second nature to us so that the transition from image to
"thought" is so fast as to be imperceptible. What we mostly
perceive as first thoughts are in fact second thoughts!

Making an Impression

While the body provides us with the means of moving around in the
world the nephesh-soul-mind activity provides the means of
identification and communication concerning what we discover in
it. There is a definite and clear sequence to this activity which
fairly simple observation of our own behaviour will soon
demonstrate.

Whatever we encounter in our experience of the world makes an
impression upon us - we actually use this expression to describe
this activity in common speech though only when the impression
made seems to us to be particularly striking. It is worthwhile
reflecting on the colloquial use of language which often seems
to instinctively describe quite accurately what is actually
taking place.

Making an impression in another context is as when for
example we leave our fingerprints in a piece of wax or similar
material. Later we can re-examine the wax and find the record we
have left there.

So it is with the multitude of impressions we receive every day.
It seems that in a quite literal sense all the objects and
people we encounter leave an impression in the subtle "body" we
have called Nephesh. This is the basis of recall and the ability
to remember things and people.

First Impressions

Here is another everyday term with which we are all familiar.
What happens with "first impressions?"

In basic terms a simple process immediately ensues. Under
average conditions we encounter an object or person sound or
sensation which on making its impression causes an immediate
reaction in us. The essential quality of "first impressions" that
we are all familiar with is summed up in sayings such as:

"My first impression was that I didn't like the look of them."

"Something about them didn't feel right."

"She gave me a good feeling."
The impressions events and people make upon us are received by
us in the first instance as a feeling or feelings. Basically
our reaction is invariably a greater or lesser degree of "like"
or "don't like." At the same time this feeling is translated into
an image which approximates to the nature of the impression.
Consider that the Nephesh is something like the wax: in making
the impression there is a direct reaction from the wax to the
pressure we have placed upon it with our fingers. Any impression
we receive acts in a similar way - it "makes a dent" in the
Nephesh. We are to use another well-known phrase "impression-
able."

The most important thing to note however about these first
impressions is that of "like" or "dislike" - a reaction which
does not depend upon reason or logic. This is because the first
part of the impression process goes directly to our memory store
of images for immediate comparison. If for example we have been
hurt whether physically or emotionally by something in our
experience which merely resembles the image of the impression we
are receiving then our "first impression" will be one of
dislike. Similarly if the memory store comes up with pleasantly
similar images then our reaction will be one of liking.

Only after this process has taken place - which takes minute
fractions of a second - do we refer the impression to the
ordinary intellectual mechanism whose principal function is to
search its memory store for suitable labels with which to name
the impression. If for instance the impression is that of a
person whom perhaps we have not met before the label that may
be delivered to our awareness may be something like "similar to
Auntie Lulu." BUT - and this is an important "but" - the label
we receive will have already been conditioned by how we feel
about Auntie Lulu in the first place.

Only after the like/dislike mechanism has operated and a
tentative label has been assigned to it will we actually do
anything. The basic process then is "Impression - like/dislike
- label identify - act."

It follows that in the example above we will recognise that the
person from whom we are receiving is not actually Auntie Lulu
but someone who resembles her. But "Auntie Lulu" is an emotional-
ly affected label and in consequence our behaviour towards the
strange but similar lady will be affected accordingly and we
will suspect that she will have some of the attributes which we
have assigned to Auntie Lulu.

If we like Auntie Lulu we will tend to act in a friendly manner
to this lady as if we expect her to behave in a similar manner
to Auntie. If otherwise we shall be more cautious about her and
we dislike Auntie Lulu intensely we may even avoid her complete-
ly. It is of course highly unlikely that this lady will
resemble Auntie Lulu anything like as much as we imagine or even
at all.

It is however extremely probable that given the above scenario
- which we can investigate and verify by observing our own nature
and behaviour - that we rarely see the "real world" as it
actually is at all; that we rarely relate to other people as they
really are in their own true natures; that all we see and
experience is interpreted by the mechanism of the human personal-
ity in terms of our previous experience and acquired pre-
judices. In short we are living in a world of imagination
endowing our environment with attributes it may or may not
possess and even if it does probably not in the way we imagine.

In short we spend most of our lives daydreaming; we are in a
manner of speaking "asleep" but believing we are "awake" - an
approach used by the philosopher and esoterIc teacher
P.D.Ouspensky.

If then I say that under these circumstances I am "asleep" then
who is this "I" who sleeps? It is not the "I" of the personality
ego-mechanism but the "I" of the soul. In short Nephesh sleeps
and I am in a large measure a walking living breathing
automaton. What price "choice" and "freedom" if these are
exercised under such circumstances? Clearly we have little of
either. The remedy is simple - we must discover how to "wake up"
as Nephesh as "Soul". Only then do we have the chance to make
real choices and exercise genuine freedom.

Waking up

This is where we come to the practical side of this study and
this work with the emphasis on work. Most things worth achieving
require effort - it is necessary to put the theory into practice.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You will recall that
earlier on it was said that all that has been described may be
verified by experience. This experience however does not come
for the askIng - it is necessary to go and get it.

In this section and by way of a temporary conclusion we shall
describe the first steps that anyone can take on their own to
put the theory to the test. When the preliminary work has been
begun and has become a natural activity which can be undertaken
at any time simply by remembering to do it then it is possible
to move on to a deeper understanding leading to a greater know-
ledge of one's true nature and identity. This next level of
working is by its very nature not something that can be written
down as a simple set of instructions and needs to be followed
under supervisIon In company with others who are travelling on
the same road which is why we can only reach a temporary
conclusion here.

Like most disciplines the practice which can be given here
begins with learning how to quieten the ceaseless mental activity
of the labelling mechanism which is chattering away all the time
like a monkey in our heads.

The first step

Choose a quiet time where you can feel and be relaxed. If
possible sit upright on a straight-backed chair and let the
eyes close. Give your attention first of all to your body. Feel
its weight on the chair the texture of your clothing under your
hands wherever they are resting and be aware of the sensation
of your clothing touching your body underneath. Feel the floor
beneath your feet - maybe you will want to take your shoes off.

Once you have established a clear awareness of your own physical
nature then relax as much as possible. Take two or three deep
breaths to help the relaxation process. Now let the eyes close.
This is a subtle but useful point: do not positively shut the
eyes but simply allow the lids to gently lower themselves.

Now - listen. Just that: in the very ordinary way just as you
might when enjoying a piece of music allow the various sounds
in the room - a clock ticking perhaps to take your attention.
Extend this hearing activity to include as much as possible of
whatever sounds there may be within earshot - traffic outside in
the street perhaps a bird singing a dog barking - whatever
there is physically to hear.

Very soon you are likely to find yourself having various thoughts
about the sounds you hear and quite possibly wandering off into
the daydream we spoke of earlier so that you stop being aware
of the sounds around you. Whenever this happens and however
often it happens STOP IT. Start again from the beginning
although it is not necessary to open your eyes again and give
your attention to the physical sensations and then the sounds
around you.

It is important to note that the purpose of this practice is not
to achieve an immediate objective such as remaining fully aware
of your physical situation and the sounds round about without
interruption for as long as possible. Indeed the main value of
this practice is to become familiar with the way in which the
intellectual labelling mechanism keeps taking you over and
causing you to slide unconsciously into daydream and to learn
to stop it from doing so when you wish to.

Every time you notice this has happened you have woken up for
a moment and in so doing you very quickly become aware of your
own situation and the noises in your vicinity - the genuine "real
world!"

Practice this exercise about twice a day if you can for about
ten minutes at a time. Gradually you will become more proficient
at catching yourself "falling asleep" and going into daydreams
and every time you do this you will have woken up a little more.

The same but different

Another way of practising what is essentially the same technique
is to apply the same principle to the ordinary activities of
everyday life. This at least to begin with is more easily done
out of doors. There are several ways of applying this technique
of which we shall give two. With practice you will begin to
discover other ways of applying it that are suited to your own
situation and temperament.

First then find a suitable outdoor location - it can be almost
anywhere so long as you can find a suitable place to sit down.
A park bench perhaps a low wall even a seat in the local
shopping centre. Practice the same exercise as you did and are
certainly still doing when indoors except that this time you
keep the eyes open while listening and at the same time give
your attention to what you can see around you as well. Again
whenever thoughts intrude and begin to take over STOP THEM. You
will have woken up again. If the place you have chosen has a good
view then extend your visual awareness as far as the eye can
see and endeavour to visually take in as much as possible all
at once. Do not let your attention fasten on to any specific
sound or object but without going off into a daydream keep the
attention as wide as possible. Once again but this time more so
you will find yourself wide awake in the real world!

The second form of this exercise is essentially the same as the
first except that having grasped the basic practice through the
previous listening and seeing exercises you learn to open your
attention up as wide as possible whilst walking to or from a
place which is a regular destination in or out of doors though
like the previous version it is more effective outside than in
as there is more to see and hear more to be aware of.

Gradually or even not so gradually you will appreciate more and
more the joy of simply being alive and present! You are awake!

Having experienced this you will readily appreciate that there
is one thing that no book no lecture can ever do: it cannot
tell you what it feels like for that is something that can only
be experienced. It is a subject for doing not for talking or
thinking about. It is a waking up to life.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 27 Nov 1995 02:14:09 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: PC usage and TV

>
> I've overheard a conversation between my husband and someone from Olcott about
> tenative plans to let TS have their own web pages. There would also be
> something set up for greater communication between theosophists all over the
> world. The fulfillment of this project hinges on getting needed funding -
> something in the neighborhood of fifty thousand dollars - to provide dedicated
> equipment and software.
>
> The web the internet IMHO is the tenative shoots of the Aquarian Age. It's
> electric Uranian equalitarian. Everyone can get their say regardless of
> sex creed or almost anything else. I've seen a story on televison about a
> deaf college girl that enjoyed being on the internet because no one knew she
> had a handicap.
>
> - ann

Absolutely! Theosophy International begins HERE!

Alan
--
Member Theosophy International.
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 27 Nov 1995 06:04:10 GMT
From: "Lewis Lucas" <LLUCAS@Mercury.GC.PeachNet.EDU>
Subject: Re: Parochial Schools

Ann

I have a wife who was raised in the Southern Baptist church but
it didn't "take". She left it in her late teens during the hippie
movement of the 70's. She found yoga on public television --
something else which has come under attach by the "budget minded" who
see little wrong with investing huge sums of public money on
"defense".

There is a letter from a Mahatma that talks about the influence
our education system has on us. The spirit of "competition" which it
fosters was decried. I agree with you that individuals can and do
make their own choices to explore other systems of thought. It just
seems collectively we could support a more benign system than one
which puts so many at risk of being badly messed up. Sometimes it
takes years for them to find their way out.

Lewis

llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 27 Nov 1995 07:22:39 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: RE: Attracting Younger Individuals

On 27 199511 Liesel F. Deutsch wrote:

> Doss
>
> 04 generations of Theosophists working together ... that sound like a
> good model. Where are you from Doss?
>
> Liesel
>

India.

.Doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 27 Nov 1995 08:22:01 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: RE: Attracting Younger Individuals

Doss

4 generations of Theosophists working together ... that sound like a
good model. Where are you from Doss?

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 27 Nov 1995 10:13:42 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Social programs

On 27 199511 Ann E. Bermingham wrote:

> Tullis:
> >Therefore in conclusion I would argue that reducing capital gains taxes
> >tends to be an indirect but causal influence on job creation. The best
> >thing for poor people is more opportunities for jobs.
>
> What kind of jobs? Working at a fast food joint? Many jobs remained unfilled
> due to a shortage of skilled or educated labor. People trying to get off
> welfare need training so they can make enough money to feed their families.

Even in highly skilled jobs due to fast moving/fast changing
nature of various skilled areas everyone has to be in a
learning/training mode all the time. I am speaking from personal experience.
I think that every effort should be made to motivate people to learn new
skills and improve their current skills. This is good for everone concerned.

> jobs they often qualify for are so low-paying and have no medical benefits
> that they have no choice but to stay on welfare especially if they or
> their children have medical problems.

I donot have all the answers. But I hope the really needy get the
necessary help and assistance.

>
> >Therefore in the specific case of capital gains taxation the optimal way
> >to help the poor is not to tax capital gains and then through an inefficient
> >bureaucracy which expends a large portion of those taxes on federal salaries
> >and paperwork pass the remaining funds directly to the poor.
>
> My husband was born legally blind. He received funding for his education from
> the Divison of Vocational Rehabilitation. Unfortunately it was never enough
> to graduate with a degree but only to give him enough training to get a job
> in data processing.
>
> It is an interesting idea - giving the "poor" the money directly. Would that
> have allowed my husband to finish and get a degree? The lack of a full degree
> holds him back from applying for some jobs. Would those funds "passed on" be
> enough to cover tuition for anyone wishing to further themselves with
> education?
>
> - ann

It is sad that your husband's lack of a full degree is holding
him back from jobs. From my experience the smaller companies are less
rigid about the need of degree for a job. I donot know the situation in
your area of the country.

In a computer company I used to work for the chief technical
officer and the brain behind all their R&D did not have a degree. He was
a self educated individual and he was the one who came with the computer
microprocessor design which was contracted to Texas Instruments to build
within a certain time frame and cost and they could not meet it. Later
Intel took the design and made the first chip.

So I personally do not think much about the degrees and I am amazed how some
time people try to impress others with their educational achievements.

Doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 27 Nov 1995 10:43:57 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Social programs

Tullis:
>Therefore in conclusion I would argue that reducing capital gains taxes tends

>to be an indirect but causal influence on job creation. The best thing for
poor
>people is more opportunities for jobs.

What kind of jobs? Working at a fast food joint? Many jobs remained unfilled
due to a shortage of skilled or educated labor. People trying to get off
welfare need training so they can make enough money to feed their families. The
jobs they often qualify for are so low-paying and have no medical benefits that
they have no choice but to stay on welfare especially if they or their children
have medical problems.

>Therefore in the specific case of capital gains taxation the optimal way
>to help the poor is not to tax capital gains and then through an inefficient
>bureaucracy which expends a large portion of those taxes on federal salaries
>and paperwork pass the remaining funds directly to the poor.

My husband was born legally blind. He received funding for his education from
the Divison of Vocational Rehabilitation. Unfortunately it was never enough to
graduate with a degree but only to give him enough training to get a job in
data processing.

It is an interesting idea - giving the "poor" the money directly. Would that
have allowed my husband to finish and get a degree? The lack of a full degree
holds him back from applying for some jobs. Would those funds "passed on" be
enough to cover tuition for anyone wishing to further themselves with education?

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 27 Nov 1995 10:49:01 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Acceptance and Resistance

Not having saved Eldon's reply to my post about JRC and having
trouble retrieving it I'll comment anyway-- hoping to have
remembered accurately the point ET was making.

Eldon said in reference to JRC that he seemed to want others
to accept his reports of inner experiences without question.
Thus when the climate was not receptive to this expectation
JRC was disappointed. In reference to me Eldon commented that
my personal attachment to the contents of my books were at the
root of my disappointment with Theosophists' reactions. This
seems to put the burden of responsibility entirely on those who are
disappointed rather than acknowledging that some responsibility
rests elsewhere.

It's risky speaking for someone else but I feel sure that JRC
would agree with what I say: it's not that we want or feel
entitled to *acceptance* by virtue of Theosophical membership.
No one is obliged to accept any doctrine or point of view
neither the "orthodox" views of Eldon nor the "heretical" views
of JRC or myself. I was never foolish enough to think that
Theosophists would *accept* my work in the sense of saying
"let's all agree that this is true"-- and I doubt that JRC ever
expected anything like that for his ideas.

But does one have a right to expect Theosophists not to
practice a particular kind of *resistance* to new or
"heretical" ideas? Resistance that says "this can't possibly
be true because it conflicts with books I consider
authoritative." Or "your contribution to the discussion can't
weigh very much because you're mired in `lower psychism'." In
essence resistance that is fundamentally lacking in respect
for alternative points of view? That seeks to "put them in
their place" with chapter and verse?

There's a kind of *non-acceptance* that is not resistant
either; that simply says "I'll put that on hold for the time
being." But when the non-acceptance comes across as resistant
and more emphatically after years of feeling resistance to
one's contributions the natural reaction is to say "enough
already I'll waste no more time here" which is what JRC seems
to have done.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 27 Nov 1995 15:09:56 GMT
From: MK Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Parochial Schools

At 101100 AM 11/27/95 -0500 Lewis wrote:
>Ann
>
> I have a wife who was raised in the Southern Baptist church but
>it didn't "take". She left it in her late teens during the hippie
>movement of the 70's. She found yoga on public television --
>something else which has come under attach by the "budget minded" who
>see little wrong with investing huge sums of public money on
>"defense".

> There is a letter from a Mahatma that talks about the influence
>our education system has on us. The spirit of "competition" which it
>fosters was decried. I agree with you that individuals can and do

I am interested in the above comment from a Mahatma. It is true
today as it was true 100 years ago. Is it in the Mahatma letters to Sinnett?

>make their own choices to explore other systems of thought. It just
>seems collectively we could support a more benign system than one
>which puts so many at risk of being badly messed up. Sometimes it
>takes years for them to find their way out.
>
>Lewis
>
>llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu

regards ...doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 27 Nov 1995 17:23:34 GMT
From: jem@vnet.net John E. Mead
Subject: new TSA home-page on WWW a sample for TSA to view

brief news announcement to all:

we have just put up a "test" TSA home page at URL
http://www.vnet.net/users/jem/

this page includes 04 TSA "Pamphlets" plus some hooks to other
Internet Theosophy resources. My initial testing worked on *my* end
and I would like comments back from people who try it.

special thanks to Don DeGracia for scanning the pamphlets and building
the Homepage.html etc.

Also thanks to TSA John Algeo and Nathan Greer for getting permission
to use the TSA material on the Internet.

peace -

john mead

p.s. I think there may be a bug in the e-mail routine to theos@netcom.com
but that should be fixed in a day or so when I get a chance to check it out.
Also the other links to stuff at Paramax etc may appear shakey depending
the net-gremlins.
-------
John E. Mead jem@vnet.net
[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 27 Nov 1995 17:23:34 GMT
From: jem@vnet.net John E. Mead
Subject: new TSA home-page on WWW a sample for TSA to view

brief news announcement to all:

we have just put up a "test" TSA home page at URL
http://www.vnet.net/users/jem/

this page includes 04 TSA "Pamphlets" plus some hooks to other
Internet Theosophy resources. My initial testing worked on *my* end
and I would like comments back from people who try it.

special thanks to Don DeGracia for scanning the pamphlets and building
the Homepage.html etc.

Also thanks to TSA John Algeo and Nathan Greer for getting permission
to use the TSA material on the Internet.

peace -

john mead

p.s. I think there may be a bug in the e-mail routine to theos@netcom.com
but that should be fixed in a day or so when I get a chance to check it out.
Also the other links to stuff at Paramax etc may appear shakey depending
the net-gremlins.
-------
John E. Mead jem@vnet.net

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 27 Nov 1995 17:23:34 GMT
From: jem@vnet.net John E. Mead
Subject: new TSA home-page on WWW a sample for TSA to view

brief news announcement to all:

we have just put up a "test" TSA home page at URL
http://www.vnet.net/users/jem/

this page includes 04 TSA "Pamphlets" plus some hooks to other
Internet Theosophy resources. My initial testing worked on *my* end
and I would like comments back from people who try it.

special thanks to Don DeGracia for scanning the pamphlets and building
the Homepage.html etc.

Also thanks to TSA John Algeo and Nathan Greer for getting permission
to use the TSA material on the Internet.

peace -

john mead

p.s. I think there may be a bug in the e-mail routine to theos@netcom.com
but that should be fixed in a day or so when I get a chance to check it out.
Also the other links to stuff at Paramax etc may appear shakey depending
the net-gremlins.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 27 Nov 1995 17:23:34 GMT
From: jem@vnet.net John E. Mead
Subject: new TSA home-page on WWW a sample for TSA to view

brief news announcement to all:

we have just put up a "test" TSA home page at URL
http://www.vnet.net/users/jem/

this page includes 04 TSA "Pamphlets" plus some hooks to other
Internet Theosophy resources. My initial testing worked on *my* end
and I would like comments back from people who try it.

special thanks to Don DeGracia for scanning the pamphlets and building
the Homepage.html etc.

Also thanks to TSA John Algeo and Nathan Greer for getting permission
to use the TSA material on the Internet.

peace -

john mead

p.s. I think there may be a bug in the e-mail routine to theos@netcom.com
but that should be fixed in a day or so when I get a chance to check it out.
Also the other links to stuff at Paramax etc may appear shakey depending
the net-gremlins.
-------
John E. Mead jem@vnet.net
[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 27 Nov 1995 18:35:54 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Social programs

Ann

That's 01 of the dumb things about all these social programs. I know.
I used to supervise getting in to them in one office I worked in. Just you try
to go to school long enough to really get a decent job & usually the
money isn't there. They just want to fund short term training.
& now they're going to cut down the moneys some more. I think it's
cutting off your nose to spite your face. I'm sorry your husband got
caught in the middle of it.

Incidentally I never answered you re most of your family now being
LLC. I like what I know about them. I forgot to mention that we also
have some Catholics. The parents of the girl who's marrying the
Vietnamese is Catholic. Seems that most Asians are that if they're
not Buddhist.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 27 Nov 1995 18:46:39 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Acceptance and Resistance

I didn't accept everything JRC said he experienced & he just told me
I'm A ok. So that shoots your theory Eldon. He didn't look for
others to just go along with what he said & believed.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 27 Nov 1995 18:57:18 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Social programs

Doss replying to Ann

You talk about motivating people to get training. Suppose you get
them motivated & they don't have the money. Do you then advocarte
holding up a bank? I'm being facetious. Very often the only thing
poor kids can do profitably is become a pusher. Where's the money for
an eduacation going to come from?

I don't think too much either of people who hide an empty head behind
a college degree. But there's no getting away from it a degree is
often an "in". I had a cusin who did engineering work without a
degree. He was perfectly capable but he was always laggiung behind
in pay & feeling uncomfortable. When he got close to retirement
they fired him because they said they needed people with degrees.
It always put him at a disadvantage.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 27 Nov 1995 23:13:17 GMT
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" <guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Acceptance and Resistance

KPJ:
>
> Eldon said in reference to JRC that he seemed to want others
> to accept his reports of inner experiences without question.
> Thus when the climate was not receptive to this expectation
> JRC was disappointed. In reference to me Eldon commented that
> my personal attachment to the contents of my books were at the
> root of my disappointment with Theosophists' reactions. This
> seems to put the burden of responsibility entirely on those who are
> disappointed rather than acknowledging that some responsibility
> rests elsewhere.

My understanding of the Teaching is that if say you tell me
that you have this or that inner experience then I should repect
your identity and dignity by accepting it as genuine even if I
personally cannot understand it. If perhaps I thought you
might be misinterpreting that experience then I can if I am
willing to take the responsibility talk to you privately about
it. End of story.

Alan
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 27 Nov 1995 23:40:11 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Acceptance and Resistance

Paul:

>Eldon said in reference to JRC that he seemed to want others
>to accept his reports of inner experiences without question.
>Thus when the climate was not receptive to this expectation
>JRC was disappointed.

Not his *report* of experiences but his theories about and
explanations of them. The experiences are subjectively true.

Apart from describing those experiences when JRC gets into
his metaphysics then we can have a discussion. The opening
position for someone with a theosophical background would be
the theosophical doctrines along with one's own unique ideas.
The opening position for JRC would be whatever system of
thought he accepts along with his own unique ideas.

>In reference to me Eldon commented that
>my personal attachment to the contents of my books were at the
>root of my disappointment with Theosophists' reactions. This
>seems to put the burden of responsibility entirely on those who are
>disappointed rather than acknowledging that some responsibility
>rests elsewhere.

If you're stuck in a traffic jam over which you have no
control you can feel miserable or not. You have control
over how you react to the situation even if you cannot
control the situation. This is not a burden of responsibiliy.

Granted it is not always possible to control oneself but
at least there's a possibility of control even when external
events are unyielding. Like anyone you feel pain when you are
hurt. But there does not have to be a sense of suffering to
the pain.

In mentioning your books I'm not trying to say that it's your
fault that you feel bad when you're criticized and attacked at
times. Rather I'm suggesting that the books could be treated
like children. You give birth to them see that they make it
into the world then move on to other creative activities. There
comes a point where you can say of a creative effort "it's done"
and move on.

Unless you plan to make a life work of reforming of theosophical
groups to believe in the Masters as you see them you need to
let go of the subject and move forward to new projects.

>It's risky speaking for someone else but I feel sure that JRC
>would agree with what I say: it's not that we want or feel
>entitled to *acceptance* by virtue of Theosophical membership.

We're all entitled to hold our individual views and to openly
discuss them. But we shouldn't become so sensitive about the views
that we feel we're being brutally abused when they are questioned.
And it's only naturally in a theosophical group that the more
different our views are the more discussion and potential disagreement
that we'll face. That puts the burden upon us to refine our words
and explanations in order to make a persuasive case.

>No one is obliged to accept any doctrine or point of view
>neither the "orthodox" views of Eldon nor the "heretical" views
>of JRC or myself.

True. We are not compelled to believe in anything.

Each group sets its limits on discussion. On theos-l we have
limits much wider than any theosophical group or journal. The only
time I recall seeing our limits straining was with Daniel H. when
people were calling for his explusion from the list for his
Fundamentalist hellfire talk.

>I was never foolish enough to think that
>Theosophists would *accept* my work in the sense of saying
>"let's all agree that this is true"-- and I doubt that JRC ever
>expected anything like that for his ideas.

We're all in this situation to a degree. There's also ideas that
I've had that aren't specifically stated in any theosophical text
that I'd consider true profound and significant. But I still
need practice with expressing them and don't expect to be able
to make a strong enough case to win over everyone's thinking.

Lack of acceptance though does not mean that an idea is therefore
profound and beyond the conception of everyone. It can also be the
case that one is confused or one's idea is not so good after all.
We cannot infer anything from the fact that an idea is not accepted;
there could be many reasons. Each idea has to be considered on its
own merits.

>But does one have a right to expect Theosophists not to
>practice a particular kind of *resistance* to new or
>"heretical" ideas?

A new idea has to dethrone the old. It has to win over the minds
and hearts of people. If the idea is fantastic it can win over
people regardless of the words it is clothed it. It won't need
fine garments it's beauty shines forth even clothed in mere rags.

Generally though skillful communication is needed to make a
case for a different viewpoint. Expressing metaphysics in clear
language is an art and can have powerful effects.

The problem that I mentioned in an earlier posting though is
different. It is not related to the difficulty in expressing
one's experiences and insights. It relates to open communication.

>Resistance that says "this can't possibly be true because it
>conflicts with books I consider authoritative."

If you come to a discussion with the idea that you know the
truth and others are in darkness and ignorance and that your
role is to "push the envelope" of the thinking of those poor
unenlightened folk you're likely to find a certain reaction.
The reaction is different that if you were writing out of a
genuine love for what you say with no judgement one way or the
other about the people that you are writing to.

>Or "your contribution to the discussion can't
>weigh very much because you're mired in `lower psychism'."

The issue of psychism comes to bear in our analysis when we
talk about what might be happening and try to see what
Theosophy says about it. We also have our personal views
and can agree or disagree with the textbook answers.

JRC's contribution to the discussion is based upon the ideas
that he presents and the logic and intuitive appeal that he
brings to bear. He can use reason and philosophy as much as
any of us. If he wants to make an appeal to authority though
we can arrive at our own conclusions regarding that authority.
If he makes a statement based upon what he says an angel told
him and someone else quotes HPB to support a position we can
each decide for ourselves the relative merits of the two sources.

>In essence resistance that is fundamentally lacking in
>respect for alternative points of view?

But what does resistance mean? Daniel H. would tell us that
we resist God's word and fail to see the absolute truth in his
Bible quotes. When we don't immediately see things from his
viewpoint are we lacking in respect or is it possible sometimes
for us to actually know something more than someone coming to
us with other ideas?

>That seeks to "put them in their place" with chapter and verse?

When someone mentions their unique ideas the first step in
a discussion would be to contrast the ideas with textbook
Theosophy. That is the starting place for contrasting the ideas
comparing them side-by-side and seeing if there's some possibility
for benefiting from the new ideas.

>There's a kind of *non-acceptance* that is not resistant
>either; that simply says "I'll put that on hold for the time
>being."

That is what we do with the deepest metaphysics like perhaps
certain passages in "The Secret Doctrine". We have accepted HPB
as an authority. Because of the special respect that we accord
her we are willing to suspend judgement on certain teachings.
We operate from the idea and hope that we'll later be able to
understand and appreciate the deeper truths. Until then we
study them and suspect judgement on them.

Your use of the term "suspend judgement" seems to refer to
something different. In this case we are not talking about
a spiritual teacher offering us truths so high that we have
to withhold judgement on them until we've progressed further.

In this case we are allowing to pass ideas from someone that
we'd otherwise be likely to reject. We allow the ideas to
pass assuming that the other person will get more skillful
and be able at a later date to present them more attractively
so that they may later seem useful and worth considering.

In the first case we are not progressed enought to receive
the lofty teachings of a guru. In the second case the person
talking to us is not skillful enough to make his ideas
appealing and needs more experience in articulating his
insights.

>But when the non-acceptance comes across as resistant
>and more emphatically after years of feeling resistance to
>one's contributions the natural reaction is to say "enough
>already I'll waste no more time here" which is what JRC seems
>to have done.

Daniel H. seemed to get this feeling after a month of preaching
hellfire to us. In his case the resistance he felt was due to
the fact that we knew more than he did and not because we were
stubbornly staying in darkness persistently resisting his efforts
to bring us to the light.

If anyone comes along with ideas that are considerably different
it's only natural for them to expect the same reaction. If they
won't discuss their metaphysics and approach us with an attitude of
"pushing our envelope" they should not feel surprised if they
fail to win converts.

For real communication to occur both parties must be open and
not trying to win converts and save the other from darkness
ignorance etc. Both parties must be willing to contrast and
compare ideas and peacefully coexist with others that consider
one's ideas as untrue. The emphasis should be on lucid writing
not on condemnation of the ignorance and folly of others. And
most importantly not to take one's ideas too seriously! It's
through a too-personal identification with one's ideas that leads
to anger hurt feelings and the breakdown of communication.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 28 Nov 1995 05:43:13 GMT
From: Aprioripa@aol.com
Subject: Psychosophy esoteric psychology web page

Hello

Psychosophy esoteric psychology web page at

http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/esopsych.html

has articles and illustrations

Shanti
Patrick
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 28 Nov 1995 07:12:10 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Skipping generations?

Following up the discussion of age distribution in the
Theosophical movement:
My first contact was with the Adyar TS in 1978 after which I
encountered the ULT in 1979 and the Pasadena TS in 1980. At
this time I was in my mid-20s and there seemed to be a very
large number of over--45s and a substantial number of people my
age but no one from 30-45. In other words people whose
childhoods were in the 1940s and earlier or the 1960s were
there but no one from the 50s "silent" generation. This
indicates to me that between 1970 and 1980 the average age may
have actually gone down after rising for the previous several
decades.

So perhaps the dearth of Gen-X members and inquirers-- whose
formative years were the late 70s and 80s-- will be succeeded by an influx
of children of the 90s. After all the 50s and 80s were decades
of materialistic complacency whereas the 40s 60s early 70s and 90s
were marked by cultural ferment and idealism.

Maybe a vain hope; maybe there's something to it.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 28 Nov 1995 09:18:42 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: new TSA home-page on WWW a sample for TSA to view

John:
I visited www with lynx. Looks great. Will visit with Netscape this
evening. Keep up the good work.

Congratulations.

..doss

On 27 199511 John E. Mead wrote:

> brief news announcement to all:
>
> we have just put up a "test" TSA home page at URL
> http://www.vnet.net/users/jem/
>
> this page includes 04 TSA "Pamphlets" plus some hooks to other
> Internet Theosophy resources. My initial testing worked on *my* end
> and I would like comments back from people who try it.
>
> special thanks to Don DeGracia for scanning the pamphlets and building
> the Homepage.html etc.
>
> Also thanks to TSA John Algeo and Nathan Greer for getting permission
> to use the TSA material on the Internet.
>
> peace -
>
> john mead
>
> p.s. I think there may be a bug in the e-mail routine to theos@netcom.com
> but that should be fixed in a day or so when I get a chance to check it out.
> Also the other links to stuff at Paramax etc may appear shakey depending
> the net-gremlins.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 28 Nov 1995 10:36:08 GMT
From: Ruben Cabigting <ruben@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: new TSA home-page on WWW a sample for TSA to view

To Don DeGracia & John Mead

It looks great and John Algeo is looking forward to seeing it when he
gets back from his lecture tour next week. Don has done an excellent and
professional quality job in producing this TSA home page and as we say in
the Navy BRAVO ZULU to Don DeGracia for producing it and John Mead for
putting it in the enternet.

Congratulations for a job well done and your dedication to theosophy Don
& John. The staff in Olcott are happy to see this magnificent work.

Ruben - theos@netcom.com

On 27 199511 John E. Mead wrote:

> brief news announcement to all:
>
> we have just put up a "test" TSA home page at URL
> http://www.vnet.net/users/jem/
>
> this page includes 04 TSA "Pamphlets" plus some hooks to other
> Internet Theosophy resources. My initial testing worked on *my* end
> and I would like comments back from people who try it.
>
> special thanks to Don DeGracia for scanning the pamphlets and building
> the Homepage.html etc.
>
> Also thanks to TSA John Algeo and Nathan Greer for getting permission
> to use the TSA material on the Internet.
>
> peace -
>
> john mead
>
> p.s. I think there may be a bug in the e-mail routine to theos@netcom.com
> but that should be fixed in a day or so when I get a chance to check it out.
> Also the other links to stuff at Paramax etc may appear shakey depending
> the net-gremlins.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> John E. Mead jem@vnet.net
> [Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 28 Nov 1995 11:18:22 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Cayce and Theosophists

Just discovered an interesting tidbit. The standard
explanation of Cayce's discovery of reincarnation astrology
etc. is that he was a totally naive Christian who never did
anything with the readings except medical diagnosis and
prescription-- until 1923 when he met Arthur Lammers. Lammers
asked him questions that elicited details about reincarnation
etc. and Cayce was shocked by this stuff.

BUT...

The Birmingham Age-Herald of 192210 reported:
Edgar Cayce to Speak to Local Theosophists
The Birmingham Theosophical Society invites the public to
attend a lecture on evening Nov 03 at 08 o'clock at
headquarters fifth floor Cable Hall Building when Edgar
Cayce psychic and mystic will address the society and its
friends. two paras follow

In an interview the same month with the same publication Cayce
responded to a question about spiritualism:
"No; I do not believe in spiritualism but I do believe in
spirituality" declared Mr. Cayce. "What those who say they
communicate with the dead must mean is that they communicate
with impressions left by the dead here. They talk to the
personality of the dead; in other words the personality which
is left to us here just as the individuality goes into the
other world."...

Looks like good leads for inquiry. There's clearly some
Theosophical influence at work that has not been acknowledged
in previous books.
Source: Edgar Cayce's Photographic Legacy by David Leary
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 28 Nov 1995 12:32:15 GMT
From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: TSA www

I just visited the TSA WWW and it looks great. This message is being
sent from the WWW.

Keep up the wonderful work.

MK Ramadoss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 28 Nov 1995 13:18:55 GMT
From: Coherence@aol.com
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

Eldon Thank you for your patient and as usual thoughtful response. You
are far more willing to give the benefit of the doubt and see gray in those
words which would imply black and white. I in all honesty don't believe
the quotes I pulled from various posts were out of context. They fairly
straightforwardly stated the beliefs of the participants i.e. 1Theosophy
offers no practices to follow 02 Theosophy offers little that is
spiritually nourishing and 03 self-sacrifice duty and good works will not
lead to knowledge and power.

Regarding 01 spiritual practices: I completely understand what you say
about practices and ritual being available in other "religions". But let's
consider our Theosophy for a moment. We all agree it was given out Adepts
Masters etc. those people who have learned and mastered the forces of
nature know the how and why of the universe. To these we attibute
knowledge power and universally beneficial motives. If this is the case
they either:

a gave the practices and the Path to follow which some are ingnoring OR
b deliberately did not give out the practices for good reason and
examining why will lead to a certain enlightenment.

I believe both are true. So to those who say there are no practices to
follow I am saying "You are not seeing or chosing to ignore what was given
to you" and to the second possibility "There is a reason why those others
were withheld from us and we can learn a great deal by striving to
understand why." Therefore when there are lamentations complaints and
protests about no practices to follow people are not thinking. And are we
sure we know the forces aroused by practice and ritual? Our survival is at
stake because those forces will surely crush us or worse someone else if
undertaken without knowledge and the purest of motives. HPB said we must be
the thorough master of the blunt instrument before we wield the sharper lest
we cause nothing but harm.

Regarding 02 Spiritual nourishment: Perhaps we need to spend some time
trying to discover what this means. Personally I find Theosophy highly
spiritually nourishing but what is it that others are seeking and not
finding? We are told we are immortal in essence that this is a Universe of
Law that we have made ourselves and have the power to continue to make and
change ourselves that there is justice in the world that no one will punish
us save ourselves that there is no hell except that which we create here
and that love and harmony are the true ways of nature. It seems to me that
these briefly stated items are what people are really looking for in life
and in understanding and internalizing these based on the boundless evidence
provided in Theosophy is the ultimate spiritual nourishment. What am I
missing?

Regarding 03 Self-sacrifice and the performance of Duty: These have been
rejected by some as the path for us to follow that closely tied to #2 we
need practices and gurus to gain knowledge and power. Here we first have to
revert to the fact that this is a Universe of Law one of which is the law of
attraction and repulsion. From this we can safely say that a true guru
Master etc. works with the laws of nature. Are we not told that when we are
ready the master will appear being attracted by the force we are eminating?
If there is one of us ready for our "Teacher" to appear would they hesitate
for a moment to do so? By Law they could not. So what we need to do is
ready ourselves putting ourselves in rapport with nature and with them. If
we can not so much as give of ourselves without hesitation put ourselves
last for the benefit of others and in so doing sense the UNITY which exists
in life there is no possibility for them to appear.

HPB and the ML's speak of the terrible trials to be endured by the Chela
chief of which is putting the sense of self me I absolutely last
willingly enduring all that may come without the personality raising its ugly
head. Every chink in our nature is drawn out in the probationary period. We
should daily watch for the smallest appearance of our personality because
when it appears it is usually due to selfishness and dwelling on the impact
some action has on US. So our Duty is to help any and all in what ever way
we can putting ourselves last for surely this will be required of us at
some point. And not just to have pleasant surroundings in a future life.
But that in so doing we come to realize the meaning of service ever
watching the results so that we may learn the laws of life and nature.
Through service and duty come power and knowledge.

Thank you

P.S. There really is nothing wrong with what you call "cite-ism" when we use
those words of others to provide the basis of our thinking and when those
words make points so powerfully and succinctly. Many are those who don't
even know what HPB says so this is also a good way to provide that service.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 28 Nov 1995 16:54:03 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Waking Uo

I read Alan's article with much interest last night and it opened another
3am can of worms and here I am at 4.30am intending to try to explain what
little I can bring into the physical brain and put into words. Please bear
with me as I will try to verbalise the best I can. I get these middle of the
night revelations quite often if I have been pondering on something. I think
you all know my interest in life-atoms so here goes.

The first idea is to do with Alan's remarks about the spirit/soul inhabiting
the physical form and using it to live in while in embodiment. This form is
composed of life-atoms among other things that have their own evolutionary
agenda. To express the ideas I will refer only to the physical life-atoms
even though there are life-atoms of finer substance on the 'higher' planes.
The fact also mentioned was that these days many souls have identified with
the form and think they are their bodies. This indicated to me that the
spirit would find it nigh on impossible to effect changes to the life-atoms
because they are in charge of the outfit rather that the soul guiding the
evolution of the atoms with the help of spirit. This sort of guidance runs
right through creation. Because we have the same atoms every time we
re-embody it is in our interest to spiritualise them as best we can despite
their resistance. We are all tied together through magnetic attraction that
continues until our spirit no longer needs a form to function through.

the next idea is the concept of an evolutionary leap that occurs every so
often in our growth towards spirit. It seems that the Manu who is in charge
of this sort of thing does this from time to time so that the life-atoms
get an extra shove upwards to make life a bit easier for the spirit/soul who
has no problem with growth in the quicker lane. Spirit/soul help to absorb
these rising vibrations designed to shake the atoms loose from their
comfortable rut.
Looking back in our evolution there have been times where a leap has
happened and there is no gradual connection to explain what happened. I have
read many theories about what happened to the dinosaurs or where the Mayan
people suddenly went to. There are many other instances like that. It is
time for another one so our life-atoms have to be jolted. The changes are
already happening and in the light of this idea I notice the many people
who have unexplained aches head aches. joint aches etc. There are now
things like Syndromes called this or that because the doctors cannot
properly explain just what is causing all this discomfort out there. The
identification of the soul with the body makes for hard times during this
energy increase as the soul gets caught between the spirit and the body and
doesn't know what to do with the strange feelings so hence the expressions
of violence as a means of dealing with it. It therefore becomes
understandable to me why all the world seems to be falling apart because
this is only the outer expression of inner spiritual changes. This being the
5th root race? I understand that we have 07 planes to traverse to get to the
6th root race . This is putting it in simplistic terms I know but I am
trying not to get too complicated because than I will get lost. So if it is
time to move to another more etherial plane then our atoms have to change in
order to cope with the change in vibration to something a bit finer that we
are now.

To the next idea. I have had a foot firmly in theosophy and one in the new
age for the last 05 years and have been absorbing the new age ideas to see
what they are about. Out of all the weird and wonderful stories the theme of
a shift in dimension is the most persistent one. This is in line with the
previous idea except for the formats the new age choses to use to explain
it. I hear time and again from the new age about their aches and pains and
weird experiences they get all worried about.

There was also expressed an idea that is not so clear to do with mini
pralayas that occur when this shift takes place. It seemed that spirit/souls
part company with their life-atoms for a while to have a rest and let the
atoms 'peregrinate' a favourite term of de Purucker around and about here
and there until called into service by spirit/soul for another embodiment.
The planetary spirit also gets cleaned up on the 3/4th dimension and
activates the 5th to receive new visitors. The spirit/souls who could not
get their atoms out of their ruts will have to return to 3/4th dim to try
again next time and as they have already made a start this time it will be
possible to do it next time around. The ones who did give their atoms a
shake up return to the new plane to begin another adventure. How this
pralaya might come about I can only guess as I could not get a clear handle
on it. But it indicates how important it is to get one's atoms to co-operate
at this time otherwise they could not cope with the next plane's vibrations.
This idea may explain all the fearful attitudes out there as the spirit
knows what is to happen but lack on knowledge makes the soul frightened.
It's identification with the body creates fear at the thought of change and
perhaps death. The emphasis was on Mini pralaya so it may just be a short
parting of the ways.

This is how it seems now but as my understanding grows so does my ability to
explain better what I have given a lot of thought to so all things change
with time. I hope to incorporate this with my research on life-atoms but I
expect some of the 'resistance' that Paul Johnston talked about yesterday.
Fortunately I don't get bothered because as long as these ideas help me to
understand what is going on that all I ask of them. If others think they
are untheosophical and strange then that is their choice and hopefully we
can agree to differ. Any mention of the new age and its ideas is inclined to
be frowned on by many theosophists but if the new agers had some of
theosophy's knowledge maybe they would understand in a more logical way
what is happening. I have heard the assension tapes channellings from all
sorts ET arrivals etc and am so thankful that theosophy has given me the
framework within which to sort out these ideas.

I hope I haven't bored you to tears but I rather liked the concepts that
arrived in the middle of the night. I might ignore my aches and pains that
have no real basis more easily as I am as healthy as a horse and my doctor
probably thinks I am a silly woman on the odd accassion I do visit him and
mention my aches along with the reason I went.
Love and light

Bee Brown
Member Theosophy International
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 28 Nov 1995 17:21:01 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Re: new TSA home-page on WWW a sample for TSA to view

>brief news announcement to all:
>
>we have just put up a "test" TSA home page at URL
>http://www.vnet.net/users/jem/
>
>this page includes 04 TSA "Pamphlets" plus some hooks to other
>Internet Theosophy resources. My initial testing worked on *my* end
>and I would like comments back from people who try it.
>
>special thanks to Don DeGracia for scanning the pamphlets and building
>the Homepage.html etc.
>
>Also thanks to TSA John Algeo and Nathan Greer for getting permission
>to use the TSA material on the Internet.
>
>peace -
>
>john mead
>
>p.s. I think there may be a bug in the e-mail routine to theos@netcom.com
>but that should be fixed in a day or so when I get a chance to check it out.
>Also the other links to stuff at Paramax etc may appear shakey depending
>the net-gremlins.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------
>John E. Mead jem@vnet.net
>[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]

It look pretty good here in New Zealand. Thanks for the emblem. Have been
trying to get it into my computer for a while.
Good luck.
>
Bee Brown
Member Theosophy International
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 28 Nov 1995 20:41:58 GMT
From: MK Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: TSA WWW

John: Do you have any plans to put some info on Theos-L on the TSA WWW and
provide a link so that visitors could subscribe while they are on WWW?
.doss
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 28 Nov 1995 22:41:05 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Acceptance and Resistance

Alan:

>My understanding of the Teaching is that if say you tell me
>that you have this or that inner experience then I should repect
>your identity and dignity by accepting it as genuine even if I
>personally cannot understand it.

That part is fine. The subjective nature of personal experiences
is not in question. An experience is real to the experiencer.
If Danial H. would say that he talks to God in his prayers and
that experience is a living reality to him we cannot question
the experience to him. But if he started to say that because he
talks to God and we don't that his Bible-based philosophy is
true and our theosophical ideas are false being based on mere
intellectual speculation I'd have to disagree with him.

>If perhaps I thought you might be misinterpreting that experience
>then I can if I am willing to take the responsibility talk to you
>privately about it. End of story.

This is correct as regards a simple description of an experience.
But it also depends upon the nature of the experience. If someone
says that they see auras sometimes I don't think that the seeing
of auras is a deeply-felt from-the-heart inner experience. Not
any more than if someone talks about how they go jogging.

JRC's ideas about channelling other-plane influences karma yoga
the value of the theosophical teachings and a future oracle-based
western religion do not constitute an inner experience.

Perhaps the problem might be that he doesn't make a clear distinction
between his ideas or theories and his visions and experiences of
other-plane beings. Or perhaps he feels that the ideas he presents are
a revelation from those other-plane beings where the ideas themselves
are an inseparable part of the inner experience and not open for
discussion?

The suggestion to only talk privately about inner experiences is
fine. But that only applies to the experiences themselves and not
to the ideas and theories. I can tell Daniel H. for instance that
his experience of the spiritual is real and true but is the same
experience that is had by many of different faiths. One person thinks
they are talking to Jesus another to an Angel a third to a Spirit.
This sort of discussion is not disrespectful.

What would be bad would be if Danial H. were to tell me that I
cannot say anything about the Bible and his Fundamentalist beliefs
because they are real and because he talks about them while giving
examples of where Jesus or God would work wonders in his life.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 28 Nov 1995 23:03:41 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Acceptance and Resistance

Liesel:

>I didn't accept everything JRC said he experienced & he just told me
>I'm A ok. So that shoots your theory Eldon. He didn't look for
>others to just go along with what he said & believed.

It's good that the two of you like each other. I don't hold any hard
feelings towards him myself althought I seem to be the one to end up
in confrontations with him the most. It's because we both have a strong
interest in promoting certain ideas and the ideas can be radically
different at times.

One major problem is somethat that we all face. How do we continue in
open communication with others that think we're wrong and aren't
easily brought over to accept our point of view? Can we continue to
promote our ideas trying to get more lucid in our words or do we
get angry blow up and eventually give up?

Some of our more interesting discussions involve people of quite
different points of view as they attempt to go over things. It can
be a learning experience. Various of us have discussed such topics
as karma psychic versus spiritual the globes and planes the need
for reform in theosophical groups the historic nature of the Mahatmas
and chelaship.

While it's nice that JRC thinks that you're "A ok" even though you
may disagree with him that's not really the issue. What's important
here is that when we're talking about matters of philosophy that we
all keep an open mind and allow for an open discussion of all the
ideas brought before us. It's important to not become so personally
identified with any particular idea that one becomes angry and offended
when it's disagreed with or thought to be wrong by others.

In all due respect if Daniel H. wants to interpret his experiences
in a Fundamentalist theoretical framework and JRC in what might be
called a Neo-Spiritualist framework that's fine. And I or others can
be respectful of the experience and still discuss it in terms of the
traditional theosophical ideas. If Daniel H. only wants to hear
Fundamentalist ideas he should probably not be reading theos-l.
JRC though has told us that he's familiar with all the theosophical
ideas and should find nothing suprising in what might be said.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 28 Nov 1995 23:47:15 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

Jerry S:

>>Not of "personal experiences of the spiritual" just of psychical
>>experiences and particularly of the cultivation of the psychical
>>and the practice of the occult arts. The idea is to leave all
>>that to other groups with gurus qualified to teach and oversee
>>such practices among their followers.

>Many theosophists not just you Eldon think that they can
>tell the difference between "higher" and "lower" experiences
>and then accept the one which few if any will actually claim
>and totally reject the other out of hand.

I'd say that spiritual experiences are fundamentally different
than psychical experiences. They're as different as the mind is
from the feelings as manas is from kama.

The psychical deal with extensions of our physical senses which
are basically astral and with paranormal powers. It deals with
the occult arts with astral projection thought transfer
psychometry physical healing etc.

With the psychical depending upon the particular power it can
be good bad or neutral. But it is not spiritual. Nor is the
sense of smell the taste of an apple nor ability to drive a car.
All these deal with the psycho-physical nature not with the
spiritual nature.

But it is not an either/or situation. Someone could have a
spritual experience fetching a pail of water and chopping wood.
Another could be had by a blind man sitting in a rocking chair
talking to a grandchild. A third could be had by someone in a
lucid dream talking to what seems to be an angel. And yet another
could by had by a teenager experimenting with drugs.

It is not the particular psycho-physical thing we are doing
that makes something a spiritual experience. It is the exercize
if but momentary of our spiritual nature a higer part of us
than our thoughts desires senses or physical form. Since this
is independent of the external activity we don't need to
develope and enhance the psychical and physical faculties in
order to awaken and experience it.

>This black and white attitude goes all the back to HPB but was
>especially emphasized by Judge.

It is not black-and-white because it does not say that it's
either a spiritual or a psychical experience. It's rather a
*something special* that can be there or not regardless of
the psychical.

>If I mentioned a particular spiritual insight you may or may
>not accept it. But chances are that you would think about it
>objectively before reaching a conclusion.

But by mentioning it you're sharing an idea about it and
not the experience itself. And that idea is something that
is open to discussion.

>However if I added that I received this information
>from an Angel that I conversed with you would reject the
>insight out of hand a priori because you view all Angels
>as "lower" sources psychism etc and thus no truth can
>come from it.

If you say that your idea came from an angel or spirit guide
I'd have to take its source into account. Just as if you
were to say that your idea came from HPB or the Dalai Lama.
This is if you are talking about the transmission of knowledge.

On the other hand if you were talking about your own ideas
then it doesn't really matter how you think the idea arrived.
You may like to think that the idea magically appeared
in your head. Or you may say that an angel told you the idea.
Perhaps you may even say that you were told the idea by "Joey"
a complex in your personal unconscious which you have been
in communication with through journal work for the past year.
However you choose to subjectively view your origination of
the idea it's still yours and can be evaluated as such.

>All that I am suggesting is that theosophists look at the ideas
>provided by others objectively first and then decide
>its truth or falsehood. Try to see a little grey in
>between all that black and white.

The grey fills in when we place the two different views
side-by-side in their original form. We then compare and
contrast them and see how far it is possible to come to
some argeement. It never happens if a view is presented but
does not allow for such a comparison to be made.

An initial side-by-side contrast of views is an opening to
a discussion not the hardening of positions and the drawing
of battle lines. As students of Theosophy we are brought to
make this contrast in many day-to-day situations living as
we do in the western world. As long as we don't become too
personally attached to our ideas and maintain a proper
flexibility of mind we should encounter few problems in
our discussions on theos-l.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 05:23:53 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: New astrology book

I just got Noel Tyl's Synthesis and Counseling in Astrology
which is proclaimed to be a professional manual. It's the most
advanced astrological textbook I ever saw and is full of
fascinating material.

Apropos of Eldon's comment about my wanting to reform
Theosophists there are great brief descriptions of each
Sun/Moon combination. For mine it said "needs a sympathetic
audience for his efforts to reform and reorganize on a grand scale."
It seems that reforming and reorganizing outsiders' view of HPB
is a much easier task than doing the same for Theosophists.
Probably the same will be true of Cayce and ARE members.

If anyone would like to know what he says about their own
Sun/Moon polarity posted either publicly or privately let me know
and I'll bring the book to work tomorrow and pass along the
info.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 08:49:26 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

Coherence: > They fairly
>straightforwardly stated the beliefs of the participants i.e. 1Theosophy
>offers no practices to follow 02 Theosophy offers little that is
>spiritually nourishing and 03 self-sacrifice duty and good works will not
>lead to knowledge and power.

I cannot answer these three statements with a direct agree or
disagree. To the first statement I would add "for me" at the end. I feel
that I followed the offered practices about as far as they would take me
and I wanted to go farther. However this was never a big concern with
me because I had already learned Kundalini Yoga and other "techniques"
prior to joining the TS. I found spiritual nourishment right from the
start but only because I was ready for it at that time. Many find history and
long-winded sentences difficult and confusing terminology outdated
and meaningless Hindu and Buddhist names and technical terms instead
of spiritual nourshiment. Your third statement is silly because no one
should even be looking for "power " whatever that means and just how
would duty and selfless behavior give one "knowledge?" If you change
"knowledge and power" to "spiritual insight" then I would agree with the
statement. Spiritual insight in the sense of Adepthood requires duty and
self-sacrifice but duty and self-sacrifice alone are not enough to gain
spiritual insight. Witness Mother Terresa whose self-sacrificing is famous
but who doesn't acknowledge any of the basic theosophic principles such
as karma reincarnation or cycles our infamous "core teachings". BTW
I have never said that duty and good works i.e. karma yoga was not a
valid Path. It is. But it is not for everyone certainly not for me anyway.
There are other Paths swifter but also steeper/harder. However I
think that you will find that all Paths will eventually include karma yoga
within them; but our good deeds and duty should be spontaneous
not forced. This is due to the simple fact that selflessness and
compassion are essential to cross the Abyss safely. And we will
all have to cross the Abyss at some point along our chosen Path.
Thus all true spiritual Paths will bring us to compassion eventually.

> We should daily watch for the smallest appearance of our personality
>because when it appears it is usually due to selfishness and dwelling
>on the impact some action has on US.

I think I catch your drift here but you need to reword this. It
is completely impossible to "watch for the smallest appearance of our
personality" etc. Who prey tell is doing this watching? Without a
personality we cannot act or react or interact on this plane at all. The
idea is to transform the personality by making us to be as good as
possible and I guess this is what you meant and then go beyond or
transcend it by shifting consciousness into the individuality. To eliminate
the personality is like trying to eliminate the physical body. In one sense
neither are real and in another sense both will dissipate soon enough
anyway. Sorry if I seem to be nit-picking here.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 08:49:35 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Phists vs. Phers

Eldon:
>I'd say that spiritual experiences are fundamentally different
>than psychical experiences. They're as different as the mind is
>from the feelings as manas is from kama.

Agreed. This was not my point. You and I know the
difference but you would probably be surprised by the number
of people who don't. In fact one of the main concerns of
counselors today is how to get people in touch with their
feeling and emotions--many people cannot always tell the
difference and dysfunctional people are never conscious
of their emotions at the time. But even for us there is a
marginal fuzzy line between kama-manas and buddhi-manas
where it is near to impossible to tell the difference. You
may be unaware of this but it is there and when an idea
or image comes to us from that region we usually think
of it as buddhi-manas when it is really kama-manas. I
think that CWL had this problem. It is a problem that all
intuitive people must face--some of our intuitions are
just plain wrong.

Eldon:
>With the psychical depending upon the particular power it can
>be good bad or neutral. But it is not spiritual.

Here again I have to differ. I see good and bad in the
intent or motive not in the "particular power " power energy
or force is always neutral IMHO. Even spiritual power can be
used for evil purposes--look at all the wars and bloodshed done
over the years in the name of Jesus and God.

Eldon:
>It is not black-and-white because it does not say that it's
>either a spiritual or a psychical experience. It's rather a
>*something special* that can be there or not regardless of
>the psychical.

You lost me here ???? What does "It" refer to?
I used the phrase black-and-white in reference to any
worldview that sees the spiritual/intuitive as always
right and good and the emotional/mental as always
wrong. Everything that you have said regarding this
topic tells me that your worldview is very much a black-
and-white one. You indicate over and over again that
buddhi-manas is always right and kama-manas is
always wrong and that it is very easy to tell the difference.
I have been trying to challenge this worldview because
I think that it is rather narrow--I am not trying to change
anyone here only to challenge a viewpoint that I see
as narrow and yes even Judge had this narrow worldview
or at least his writings give this me this impression.
I don't like the whole concept of right and wrong but if
we have to use it then I would agree that *most*
kama-manas is bad and *most* buddhi-manas is good.
But I believe that there are shades of grey in between
these two extremes that apparently only a very few other
theosophists have noticed. I would much prefer to place
the labels of evil and good on the amount of selfishness
involved or whether the ideas or images enhance or
bloat the ego or whether they lead to selflessness and
compassion. Kama-manas in general seeks to gratify
the ego. Buddhi-manas in general does not.

Eldon:
>The grey fills in when we place the two different views
>side-by-side in their original form. We then compare and
>contrast them and see how far it is possible to come to
>some argeement. It never happens if a view is presented but
>does not allow for such a comparison to be made.

We are obviously talking about two different things.
I was not talking about the grey between your views and my
views. I was talking about the grey that exists or doesn't exist
in any person's worldview. You Patrick and some others
seem to have a very black and white view of the world--that
everything is either good or bad etc. I am of course arriving
at this conclusion by reading only a few essays and responses
here on theos-l and really don't mean to be "picking" on anyone.
I would rather keep the whole conversation directed to ideas--
the idea of a black-and-white worldview vs one with some grey
in it. My thesis is that the first step of the Path ethics leads
to a worldview that is black and white. The second step
compassion results in the production of grey--that good and
evil are more aligned to the motive than to a specific person or
thing. In short not all psychism is evil or bad.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 10:48:05 GMT
From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Acceptance & Resistance

Eldon:
>That is what we do with the deepest metaphysics like perhaps
>certain passages in "The Secret Doctrine". We have accepted HPB
>as an authority. Because of the special respect that we accord
>her we are willing to suspend judgement on certain teachings.
>We operate from the idea and hope that we'll later be able to
>understand and appreciate the deeper truths. Until then we
>study them and suspect judgement on them.

This approach is news to me. My interpretation of being a good theosophist is
that you look at something even the writings of HPB with an open mind. If
they sound true to your experience or intuition you may accept them. Perhaps
you leave other things to be proven at a later date. Are we expected to make
HPB our own individual authority figure? Is she as infallible as the Pope?

Correct me if I am wrong.

- ann
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 15:10:06 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist

Dear Coherence

When you put yourself last please keep away from being masochistic
about it. Ahimsa includes not doing any harm to yourself as well.

I find Theosophy tremendously nourishing just as you do. I haven't
found any other system that is more so or even as much so. I think
when you find a teacher it adds to the reading but you can go on
just by reading for a long time.

Thanks for the message.

Liesel

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 15:14:40 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Acceptance and Resistance

DEra Eldon

My idea is you bat your thoughts & beliefs around for a while
& if you just keep on
disagreeing about the same thing over & over again you just agree to
disagree & go on from there.

How's Brenda?

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 15:21:21 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Acceptance and Resistance

A propos to sitting in traffic jams:
Eric Peper recommends that this is a perfect time to say
"Thank you for this opportunity to relax." & then to do so.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 15:33:11 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Cayce and Theosophists

Paul The stuff you're discovering re Cayce sounds real interesting.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 15:34:35 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Cayce and Theosophists

Pail

The info you're turning up re Cayce sounds real interesting

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 16:42:48 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Acceptance & Resistance

Ann

Agree. When something doesn't make sense to you you leave it aside.
That's what I too was taught Theosophy was all about. Masters ain't
no Pope.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 17:05:53 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Acceptance and Resistance

Bee

I think tunnel vision is never very conducive to understanding
others. I deplore it especially in Theosophists who believe that
there are as many Paths as there are people. Also as I've said
before both the shamans who taught me something believe that you
should use your "smarts" to look at as many avenues to a certain
problem as you can especially if soemthing you're doing doesn't
work. There's always something new to learn. Tunnel vision I
believe furthers the aging process. You get mentally stiffer &
stiffer.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 19:20:01 GMT
From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Bee Brown
Subject: Re: Acceptance and Resistance

>Alan:
>
>>My understanding of the Teaching is that if say you tell me
>>that you have this or that inner experience then I should repect
>>your identity and dignity by accepting it as genuine even if I
>>personally cannot understand it.
>
>That part is fine. The subjective nature of personal experiences
>is not in question. An experience is real to the experiencer.
>If Danial H. would say that he talks to God in his prayers and
>that experience is a living reality to him we cannot question
>the experience to him. But if he started to say that because he
>talks to God and we don't that his Bible-based philosophy is
>true and our theosophical ideas are false being based on mere
>intellectual speculation I'd have to disagree with him.
>
>>If perhaps I thought you might be misinterpreting that experience
>>then I can if I am willing to take the responsibility talk to you
>>privately about it. End of story.
>
>This is correct as regards a simple description of an experience.
>But it also depends upon the nature of the experience. If someone
>says that they see auras sometimes I don't think that the seeing
>of auras is a deeply-felt from-the-heart inner experience. Not
>any more than if someone talks about how they go jogging.
>
>JRC's ideas about channelling other-plane influences karma yoga
>the value of the theosophical teachings and a future oracle-based
>western religion do not constitute an inner experience.
>
>Perhaps the problem might be that he doesn't make a clear distinction
>between his ideas or theories and his visions and experiences of
>other-plane beings. Or perhaps he feels that the ideas he presents are
>a revelation from those other-plane beings where the ideas themselves
>are an inseparable part of the inner experience and not open for
>discussion?
>
>The suggestion to only talk privately about inner experiences is
>fine. But that only applies to the experiences themselves and not
>to the ideas and theories. I can tell Daniel H. for instance that
>his experience of the spiritual is real and true but is the same
>experience that is had by many of different faiths. One person thinks
>they are talking to Jesus another to an Angel a third to a Spirit.
>This sort of discussion is not disrespectful.
>
>What would be bad would be if Danial H. were to tell me that I
>cannot say anything about the Bible and his Fundamentalist beliefs
>because they are real and because he talks about them while giving
>examples of where Jesus or God would work wonders in his life.
>
>-- Eldon
>
I have been following this topic for a while and here is my penny's worth.
It has little to do with discussions or how a person feels but when
something is mentioned to theosophists that pertains to the teachings that
they 'feel' is presumptious an invisible brick wall is erected and the
resistance feels so rigid that no further conversation is possible. It is
this brick wall that causes the frustration because one cannot even explain
that one doesn't expect them to accept it but just to acknowledge that one
hold these views or has written such and such a book etc. It is the first
resistance that is the problem because it is there before anything else has
been talked about and so precludes any further communication on the subject.
Not all are like that but a good few are. I have found it noticable that in
some cases if the subject of channelling or seeing on the other planes are
mentioned not just in my case either people pull down the shutters and
move on. It just takes a mention and not even any further comments. I
understand that so I do not even mention my new age interests in
theosophical circles because I won't expend the energy it would take to try
to get through the brick wall just to discuss the concept of say
channelling let alone any experience I might have. This invisible aspect of
resistance makes it hard to have any meaningful discussion about it because
not everyone experiences it. I could just imagine the reaction of some
people I know if I said I had written a book about the Masters. That would
be all I needed to say and I would be thought presumptious for after all
who am I? If someone like Joy Mills said the same thing the reaction would
be quite different. The same people would have decided that someone of her
stature and acceptance could do this properly. I would probably be inclined
to agree myself but I also like to find out things for myself so I would
read someone elses ideas if they were something that I was interested in.
All in all we are human still and have to expect varied reactions to any
topic and we ourselves have resistances to things we may not be aware off
until the situation arises. Some people do have a wider area of tolerance
than others.
Regards >
>
Bee Brown
Member Theosophy International
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 22:06:58 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: Tuning TI Objects

> Having expressed my support for Theosophy International and "signed up"
> for it there are a couple more things I'd like to say about it.
>
> There's no trace of criticism in this but let's remember to be mindful
> of the buildup of a subtle film around Theosophy International a
> phenomenon that accompanies all new groupings and ventures. It is
> necessary in one way for the sake of identifying the scope of interest
> and activity that defines TI but needs to be watched. At a fundamental
> level Theosophy International has always existed and what we're doing
> is just recognizing it and expressing our alignment with it.

Absolutely! Also to reach out with this mutual recognition
beyond cyberspace for me anyway.

> Regarding the expression of Objects I note that Alan's version of number
> 02:
> To encourage and engage in the study of comparative religion
> theosophy philosophy and the scientific method according to
> individual ability and inclination.
>
> has the phrase "the scientific method" whereas JEM's version which I
> signed up for only says "science". I might have missed earlier
> discussion on this but I think that "scientific method" is too narrow
> and doesn't fully reflect the intention behind this object. Science
> includes scientific method and science is one of things we're interested
> in.

I deliberately used the term "scientific method" as I have never
been quite sure what "science" is supposed to be. There are
individual sciences - like medicine mathematics and so on
which justify the term *because* they use the scientific method
- which I would like to see applied to theosophical ideas in a
similar way. I can studt theosophy *as a subject* but I cannot
do the same with "science". So - I prefer to keep the wording
as is.

> Also to extend the point I made before re Object 03:
>
> To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized
> human potential and abilities.
>
> Investigation of human potential and abilities is a worthy goal but I
> feel it would be more in keeping with the original vision of those who
> introduced theosophy in its modern incarnation to have the words
>
> To investigate unexplained laws of nature and encourage the
> realization of human potential and abilities.
>
> This is more proactive and as long as we take "human potential and
> abilities" in their fullest deepest sense seems to express the goals of
> any compassion-aware action-interested theosophical organisation better.
>
> Accordingly I propose that if the other "signers" are willing we alter
> Object 03 as above and in Object 02 replace "the scientific method"
> with "science".
>
> Murray

I vote keep object 02 as is.
Change object 03 as Murray's suggestion above.

Alan.
--
Member Theosophy International.
Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 22:13:51 GMT
From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Dr. A.M.Bain
Subject: Re: Waking Up

Bee:

You can't beat a good can of worms in the middle of the night!

Sleep well

Alan
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 22:25:52 GMT
From: "Murray Stentiford Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"
Subject: Tuning TI Objects

Having expressed my support for Theosophy International and "signed up"
for it there are a couple more things I'd like to say about it.

There's no trace of criticism in this but let's remember to be mindful
of the buildup of a subtle film around Theosophy International a
phenomenon that accompanies all new groupings and ventures. It is
necessary in one way for the sake of identifying the scope of interest
and activity that defines TI but needs to be watched. At a fundamental
level Theosophy International has always existed and what we're doing
is just recognizing it and expressing our alignment with it.

Regarding the expression of Objects I note that Alan's version of number
2:
To encourage and engage in the study of comparative religion
theosophy philosophy and the scientific method according to
individual ability and inclination.

has the phrase "the scientific method" whereas JEM's version which I
signed up for only says "science". I might have missed earlier
discussion on this but I think that "scientific method" is too narrow
and doesn't fully reflect the intention behind this object. Science
includes scientific method and science is one of things we're interested
in.

Also to extend the point I made before re Object 03:

To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized
human potential and abilities.

Investigation of human potential and abilities is a worthy goal but I
feel it would be more in keeping with the original vision of those who
introduced theosophy in its modern incarnation to have the words

To investigate unexplained laws of nature and encourage the
realization of human potential and abilities.

This is more proactive and as long as we take "human potential and
abilities" in their fullest deepest sense seems to express the goals of
any compassion-aware action-interested theosophical organisation better.

Accordingly I propose that if the other "signers" are willing we alter
Object 03 as above and in Object 02 replace "the scientific method"
with "science".

Murray
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 22:39:12 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Tuning TI Objects

Murray:

>Having expressed my support for Theosophy International and "signed up"
>for it there are a couple more things I'd like to say about it.
> ...
>Accordingly I propose that if the other "signers" are willing we alter
>Object 03 as above and in Object 02 replace "the scientific method"
>with "science".

I've been wondering when organizational issues would come up with TI.
Right now since it doesn't charter branches it's more of an
independent T.S. lodge than a world organization. Alan is de facto
Secretary keeping tabs on the membership list tallying votes on
changes to the organization's charter etc.

The problem with informal organizations is that they quickly tend
to face the same issues as formally-defined ones. It's just that the
informal organizations often end up with an inner circle of people
running things and an hidden power structure.

Adopting formal structure is not a bad thing. It brings everything
out into the open and allows participants a bigger say in how things
will go.

I'm watching with interest how things will go with TI. But as a
new T.S. I'm not sure that it's a good idea for the theos-* lists
to be specifically associated with it.

The good that I think will come out of the experiment though is
that it will help people rethink the nature of theosophical
organizations and perhaps come up with some new approaches that
can be applied to the regular T.S. groups.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 22:57:34 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Acceptance & Resistance

Ann:

>My interpretation of being a good theosophist is that you look
>at something even the writings of HPB with an open mind.

Yes. We read HPB with an open mind as we do the other great
writings of the world.

>If they sound true to your experience or intuition you may accept
>them. Perhaps you leave other things to be proven at a later date.

Again yes. This is what I refer to when I say that you may suspend
judgement on certain materials.

>Are we expected to make HPB our own individual authority figure?
>Is she as infallible as the Pope?

I think that your reaction against the word "authority" has to
do with its several meanings dealing with power and control.
In the West we don't want other people to tell us what to think
or do we're highly individualistic.

But I was not referring to those meanings of the word. And
authority does not have to mean being infallible either.
If we set aside the meanings of authority that deal with power
and control we have other more useful definitions taken
from The American Heritage Dictionary:

AHD> an accepted source of expert information or advice

Blavatsky would be considered an accepted source of expert
information or advice on the Path and specifically on
Theosophy or those doctrines given us by the Masters.

AHD> a quotation or citation from such a source

A citation from Blavatsky's writings would be considered
authoritative in a theosophical discussion in a scholarly
sense. That citation would show that a certain idea was
part of Theosophy as she taught it.

AHD> a conclusive statement or decision that may be taken as
AHD> a guide or precedent

Statements by Blavatsky and other representatives of the
Masters would be considered as an autority if they set a
precedent as to how we would lead the chela life or if
they further expound on the Mysteries.

AHD> power to influence or persuade resulting from knowledge
AHD> or experience

And Blavatsky herself although not unique would stand as
a personal authority figure as someone with the power to
influence or persuade others a power based upon her
knowledge and experience.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 23:16:26 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Acceptance and Resistance to Liesel

Liesel:

>My idea is you bat your thoughts & beliefs around for a while
>& if you just keep on disagreeing about the same thing over &
>over again you just agree to disagree & go on from there.

That's how things end up. And we've seen it happen that way
many times on theos-l over the years. Interest in a topic will
die down for many months perhaps a year than arise anew. Then
the same discussions come up again.

The other way I've seen it happen is where someone writes for
a while representing one viewpoint. After a period another
person feels compelled to step in "and set the record straight".
That is they feel their view is under represented and they
come in with their different ideas. A discussion ensues.

The important thing here is being patient with others. Let
them air their views. Disagree with them when you feel it's
necessary. But none of us should tell others to let us have
our say while telling them to stop with their arguments
which we've heard too many times and are tired of hearing.

Each of us should decide on their own when it's time to
speak up and do so respectfully without personal attacks
nor attempts to silence the differing views of others. And
at the same time we should be gracious in our reaction to
others when they differ with what we say.

>How's Brenda?

Brenda is fine. She's reading a series of books from the
1970's by a guy named Maurice Cook claiming to speak for
Master Hilarion. I'm not sure if I got his name right.
I'm not impressed by the materials in the books but Brenda
seems to like them. She's also active in the Ojai Co-Masonic
group taking a class at the Pasadena I AM Temple and
helping with the word processing for a scientific/metaphysical
book by a Japanese philosopher named Narayan.

Galina 05 is doing second grade spelling and math and
fourth grade reading in montessori school. She has spent
many hours the past few months learning how to draw with
the assistance of a fellow student in her school. Her brother
Geoffrey 13 months is into perilous climbing and has
unfortunately discovered how to plug and unplug things!

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 23:27:02 GMT
From: theos <theos@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: TSA www

Doss

Thanks we are happy too.

Ruben - theos@netcom.com

.............................................................................

On 28 199511 M K Ramadoss wrote:

> I just visited the TSA WWW and it looks great. This message is being
> sent from the WWW.
>
> Keep up the wonderful work.
>
> MK Ramadoss
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 29 Nov 1995 23:34:17 GMT
From: eldon@theosophy.com Eldon B. Tucker
Subject: Re: Acceptance and Resistance

Liesel:

> [writing to Bee]

>I think tunnel vision is never very conducive to understanding
>others. I deplore it especially in Theosophists who believe that
>there are as many Paths as there are people.

The approach that one takes I'd say depends upon one's
phase of life. If one is looking for a spiritual practice
one needs to look here and there in every nook and cranny
of the world for it. One is a prospector looking for a
vein of gold to mine.

While prospecting we try a little of this a little of
that and are akin to a young person actively dating many
people.

At some point though we can move on to the next step
akin to a young person "going steady". We enter into the
mining stage where we're at work on a specific practice.
At this stage we're in an experience that Lama Lodo
describes as:

LL> His Holiness Kaarmapa and other great masters attained
LL> enlightenment through devoting all his energies to the
LL> practice of the teachings of one lineage -- not thorough
LL> diluting his efforts by practicing a little here and a
LL> little there. These teachers were like the mountain climber
LL> who sees many paths to the top of the mountain but gets
LL> to the top by one path.

In the Preface to "The Gem Ornament of Manifold Oral
Instructions" by Kalu Rinpoche

>Also as I've said before both the shamans who taught me
>something believe that you should use your "smarts" to look
>at as many avenues to a certain problem as you can especially
>if something you're doing doesn't work. There's always
>something new to learn.

You're right that we need to keep looking until we've found
a practice that works or if we don't have a practice to
keep trying different things to keep our spiritual life going.
And we'd all agree that there is something new to learn.

I'd be careful though with the term "tunnel vision". Someone
may be successfully climbing a particular path up the mountainside.
It would not be tunnel vision for that person to say "this path
is the path it works for me" and not consider the path that you
might find good. A willingness to consider other paths may be
healthy in the prospecting phase but not in the mining phase
not in the phase where something real has been found and it is
becoming a living force in someone's life.

I'd say that there is a deep vein of gold to be found behind
those "dusty old books" and it's something worthy of being
promoted even though it is admittedly but one of many paths
that people may undertake.

-- Eldon
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 30 Nov 1995 05:46:02 GMT
From: martinle@lainet.com Martin Leiderman
Subject: Krotona Schedule Winter/Spring 96

Krotona School of Theosophy
Ojai California
Program of Activities: Winter/Spring 96

Huston Smith
1- The Sacred Dimension. Jan 19. Fri. 07:30-9 pm $ 15
2- Journey of the Spirit: The Many Paths to Divinity.
Jan 20-21. 10 - noon & 2-4 pm. Sunday: 10-noon.
Series: $75 or single session $30 Preregistration recommended

Maria Parisen
The Play of Light and Darkness on the Spiritual Path
Feb. 2-4. Fri. 07:30-9 pm; 10 - noon & 2-5 pm. Sunday: 10-noon.
Series: $25 0r single session $8. Meals available for $25

Dora Kunz
1- The Spiritual Self and the Level of Consciousness.
Feb. 16. Fri. 07:30-9 pm. $15
2- The Dynamics of Healing
- Feb. 17-19. & 10 - noon & 2-4 pm. Presidents Day
10- noon. Series: $100 0r single session $25. 01 CEU
3- Meditation: A Way of Life and Spiritual Growth.
Feb. 20th. 10-noon. $10.

Maria Parisen & Shirley J. Nicholson
Using Unseen Energies
Feb. 21-22 & Thur 10-noon. $8 single session.

Anton Lysy
Making Theosophy Come Alive. A workshop with a panel discussions
and small group research projects.
Feb 23-25. Fri. 073000 pm; 10 - noon & 2-4 pm. Sunday:
10-noon. Series: $25 single no session

Joyce McDavid
Dreams and Visions: The Transformation Process
Mar 41118 25 Mondays 07:30-9 pm. Series $25 single session $8

Frances Vaughan
The Path of Love
Mar 30 Sat. 10:30-12:30 pm & 02:30-4:30 pm. $50 single no session

Tran-Thi-Kim-Dieu President of the European Federation of the T.S.
1- Glimpses into H.P.B.'s Diagram of Meditation
Apr 12-14 Fri. 07:30-9 pm. 10-noon and 2-4 pm. 10-noon.
Series $25 single session $8
2- Symbolism of the Theosophical Emblem
Apr 16-30 & Fri.'s 10-noon. Series 30 single sessions $8
3- Awakening to the Wholeness of Life
Apr 25 May 2. evenings 7-8:30 pm. $ 08 single session.
Tran-Thi-Kim-Dieu and Adam Warcup
Meditation: Two Views
Apr 22 29 Mondays 07:30-9 pm. Single sessions $8

Adam Warcup
1- The Secret Doctrine: A Radical Perspective on Consciousness
Apr 151718. & Thu. 10-noon. Series $20 single $8
2- Kabbalah in the Light of Theosophy
Apr 19-21 Fri. 07:30-9 pm. 10-noon and 2-4 pm. 10-noon.
Series $30 single session $8
3- Open Forum with Tran-Thi-Kim-Dieu
Apr 17 24 & May 01 Wednesdays 4-5 pm. No charge

Robert Ellwood
The Lotus the Grail and the Cross: Initiation in the World's Religions
Jun 14-16 Fri. 07:30-9 pm. 10-noon and 2-4 pm. 10-noon.
Series $30 single session $8

Krotona School
46 Krotonal Hill. Ojai CA 93023
Director- Shirley J. Nicholson
Phone: 805 - 646-1130; Fax: 805 - 646-5381

General Notes on Scholarship and Work/Study
Scholarship assistance for attending classes is available to members of the
Theosophical Society. The work/study program is for members wishing to do
individual research on a theosophical topic. Programs Thanks The Kern
Foundation
Audio Cassettes are available from past programs and this one. Call if
interested
If you are not in the mailing list. Call or mail in a card.

Last Note:
Krotona School is not responsible for omissions typos "srorre" etc.
caused by me. Sorry if any. Always call before you go
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 30 Nov 1995 11:09:35 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Sun/Moon polarities

Three people asked about their own but did not say whether to
do it publicly or privately. So I'll post the combinations
but not say whose they are. Also will give HPB HSO the TS
and my own:

Virgo Sun/Taurus Moon a poster
These two earth signs work well together: there is a practical
good fortune about almost everything connected with material
gooods plans for security and making ends more than meet.
The materialism orientation is often emotionally intensely
possessive and stubborn. When routine gets the upper hand in
life a good tie-in with an energizing aspect is needed to keep
growth active. Poster-- maybe the "materialism" reference
can apply at the mental level as in taking things too
literally and wanting to *possess* truth.

Libra Sun/Gemini Moon a poster
Two air signs in trine: the social personality is voluble
expressive articulate. There is an ease about expression and
socializing. An audience is needed and is never displeased!
The romantic dimension may be emphasized. The challenge is to
tie in the ease of expression with a substantive goal and
mission. Poster-- the charm and communication part is right
on but this seems to assume more extraversion than is
necessarily the case.

Pisces Sun/Taurus Moon a poster
In this blend the sensitive intuitive energies gain a secure
structure in reality. There is so much feeling. Aesthetic
helpful involvements communicate the personality to a loving
audience. Romance attracts a deep loyalty. Poster-- how nice
to have Edgar Cayce in your 1/144th of the population.

Leo Sun/Libra Moon HPB
In this blend the self-important energy of Leonine drama
streams sentiment adds attractiveness to the identity. Because
of the keen social awareness and the dependence on society for
recognition passion is softened into sentimentality. Grand
schemes are conceived large social theories appeal and
everything has an optimistic projection. True enough but
without knowing about her Mercury/Mars/Saturn conjunction in
Virgo in the third you wouldn't see how HPB could be a
detailed and encyclopedic writer on a wide variety of topics.

Leo Sun/Scorpio Moon Olcott
Two power-signs struggle to get the message out: "I am a very
deep person reliable and right as right; and you must
recognize that and know how good I am for you!" Excesses of
emotional expression show up as the temperamental trappings for
well-organized personal opinion and bias. Understanding the
motivation for the thrust for power is very important to
success. Wonder about his synastry with Judge.

Scorpio Sun/Leo Moon TS 11/17/1875
With this blend of fixed signs we see fixed opinions fixed
emotions and a strong sense of purpose. The danger is that
the emotional dimension will run away with the personality and
dramatize only a portion of the need spectrum. Sensationalism
always seems to be just around the corner! So much is expected
from others to fulfill the ego's security and love needs; a lot
of energy is used up commandeering others' resources. Hmm.
Makes changing anything major seem Sisyphean.

Scorpio Sun/Taurus Moon PJ
This opposition gives tremendous structure to the ego's bid for
fulfillment. This is the blend that depicts life "in the grand
manner." If the emotional component does not run away with the
ambition the material construct can be awesome. If the
emotional side gets the upper hand the structure will probably
fall apart. The ambition to reorganize or reform things
desperately needs a sympathetic audience to develop its
potential. The "grand manner" bit is preposterous in a
material sense; the "desperately" hits *too* close to home.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 30 Nov 1995 11:44:57 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: Tuning TI Objects

Let it be known to all who sign up for TI "the scientific method" includes
experiment and theory in a feedback or interplay relationship. Experiment
usually includes observation leading to empirical laws. Theory usually includes
specific laws of nature leading to various general theories. But the real
kingpin of the scientific method is direct observation which many theosophists
seem to be afraid of or at least find repugnant. Just wanted everyone to know.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 30 Nov 1995 11:44:59 GMT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com>
Subject: New Inner Group Teachings

I have been reading the new Inner Group Teachings 2nd Ed and it is very very
good thank you Daniel C.. As Dan said it does have more in it than the 1st
edition. Some of these are "exercises" which seem to incorporate visualization
and meditation techniques. The book is excellent; a *must* for any serious
theosophist. ES instructions IV V and VI are included in appendices and the
introduction includes an interesting history of the inner group. A very
thorough job.

Jerry S.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 30 Nov 1995 11:55:33 GMT
From: Coherence@aol.com
Subject: Re: Tuning TI Objects

I propose two entirely new objects for this new Association attempting to
find its way. And please note that these two objects which I have formulated
are a direct result of the liberalizing influences that I have felt here on
Theos-L. These two were developed because of the extremely broad spectrum
that exists among Theosophists phers. Since the three objects of the TS
and ULT need reworking in the humble opinion of many why not start fresh?

Here goes:

1 To continuously search for TRUTH

2 To live to benefit all Life and Nature by its discovery.

These are sufficiently broad to encompass the wide variety of viewpoints and
approaches represented here contain no dogma whatsoever start the new
Association in a completely fresh direction are ultimately consistent with
the Unity which exists and Theosophy teaches encompasses the great axiom
"There is No Religion Higher than Truth" and promote right action.

I actually like the objects as they have been re-written but why not take a
different approach to this new Universal organization?

Any Comments?
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 30 Nov 1995 13:25:52 GMT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Nutritious Theosophy

Yesterday Coherence repeated his earlier impression that many
posters on theos-l did not find Theosophy spiritually
nourishing. Funny but I have never gotten that impression
from a single one of us. Which probably indicates that we mean
different things by either `Theosophy' or `spiritually
nourishing.'

By definition really theosophy is spiritually nourishing--
else it wouldn't be theosophy. With the capital T meaning the
teachings/movement emanating from HPB lots of people don't
find it so but that presumably doesn't include any of us.
Certainly not me although I suspect things I've said may
number me among those Coherence is thinking of. Why would any
of us be here if not?

On the other hand many of us have expressed various ways we
have found Theosophical organizations lacking in nourishment
for us; but that's the organizations not Theosophy. And
having read the SD cover to cover four times in my early years
I don't expect to find any nourishment in doing so again-- you
can't step into the same river twice or at least not five
times in my case. Others have expressed similar feelings.
But it certainly was and is spiritually nourishing.

It is however quite a different matter if we ask: does the
Theosophical literature/movement/etc. provide nourishment that
is balanced complete and appetizing to the extent that we have
little interest in anything else? I'd have to say I find the
ARE literature more balanced more focused on integrating
physical emotional mental and spiritual well-being-- yet less
satisfying from a purely intellectual point of view. Jerry S.
might say something similar about Magick or Alan about
Kabbalah. But IMO what HPB and her Masters intended the
Theosophical movement to be was not a complete balanced
spiritual meal that would satisfy all the needs of the
members. Rather it would bring together people who derived
nourishment from a great variety of sources-- who would then
nourish one another largely because of this diversity. In
which case are we not a microcosm here on theos-l of that
larger purpose?

This metaphor of nutrition made me think about ways different
people assimilate Theosophy. When I found it at 24 I
proceeded to "swallow it whole"-- devouring ALL of HPB's works
later Purucker's other secondary stuff and having little
interest in other things. Later the same thing happened with
Fourth Way literature and the works of Idries Shah. But this
kind of compulsiveness and narrowness of focus is typical of
the young. It's hard to imagine someone encountering Theosophy
in middle age acting that way; they would have more background
in life and would assimilate more slowly and selectively. I'm
currently working my way through the 24 volumes of Cayce
readings finding plenty of nourishment but without the sense
of personal hunger that motivated the HPB phase. Rich Taylor's
mention of getting instruction in Theosophy through dreams
echoed exactly what I went through long ago. If you assimilate
the stuff during the day you're bound to digest it nocturnally.

Anyhow I'm rambling and it's time to go eat. But Coherence's
comments deserve further exploration so I'll end with
general questions:
How do you whoever cares to comment find Theosophy
spiritually nourishing? How does this compare to nourishment
found elsewhere? to ways you found it nourishing in the past?
to the experience of other Theosophists you know? This
metaphor could really help us understand one another better.
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 30 Nov 1995 15:19:52 GMT
From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" <liesel@future.dreamscape.com>
Subject: Re: Tuning TI Objects

Jerry

And what pray tell is wrong with direct observation? Elucidate
please.

Liesel
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 30 Nov 1995 17:03:04 GMT
From: MK Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
Subject: Re: New Inner Group Teachings

Jerry S.

What is the publication you are referring to and who is the
publisher and do you have a tel # or WWW address?

..doss

At 045600 PM 11/30/95 -0500 you wrote:
>I have been reading the new Inner Group Teachings 2nd Ed and it is very very
>good thank you Daniel C.. As Dan said it does have more in it than the 1st
>edition. Some of these are "exercises" which seem to incorporate visualization
>and meditation techniques. The book is excellent; a *must* for any serious
>theosophist. ES instructions IV V and VI are included in appendices and the
>introduction includes an interesting history of the inner group. A very
>thorough job.
>
> Jerry S.
>
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 30 Nov 1995 19:33:56 GMT
From: RIhle@aol.com
Subject: Sidebar to Eldon

ET to Ann

Blavatsky would be considered an accepted source of expert
information or advice on the Path and specifically on
Theosophy or those doctrines given us by the Masters.

RI

Eldon we must never throw away this sentence of yours. It brings out into
the open with great clarity the two issues which may have to be dealt with
by The Theosophical Society if it is to have any meaningful presence in the
Twenty-First Century:

1 Either Blavatsky is to be considered an *accepted* source of *expert*
information and/or advice on the Path or she is to be considered a
prodigious source of theosophically-derived information and ideas--some
perhaps valid some perhaps invalid--on a wide variety of things which may
have everything or nothing to do with the "Path."

2 Either the *Theosophical* in The Theosophical Society refers to
*Theosophy* capitalized and defined as the doctrines given us by the Masters
or it refers to *theosophy* uncapitalized and defined epistemologically as a
valid category of knowledge which results from an individual's transcendental
progress toward the One.

Were you merely speaking about your private orientation and definitions
Eldon or were you suggesting that The Theosophical Society is or should be
officially organized according to the options you prefer?

Intention is everything

Richard Ihle
From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: 30 Nov 1995 21:26:34 GMT
From: JK1Carp@aol.com
Subject: Theosophy Lodge Online Update

Theosophy Lodge Online now offers a World Wide Web site.

The current program is available there as well as all TLO articles
and a telnet link to the BBS.

Everyone is encouraged to make use of this new site.

The WWW URL address is http://theosophy.org/.

Inquiries may be directed by email to TheosLodge@aol.com.

I would like to clear up a few matters concerning comments on the TSA by-law
revisions.

As a member of TSIA and President of the Miami Lodge I prepared a "Comment" on
the proposed by-law revisions in accordance with the invitation given in the
American Theosophist for members to do so. I called John Algeo and asked him if
my "Comment" would be published. He told me that it was somewhat long and that
there were also many other comments submitted. Therefore he might put it in
the AT in an abridged form. It was for this reason that I decided to mail it in
full to Lodge Presidents Study Center Secretaries and other TSIA members for
whom I had addresses. I also posted the "Comment" on Theos-L. It is fortunate
that I did this because as we know the ballots have come out but the American
Theosophist has not. Had I not gone through the effort and expense of mailing
that "Comment" there would have been very little publicity to alert members to
issues concerning these major bylaw changes.

It was this "Comment" to which Brant Jackson responded with his "Memo" that was
mailed out by John Algeo to Lodge Presidents and Study Center Secretaries and
which was recently posted to Theos-L by Rueben Caboting. I chose not to mail
out a reply to Brant Jackson's "Memo" because I believe that many of Brant's
points are not convincing on their face although I appreciate his sincerity in
presenting his views. Many thanks to Jerry Hejka-Ekins for responding to
Brant's memo point by point at least as well if not better than I might have
done.

To clear up one point however: I not only have legal training as Brant states
but I am a graduate of the Northwestern University Law School and a licensed
attorney-at law. Whether I practice full time or not is not the issue. I
believe I can read the law as well as the next lawyer and I have examined the
Florida cases pertaining to the issue that most concern our Lodge that is: what
happens when there is a disagreement between a local assembly and a parent
organization. I have explained all this in my "Comment" and I believe that the
structure of TSIA is at present congregational. In the legal sense this means
that the local Lodges congregations control their assets their membership and
consequently what is studied. The proposed bylaw revisions will change all this
as I have already stated in my "Comment" and TSIA will in my opinion become
episcopal with control coming from the top. What is important is for interested
members to consult their own lawyers and to examine the law in their own
jurisdictions especially if they are involved in Lodge service which I invited
the members to do in my "Comment."

With respect to the Boston Lodge situation I have taken the trouble to visit
the Lodge on 191911 1995 and to examine their program and their building.
It is now located in a building at 21 Maple Street Arlington MA 02174 which
as Jerry has pointed out they bought with the proceeds of their share of the
monies from the sale of the previous Boston Lodge building. I wanted to hear
the other side of the story as I had already heard the minority viewpoint
during the Jul convention at Wheaton from Fernando De Torrijos a national
director and leader of a small minority faction who brought the unsuccessful
lawsuit with headquarters financial backing and which caused the split up of
the Lodge a split up of the proceeds from the building sale and the payment of
enormous legal expenses. Here lies the real wastage of TSIA assets. Although
there were numerous issues raised in the lawsuit there is no question in my
mind that a major issue was what was being studied at the Boston Lodge in
particular the Alice Bailey teachings and these were objectionable to the
minority.

In fairness to John Algeo he has pointed out to me and I believe correctly
that he was not President of TSIA when this lawsuit was instituted. But the
result in my view has really been a tragedy for TSIA. The kind of attitude
that prompted this law suit bodes ill for TSIA which is shrinking in membership
and will likely continue to shrink if this attitude persists. I have met the
President and several officers of the Boston Lodge which is now independent of
TSIA. They certainly seem like good people to me and they are doing what in
my view a Theosophical Lodge should be doing: i.e. maintaining a library
operating a bookstore putting on courses and speakers on specifically
theosophical subjects like The Secret Doctrine and ancillary subjects like the
Alice Bailey and other work. But that is only my view. What a Lodge does is
best left up to the Lodge.

The imposition of control from the top will simply not foster the kind of
independent thought which is expressed in the declared objects of the
Theosophical Society. I think this is the most important point for members to
reflect upon when considering their vote on the bylaw changes #15 #16 #17 and
#9. I think The Secret Doctrine is an important matter for study and our Lodge
has a Secret Doctrine Study group. We will have 02 in Jan. I know John
Algeo thinks it is important. He has written so in the American Theosophist.
The independent Boston Lodge thinks it is important and they have a Secret
Doctrine Study group. But the only thing any of us have agreed to in becoming
members of the Theosophical Society is to be in sympathy with the 03 declared
objects. not to study The Secret Doctrine or anything else for that matter.
It is now and in my view should always be left up to the members of each
Lodge. It is this openness of inquiry that is what to me is attractive about
being a member of the Society. There are very few spiritual organizations today
that are as open as The Theosophical Society the others all have their dogma.
I believe it is essential to preserve the openness of inquiry that presently
characterizes our Theosophical Society. Once control is taken away from the
local level we will have given that up.

Sy Ginsburg