From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Apr 3 23:13:44 1996 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 00:13:44 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: UPLOAD - KEY22.TXT (Key to Theosophy) Mime-Version: 1.0 ~The Key to Theosophy~ KEY22.TXT Theosophical Teachings as to Nature and Man The Unity of All in All Q. Having told me what God, the Soul and Man are not, in your views, can you inform me what they are, according to your teachings? A. In their origin and in eternity the three, like the universe and all therein, are one with the absolute Unity, the unknowable deific essence I spoke about some time back. We believe in no creation, but in the periodical and consecutive appearances of the universe from the subjective onto the objective plane of being, at regular intervals of time, covering periods of immense duration. Q. Can you elaborate the subject? A. Take as a first comparison and a help towards a more correct conception, the solar year, and as a second, the two halves of that year, producing each a day and a night of six months' duration at the North Pole. Now imagine, if you can, instead of a Solar year of 365 days, ETERNITY. Let the sun represent the universe, and the polar days and nights of six months each,days and nights lasting each 182 trillions and quadrillions of years, instead of 182 days each. As the sun arises every morning on our objective horizon out of its (to us) subjective and antipodal space, so does the Universe emerge periodically on the plane of objectivity, issuing from that of subjectivity,the antipodes of the former. This is the "Cycle of Life." And as the sun disappears from our horizon, so does the Universe disappear at regular periods, when the "Universal night" sets in. The Hindus call such alternations the "Days and Nights of Brahm@," or the time of Manvantara and that of Pralaya (dissolution). The Westerns may call them Universal Days and Nights if they prefer. During the latter (the nights) All is in All; every atom is resolved into one Homogeneity. Evolution and Illusion Q. But who is it that creates each time the Universe? A. No one creates it. Science would call the process evolution; the pre-Christian philosophers and the Orientalists called it emanation: we, Occultists and Theosophists, see in it the only universal and eternal reality casting a periodical reflection of itself on the infinite Spatial depths. This reflection, which you regard as the objective material universe, we consider as a temporary illusion and nothing else. That alone which is eternal is real. Q. At that rate, you and I are also illusions. A. As flitting personalities, today one person, tomorrow another,we are. Would you call the sudden flashes of the aurora borealis, the Northern lights, a "reality," though it is as real as can be while you look at it? Certainly not; it is the cause that produces it, if permanent and eternal, which is the only reality, while the other is but a passing illusion. Q. All this does not explain to me how this illusion called the universe originates; how the conscious to be, proceeds to manifest itself from the unconsciousness that is. A. It is unconsciousness only to our finite consciousness. Verily may we paraphrase St. John and say: B and (Absolute) light (which is darkness) shineth in darkness (which is illusionary material light); and the darkness comprehendeth it not. This absolute light is also absolute and immutable law. Whether by radiation or emanation,we need not quarrel over terms,the universe passes out of its homogeneous subjectivity onto the first plane of manifestation, of which planes there are seven, we are taught. With each plane it becomes more dense and material until it reaches this, our plane, on which the only world approximately known and understood in its physical composition by Science, is the planetary or Solar system,one sui generis, we are told. Q. What do you mean by sui generis? A. I mean that, though the fundamental law and the universal working of laws of Nature are uniform, still our Solar system (like every other such system in the millions of others in Cosmos) and even our Earth, has its own program of manifestations differing from the respective programs of all others. We speak of the inhabitants of other planets and imagine that if they are men, i.e., thinking entities, they must be as we are. The fancy of poets and painters and sculptors never fails to represent even the angels as a beautiful copy of man,plus wings. We say that all this is an error and a delusion; because, if on this little earth alone one finds such a diversity in its flora, fauna, and mankind,from the seaweed to the cedar of Lebanon, from the jellyfish to the elephant, from the Bushman and negro to the Apollo Belvedere,alter the conditions cosmic and planetary, and there must be as a result quite a different flora, fauna, and mankind. The same laws will fashion quite a different set of things and beings even on this our plane, including in it all our planets. How much more different then must be external nature in other Solar systems, and how foolish is it to judge of other stars and worlds and human beings by our own, as physical science does! Q. But what are your data for this assertion? A. What science in general will never accept as proof,the cumulative testimony of an endless series of Seers who have testified to this fact. Their spiritual visions, real explorations by, and through, physical and spiritual senses untrammeled by blind flesh, were systematically checked and compared one with the other, and their nature sifted. All that was not corroborated by unanimous and collective experience was rejected, while that only was recorded as established truth which, in various ages, under different climes, and throughout an untold series of incessant observations, was found to agree and receive constantly further corroboration. The methods used by our scholars and students of the psycho-spiritual sciences do not differ from those of students of the natural and physical sciences, as you may see. Only our fields of research are on two different planes, and our instruments are made by no human hands, for which reason perchance they are only the more reliable. The retorts, accumulators, and microscopes of the chemist and naturalist may get out of order; the telescope and the astronomer's horological instruments may get spoiled; our recording instruments are beyond the influence of weather or the elements. Q. And therefore you have implicit faith in them? A. Faith is a word not to be found in theosophical dictionaries: we say knowledge based, on observation and experience. There is this difference, however, that while the observation and experience of physical science lead the Scientists to about as many "working" hypotheses as there are minds to evolve them, our knowledge consents to add to its lore only those facts which have become undeniable, and which are fully and absolutely demonstrated. We have no two beliefs or hypotheses on the same subject. Q. Is it on such data that you came to accept the strange theories we find in Esoteric Buddhism? A. Just so. These theories may be slightly incorrect in their minor details, and even faulty in their exposition by lay students; they are facts in nature, nevertheless, and come nearer the truth than any scientific hypothesis. [See Great Age, in the Glossary, page 306, for further information.] John 1:5. --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 4 21:21:10 1996 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 22:21:10 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Suggested changes to TI statement of purpose Mime-Version: 1.0 Below is a revised version for the consideration of TI members, as mentioned on theos-l in a separate post: ------------------------------------------------------------------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises those who subscribe to the spirit of the three objects first formulated by the Theosophical Society, but in a more up-to-date form based on suggestions by members of the internet community, and expressed thus: 1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family, without distinction of sex, 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, at the same time respecting _all_ life. THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is a voluntary 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. We hope to be of service, and to share what we have with others in amity with other theosophical, occult, and esoteric organizations. To join, send an e-mail message asking to be registered to TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk or give your name and other details you wish to share to the member who introduced you to Theosophy International. ---------------------------------------------------------------- "TI" has members in five countries. How about a few more? Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Fri Apr 5 07:52:50 1996 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 00:52:50 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Theosophy International In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Alan ... How very extraordinary ... I have been thinking at great length the last few days about the very topic upon which you just posted - and indeed am in the midst of composing something probably rather long about it - your post raises interesting questions ... The recent questioning of Adyar's (and for that matter, Wheaton's) exceedingly questionable behaviour over the last few years has gotten me thinking beyond the people involved (though the personalities involved *do* matter), and lead me to ask the far deeper question: What, exactly, *is* the purpose of Adyar, of Wheaton, of the organized structures? If Adyar "excommunicated" the American Section - what *exactly* would anyone lose? If the Branch of Wheaton to which I sometimes belong were excommunicated by Wheaton ... what precisely would be the loss? Neither actually is concerned with *serving* the members, but seem to view their memberships rather more like flocks of sheep to be herded - and apparently, like your charming countrymen, are ready to "slaughter" every Theosophist in a nation or a Lodge if they believe a few have caught "mad Theosophist's disease" (whereby entire Branches and Nations actually decide to see Theosophy differently than its leadership does). In the early days, when there was something that might be called an actual Theosophical "movement", and very little was published and the ideas in Theosophy were quite new to the western world, there likely *was* a need for a Society to introduce the basic ideas as part of its institutional mission, but the concepts of karma and reincarnation hardly need promulgation any longer, and there is a veritable wealth of literature that people are fully capable of reading on their own if they wish (though much of it is beginning to seem quite dated to those of this current era). The TPH does provide a service in keeping some of the early literature in print, but its likely that things like the SD or Isis would not go out of print anyway - and often the THP seems used as much as a political tool as anything ... those who tow the line get book contracts as rewards - many with books that don't even manage to break even, and might have so little appeal to any but a few that they probably wouldn't be published other than as a favor - and those who come to different conclusions than those approved by HQ ... regardless of the merit, value, or even marketability of their work ... are told to go elsewhere. The Olcott library and the Adyar archives are valuable, but their value (IMO) is not being tapped, but rather diminished when the price for using them becomes paying to support the ideology of a particular faction that has locked HQ under its control ... and we've all heard what has now happened to the Adyar archives ... they no longer are the heritage of the Theosophical Family, but now are controlled by people who somehow believe they have the right to give or withhold access - again - based on the ideology of the researcher. In fact, I would pay no attention at all to Wheaton or Adyar were it not for the single fact that they hold legal power over resources that are (at least *morally*) the *common* heritage of *all* Theosophists. These resources are now being held virtually *hostage* by people who are using them to exert ideological control over an organization begun with Objects that are action words: To *form*, to *study*, to *investigate*. It is so appallingly far from the spirit of those Objects to actually institutionally *define* how the formation will happen, what will be studied, and how investigation will proceed - the thought that Adyar would actually kick entire national sections out, would refuse to even *recognize* a Russian Section unless actual *prescribed* courses of study are followed and tests taken - that Wheaton would sue one of its own Lodges, using *our* membership money to do so, and would also (like a baby Adyar) insist on prescribed courses of study and tests before study sections are recognized - who the *HELL* do these people think they are? Both Wheaton and Adyar are adept at speaking the spiritual lingo - and have very polished presentations, one meets them and thinks them to be kind and humble seekers - but their *actions*, behind the scenes, are at times as cold, calculating, and ruthless as those of any medieval European or Oriental despot ... and their belief in their own standing, legal as well as moral ... to claim as complete a control as they possibly can seems beyond question. One gets the feeling that their sentiments towards the idea of Democracy closely resemble those of Louis XIV ... shocked that the rabble would even think themselves qualified to have *any* decision making power. We live, IMO, in very different times. We no longer need a HQ, whether at Wheaton or Adyar, to *lead* us ... only to *coordinate our activities* - to provide the service of combining resources so as to accomplish more. It would be wonderful for TI to accept Russian memberships, even better if we could assist Russian Theosophists in the ways that an organized institution could do ... providing literature, helping to organize ... assisting those who wish to start Lodges - but it is not yet at anywhere close to that stage of development. These are things that the organized leaderships *should* be doing, if they are to even justify their existances ... yet they not only are no longer facilitating a Theosophical "movement", they seem intent upon making sure the late 20th century "boost" never happens ... they can control a miniscule society, but if the TS actually became large, actually reached the point of affecting human civilization, it would spin completely out of any small group's control. Not only is virtually no effort being put towards *expanding* the TS, but the current leaderships seem far more concerned with actually *limiting* it - somehow believing they have a *gift* that people need to earn - and believe themselves fit to impose the standards necessary to earn it - and the power and spiritual standing to take it away. Who the hell *DO* these people think they are. Good lord, the Russian people have just been through an extraordinary hell - breaking out of a regime that *imposed ideological control* over its populations ... and how, then, does Adyar welcome the interest now arising with the new freedom to think and study? By *imposing ideological control* as a *condition of membership*. *WHO THE HELL DO THESE PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE*? I have immense hopes for TI. I'd love to say, as a member of TI, to all Russian Theosophists: JOIN US ... we WELCOME you: We do *not* consider ourselves to be seated on thrones ... if *you* accept the Three Objects, and *you* claim to be Theosophists, you *are* Theosophists - and no puffed up, passive-agressive, condescending Mahatma wannabees spouting hints of connections with the "Masters" and acting like Popes has any damn standing to give or refuse you membership in Theosophy. To all Danish and Canadian Theosophists: JOIN US ... we WELCOME you: And we will *not* try to tell you what you can or cannot study, what you can or cannot explore - and we won't try to steal your Lodges or your money - will not *tell* you what to do, nor what is Theosophy and what is not, but will *ask* you what *you* consider Theosophy to be, how you wish to work on its behalf ... and some of us, who feel a resonance, may actually try to *help* you in specific projects, instead of thwarting you in your endeavors. I truly hope Alan's first sketch of a "Lodge" system stimulates some good conversation - what a tremendous challenge ... to try to *build* an organization *from the ground up* - one that, as HPB and the Masters did, recognizes the inviolate nature of the individual conscience - who leaves it to the *individual* to decide whether they are a *Theosophist*, requiring only acceptance of the Three Objects as a condition of membership. Many of us probably shiver to think of an organization in any form when we think of TI, but ultimately, it *would* be nice to be able to collect and organize collective resources so as to promote things like the re-birth of Russian Theosophy. If this could be accomplished, however, it could very well render the spiritual abusiveness of our current leaderships irrelevent - let them excommunicate whomever they wish, let them refuse membership ... there will be another organization, far more supportive - if quite a bit more loosely organized - that will be happy to accept those rejected by the "hierarchy" (small "h") ... and may someday be able to provide benefits as great - even far greater - than anything Wheaton or Adyar would withhold from them. Now and then, when I think of what TI holds as possibility, I get a jolt up my spine - seem to have a dim sense of what it must have been like in the first and earliest days ... when Theosophy set people on fire and changed the world. Tally ho, -JRC From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 5 09:14:00 1996 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 96 01:14 PST From: alexis dolgorukii Subject: Re: Suggested changes to TI statement of purpose Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:05 PM 4/4/96 -0500, you wrote: > >Below is a revised version for the consideration of TI members, as >mentioned on theos-l in a separate post: >------------------------------------------------------------------- > >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises those who subscribe to the >spirit of the three objects first formulated by the Theosophical >Society, but in a more up-to-date form based on suggestions by >members of the internet community, and expressed thus: > >1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family, without >distinction of sex, 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, at the same time respecting _all_ >life. > >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is a voluntary 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. > >We hope to be of service, and to share what we have with others >in amity with other theosophical, occult, and esoteric >organizations. > >To join, send an e-mail message asking to be registered to > >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > >or give your name and other details you wish to share to the >member who introduced you to Theosophy International. >---------------------------------------------------------------- > >"TI" has members in five countries. > >How about a few more? > >Alan > >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age > How about LOTS more! Alan, I like my suggestions better (of course) but these are fine, the only phrase that makes my hair curl is "unexplained laws of nature" it's not the unexplained that's so bad, but the "laws of nature", cause as you surely Know, I believe only in priciples and the most important of them is the uncertainty principle. But, no need to split quarks! alexis> From 72662.1335@compuserve.com Fri Apr 5 15:04:55 1996 Date: 05 Apr 96 10:04:55 EST From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> Subject: re JRC's post Message-Id: <960405150455_72662.1335_IHD117-1@CompuServe.COM> To JRC and all who read his message. I just want to thank you for so eloquently expressing ideas that have been building up in my mind as well. Clearly the original essence of Theosophy has been lost by the formal organizations at Wheaton and Adyar. Your reference to " medieval European or Oriental despot" seems appropriate. I am glad to see TI evolve. I think your statments stand as a stern warning of what has been lost and a candid reminder of what needs to be regained. Sorry I don't have time to say more. But thanks again, Don DeGracia, PhD From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 5 18:18:24 1996 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 13:18:24 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960405131823_463143764@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Suggested changes to TI statement of purpose Sounds good to me. Chuck MTI, FTSA From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 5 17:09:25 1996 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 18:09:25 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: Suggested changes to TI statement of purpose In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >How about LOTS more! > >Alan, I like my suggestions better (of course) but these are fine, the only >phrase that makes my hair curl is "unexplained laws of nature" it's not the >unexplained that's so bad, but the "laws of nature", cause as you surely >Know, I believe only in priciples and the most important of them is the >uncertainty principle. But, no need to split quarks! > >alexis> > Oh boy! Having read your sundry posts, I would imagine that your hair goes through a great many revolutions on an almost daily basis :-). Seriously, I think you have a point of a sort. The bit that jars with me (leftover from the TS objects) in "laws of nature" is the preposition. I prefer to think of - and observe - what appear to be laws *in* nature, like "dry wood can burn." Like if I smash my fist into the wall it hurts, and I get bruised and bleeding knuckles. This is also one way of looking at "karma". I see no "uncertainty principle" in such examples. Are we coming at the same thing from different angles, or calling the same thing something else? So far, and I hope it is early days in terms of feedback, this is the only change I would make: change "laws of nature" to "laws in nature". Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 5 20:51:26 1996 Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 15:51:26 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: Re: re JRC's post Message-Id: <199604052055.PAA20493@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Don, Congratulations! You got your PhD! Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS Cananda .............................................................................. >To JRC and all who read his message. > >I just want to thank you for so eloquently expressing ideas that have been >building up in my mind as well. Clearly the original essence of Theosophy has >been lost by the formal organizations at Wheaton and Adyar. Your reference to " >medieval European or Oriental despot" seems appropriate. > >I am glad to see TI evolve. I think your statments stand as a stern warning of >what has been lost and a candid reminder of what needs to be regained. > >Sorry I don't have time to say more. But thanks again, > >Don DeGracia, PhD > > > From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 6 00:21:47 1996 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 19:21:47 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960405192146_265052595@mail02.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Theosophy International John, Thank you for your excellent post. By creating a place for Theosophists to go if they are booted out of the Adyar, or other TS, we make excommunication irrelevant. And the beauty of it is there is nothing Radha can do about it! Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 6 07:44:00 1996 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 96 23:44 PST From: alexis dolgorukii Subject: Re: Suggested changes to TI statement of purpose Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:07 PM 4/5/96 -0500, you wrote: >In message , alexis dolgorukii >< > >Seriously, I think you have a point of a sort. The bit that jars with >me (leftover from the TS objects) in "laws of nature" is the >preposition. I prefer to think of - and observe - what appear to be >laws *in* nature, like "dry wood can burn." Like if I smash my fist >into the wall it hurts, and I get bruised and bleeding knuckles. This >is also one way of looking at "karma". I see no "uncertainty principle" >in such examples. Are we coming at the same thing from different >angles, or calling the same thing something else? > >So far, and I hope it is early days in terms of feedback, this is the >only change I would make: change "laws of nature" to "laws in nature". > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > >Think about "principles" instead of law and I'll be happy. Sure "Dry wood always burns (if you light a fire to it), and if you smash your fist into a wall, it hurts like hell, and if you're dumb enough to do it very hard, it bleeds. But those are hardly "Laws" they are simply "immediate cause and immediate effect" in the lowest level of the many physical levels of reality. "Laws" whether "in" or "of" Nature imply far more grandiose events and things than that. The "unertainty principle" deals with wider and more grandiose areas of reality. On the physical planes of reality "cause" and "effect" are far too immediately conjoined for the uncertainty to have time to activate Now, the term "unexplained laws of nature" is connected intimately with the third object which at least infers a study of paranormality, and in that case, we don;t yet know enough, in the sense of scientific method to talk about "laws" at all. "Laws" I think (except when speaking of the judicial codes) are the kind of thinking endemic in the Victorian period. We don't live then. Capisco? alexis From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sat Apr 6 20:13:44 1996 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 13:13:44 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Theosophy International (1) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Thought I'd try to generate a bit of enthusiasm for TI ... by writing a bunch of stuff that's been rumblin' around in my little brain. Again, its a long, 2 part sucker (sorry, I just get in these damn *moods*) but hopefully worth the bandwidth. First part today, second part coming in a day or two ... -JRC ********************************************************************* Greetings ... Since the inception of Theosophy International, at various times, under the influence of diverse moods, with several different modes of ideation, and from numerous different angles of vision, I've contemplated the meaning of its creation: Not just the fact of its existence, but its means of emergence; not simply the first tentative shoots it has extended into the soil, but the totality of the majestic tree that may well be encoded into its spiritual DNA: In the Beginning of anything is always a Word - and in that Word is contained the entirety of what that thing might ultimately become. The fact that the initial formation of TI, the act that launched it, the first substantive discussion within it, the *Word* of its creation, was a powerful re-affirmation of the Three Objects ... refined to more perfectly express their underlying intentions ... is a scintillating metaphor. That it was born in cyberspace - the first space created by the human kingdom that is truly as universal as the philosophy embedded in those Three Objects - is drenched with a meaning that branches outward into an endless fractal tree. That its membership, after but a short period of time, is composed of virtually every type and affiliation of Theosophist, and already spans continents, is almost breathtaking in its ramifications. I was, some years ago now, made a Theosophist by man who is still one of my closest spiritual brothers, who was himself persuaded into Theosophy at Adyar, by John Coats. The thing that seized me was the stunning nature of the ideals that shine like some great light out of the Objects. I had grown up with the great philosophers (my father gave me Plato when I was 12), but had slowly learned - or rather, against my will had been persuaded to believe - that great ideas mean little, that idealism was foolish, that the perfectibility of humans was an Enlightenment illusion, that cynicism was the reality that anyone with intelligence would naturally adopt ... and so the best and highest whisperings of my soul had hidden themselves away. And then came Theosophy: With Objects and writings fearlessly and openly declaring that those whisperings were not only not childish dreams, but were in fact the first and simplest statements of the greatest and most profound truths that lie dormant in every human; that not only should they not be ignored, but should be taken as *personal standards for the conduct of one's life*; that there were people in every age that had achieved the almost inconceivable feat of not only fully understanding them as ideals, but of so fully integrating and living them at the most mundane levels of existence that they had become something scarcely even resembling humans any longer - had managed to, viewing human life as a *seed* instead of as an end in itself, conceive of and give birth to their existence as spiritual entities with access to spiritual worlds. Theosophy rescued a heart that the voices of the world had almost convinced not to beat. But there was something much grander than this to Theosophy. The notion that not only such a *personal* possibility existed, but that an organization had been started with the premise that the entire human race is a physical manifestation of millions of souls resident on this planet for the purpose of bringing *themselves, by means of their own self-generated efforts* to a state of spiritual fruition - a picture of souls *using* an almost unthinkably diverse variety of bodies, races, intellectual and emotional beliefs, religious and spiritual practices, spanning aeons of time, in their efforts towards that fruition - and that organization, begun on that premise, was to be genuinely universal. That is, it was an attempt to *incarnate the nucleus of the re-birth of a truth*: Spiritually considered, we already *are* a "Universal Family" ... but in the density of day to day human civilization, that commonality of both source and purpose has been long lost. The Three Objects are positively *stunning* - as much for what they *lack* as what they contain. Every other spiritual, national, philosophical, religious, political or social organization present in our race articulates and defines some set of "truths" (which can at best be partial), and hence cannot help, by that very act, but draw a circle in which some are included and others are not. Three Objects, however, recognize that there is something universal *behind* all those partial presentations - a common source to our strivings, no matter how deeply buried, a common end towards which we progress, however varied and vastly different our means of moving towards it seem. The only possibility for the *incarnation* of an organization *founded* on the premise of that commonality is if *process* rather than *truth* is emphasized: Neither HPB nor the Masters *ever* told anyone what to think. The First Object declares the intention to *form* a Universal Family, but does *not* specify what it will *look like*. The Second Object declares that the Society will *study* comparative religion, philosophy and science, but does *not* define how the study will proceed, *what* will be studied, *nor what conclusions will be reached*. The Third Object declares the intention to *investigate* unknown laws of nature and powers latent in humans, but does *not* define how that investigation will be pursued, and does *not* declare some of those laws and powers *off limits to investigation*. In short, the TS may be the first attempt to form a public organization for *adults* - for souls that have understood that it is their right and responsibility to follow their own internal promptings to accomplish their own growth, for souls that have no wish to be *told* what to do by people who believe they already *have* the "truth" - an organization that does not *define* a path (and neither HPB nor the Masters *ever defined* a "Theosophical path" - it was other writers that tried to formalize Theosophy in such a way) but rather recognizes *all* paths as being driven by a common and inborn urge-to-grow. The immensity and grandeur of this vision is something that takes real effort to grasp, as it is *so* different than anything else at currently at work on the planet. It requires *no* allegiance to anything other than *truth* - no leader or personality must be believed in, no philosophy is required to be accepted, no pre-defined set of truths must be adopted. The Masters apparently had significant doubts as to whether it was too soon to even attempt to give birth to such an organization. The danger was that instead of rising to understand totally new ideas, the original ideals would instead be seized by people with low intentions, and crystallized into the same structured patterns common to every other religion and ideology currently on the planet (as has virtually inevitably happened in the past). That it would (yawn) form itself into yet another spiritual/religious organization with its own hierarchy of power, complete with an "inner circle" (and *every* religious, political and social organization has the equivalent of an "ES"); would condense a set of "teachings" whose study is required; would then carefully define who is "one of us" and who is "not one of us", what subjects are "approved" and which are not, etc., etc. And this it has become. But this crystallization is *diametrically opposed to its originating intention*, so instead of it resulting in great *growth* (as crystallization *has* in most other religions), in the case of Theosophy it is leading to its *death*. The world's religions and philosophies are all *partial*, and *can accomplish their ends by being so* -but the true value, the only *use* for Theosophy is in its *Universality* ... if it *cannot be universal, it has no purpose*. But something remarkable has recently happened: The Internet. A space were no one is *able* to exert control. And on this list we have perhaps seen, curiously enough, a *standard* for an entirely new kind of *Leadership* - a leadership so different as to not even seem to like leadership - a form of leadership that is the only *possible* form for a Theosophical Society that *does* remain true to its originating intentions: JOHN MEAD. He now and then enters discussions, but does not consider his opinions any more or less valid than anyone else's *even though he runs the list*. Theosophists do not need "leaders" to tell them what to think, to define for them what to study or how to study it ... what is clear is that they only need to be provided a *forum in which to communicate* ... and by the simple existence of that forum ... a forum in which no one can *define* what is "truth" and what is not, in which no one can formalize discussion and keep it within parameters - look, LOOK what has happened! IT HAS BECOME THEOSOPHY. On this list is actually *forming* a "Universal Family" - a *real* one ... not simply a Headquarters in Adyar that Theosophists in various countries sort of are dimly aware of, but actual *deep and daily personal interaction* between people pursuing a whole variety of different paths on several continents -immensely enriching one another. On this list there has actually been more *study* of comparative religion, philosophy and science than there has been in *any* Lodge I've ever seen. We have religious scholars from most of the world's major religions, exoteric and esoteric; people who have studied philosophy at great depth; scientists from both the "hard" and "social" sciences - and each has contributed to discussions, so that together we are producing far more than any of us possesses individually. On this list we have "investigated" the powers latent in humans in a fashion almost unheard of in Theosophical circles - in fact even the usual paranoid and fear-drenched, even the condescending, who come screaming out of the woodwork whenever any ability at all is mentioned in Theosophical circles have not only not been able to dominate, they are increasingly being giggled at. In putting the tremendous effort into the practical work of running the list, of providing a *place* for the Universal Family to *interact*, while at the same time not attempting to place *any* parameters or preconditions on the scope or nature of that interaction, John has permitted the beauty that was always hidden in the Theosophical Objects to be unleashed - and it turns out to be one of the most positively exhilarating spiritual communities imaginable. *Imagine if *that* was the leadership resident in Wheaton, in Adyar*! Look, for a moment, not at how our leaderships act, but at how Theosophists *themselves* act when left to their own promptings: We hear that Russian Theosophists, people who have actually had to *hide* their study of such things for fear of tremendous punishment, have now been freed to pursue Theosophy somewhat more openly, and conveyed that interest to Adyar. The *leadership* there responded by *requiring specified studies*, by *telling* them what "Theosophy" is, and actually insisting that they meet ideological standards as a *condition* of membership. The *membership on this list* reacted by almost spontaneously wanting simply to *aid* Russian Theosophists *in their own endeavors*: There has been *no* discussion of what the Russian Theosophists *should learn*, rather, only a pure and virtually spontaneous impulse to discover the means of contacting them with the intention of asking them *what they need, and how we might be able to provide it*. Several posts speak not of trying to *define* Theosophy *for* them, but of wanting them online here because we want to hear what *they* have to say, want to welcome them into our Family, want to hear tales of their attempts to pursue such studies against such tremendous odds. Our membership, in short, when left to its own devices, quite naturally and without even noticing how remarkable a thing it is in the history of the world, does not see the addition of whole new perspectives, from new nations, by people with new cultural, religious and personality traits as a *threat to be contained*, but as a *further source of enrichment*. On this list, perhaps for the first time, we are able to catch a glimpse of the real magnificence that has been latent in the Three Objects since the genesis of the TS: And the fact that an organization has recently emerged, this Theosophy International, and that another *facilitator*, Alan Bain, chose to be the focal point of its emergence, is a fact whose significance is (IMO) well worth exploring ... (in Part 2). Ta ta for now, -JRC From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 6 23:10:03 1996 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:10:03 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: Suggested changes to TI statement of purpose In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes > >>So far, and I hope it is early days in terms of feedback, this is the >>only change I would make: change "laws of nature" to "laws in nature". >> >>Alan >>--------- > >> >>Think about "principles" instead of law and I'll be happy. >alexis > What do others think - "laws" or "principles" - ? Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 6 23:11:27 1996 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:11:27 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Is this theosophy Mime-Version: 1.0 Study material for students: "Is This Theosophy ... ?" - Ernest Wood (remainder of chapter 5) [There are two UK pound signs in this file which may not transmit well to the USA and other countries] --------------------------------------------------------------- The next day my brother was puffing away as hard as ever at the same old pipe. I never smoked. I preferred the money. I was very careful about money - except on one occasion when I was travelling on the top of a tramcar at night, and on reaching home I found that in the dark I had given the conductor two sovereigns in mistake for two halfpennies to pay the penny fare. 2 After Mrs. Besant's lecture the chairman announced that there was a branch of the Theosophical Society in the city and there would be a meeting on Tuesday evening at which the public were invited to ask questions. My father and I attended. We were both thoroughly dissatisfied with the answers to the half-dozen questions put by members of the public. My father asked: "if there were a good power or principle as the basis of all things, how could there be imperfection, pain, cruelty or any evil in the world ? "Several people tried to answer this - quite hopelessly. One illogical answer was that God had given man free will and it was man who produced the evil - quite innocent of the obvious implication that God must have produced man as an evil being and therefore have produced the evil. The only man there whom we appreciated and respected was the chairman, a venerable gentleman (afterwards to be my father-in-law) who explained that members of the Theosophical Society were only students, and that though man could not yet solve such ultimate questions, it was still worth while to study and find out what we could. He himself felt that were there not some good principle gradually emerging and increasing its sway, there could be no good at all in man, since no purely material being could be unselfish or could rise to the heights of self-sacrifice. Such a thing would mean that matter could overstep the nature of matter. And besides there was that mysterious divine discontent which at last left no one completely satisfied with any material pleasures or gains. He begged the audience not to go to extremes in any way, but to use reason just as far as it would go with the very limited data at our disposal. My father was very much taken by this old gentleman who was old enough to be his father. We went to the meeting a second time, only to find a man reading an extremely dull and futile paper. We went no more, but decided that we would hear Mrs. Besant whenever she came to the city. It was not long before I obtained a copy of The Light of Asia. It affected me so deeply that I had to read it in the privacy of my own room. Here at last was true religion, from my point of view. The life of Buddha, as given in this poem, was supremely gentle, beautiful, unselfish; but what was it that Buddha had discovered which brought hope into the world? It was the law of karma. Why? Because it showed that man was making himself through a series of lives, and if it was somewhat hard that such a puny being was faced with such a Herculean task - that he could obtain nothing except by his own efforts - there was at the same time the assurance that he could never suffer in the least except by his own doing, that present cruelty and injustice to himself was but the payment for his own past cruelty and injustice to others, and that the door was open for him to make of his own future just what he liked. Here was no capricious God who, if capable of creating cancer on earth, would be equally capable of providing dreadful hells hereafter. No blind unmoral chance also, which could so easily bring to naught in a moment the most strenuous endeavours. I still thought of Mrs. Besant in connection with all this Buddhism. It was one thing to have a theory or a voice from the past, however beautiful and eminent. It seemed quite another to have at hand a living person, a noble, trustworthy, and unselfish character, who could add to that theory the living testimony of direct super-sensuous vision, who could declare these things to be true, certain, scientifically sure, in a ringing convincing voice. 3 In the new building, I invited my elder brother to join me in the business. He left the shop that he was then managing, and we opened new departments in the upper floor of the office. We started making rubber stamps, and by following the methods that I had already found successful, succeeded in developing a large postal business, importing most of our raw materials and small mechanisms from America and Germany. We opened out also in the sale of picture post cards, and luckily got in right in the height of the craze, selling especially Continental views, most beautifully collotyped in Germany. We missed, however, a good trade in safety razors and some other small articles, through over-caution. In my new offices on the ground floor I had partitioned off a portion as private office. Here I used to attend to my account books and also retire occasionally to practise various mental and physical exercises which I had found in Mrs. Besant's book, and in some books on hypnotism and cognate subjects which I had obtained elsewhere, particularly one called Your Finer Forces and How to Develop Them. I practised breathing exercises but not of the Hatha Yoga kind. I had had for some time after my experiment in breathing at the shop a romantic notion of curing large numbers of variously afflicted people in practically no time by means of mesmeric passes. Some months after the visit to the Theosophical Lodge I began to desire more knowledge about it. I remembered to have seen a small library there and thought it might possibly be open to the public. I was determined to read extensively, if I could find suitable books. So one evening I went again to the Theosophical Lodge premises. I found there, sitting at a table, an oldish gentleman with a bald head, a small "horse-thief" beard, and a snuffle. Later I learned that he was by profession a knocker-up. He lived in the mill area and made his living by going round the streets in the early mornings and rattling on the bedroom windows of his clients with a long stick. This occupation gave him plenty of time to indulge in his hobby - the study of Greek and Neo-Platonic philosophy, in which he had read profoundly. Anyone would have taken him for a university professor of the old style, or a second-hand bookseller. I also found a notice saying that books could be borrowed for a penny a week, or two shillings and sixpence a year. I walked over to the table, and when the old gentleman looked up at me I put down a half-crown and said I wanted to join the library. He stared owlishly at the coin for a few moments, then pushed it back towards me and said: "No, take a book; pay a penny when you return it. Perhaps you will not want to read any more." This negative sort of salesmanship took me, a business man, very much by surprise. But I had made up my mind. Pushing the half-crown back again I replied: "No, put me down for a year's subscription. I am going to read them all." It happened at that moment that two small middle-aged ladies entered the room. One, I learnt afterwards, was the wife of the president to whom my father and I had taken a liking on the occasion of our first visit to the Lodge; the other kept a small toffee shop in the mill area. They spoke to me - words of welcome. I was shy, and wanted to get away with my book. Would I not give them the pleasure of my company at the meeting that was about to take place? I preferred not, I explained that I had come only to obtain books to read, to find out more about Mrs. Besant's philosophy. Oh! But it would give them so much pleasure if I would stay. So I went with them into an adjacent, larger room, which was by day a sort of board-room connected with a solicitor's office. They sat me down on a large settee and brought me a number of photographs to see. "This is Mr. Sinnett. This is Mr. Leadbeater. This is Mr. Mead. This is Mrs. Mead. This is Mr. Keightley" - and so on. I said: "Yes; yes; yes, yes," very politely, though full of inward wonder at this sudden transition from an atmosphere of rare philosophy to the intimacies of something resembling a family album. And the persons represented in the portraits did not resemble the perfect men or Mahatmas of whom I was in search, though Mrs. Besant had done so to some extent, with her priestessly robes and manner. After several other people had drifted in and the chairman had called the meeting to order with two minutes' silent meditation, I listened to an hour's lecture by a parrot-faced and parrot-voiced lady, on the theory that the earth came from the moon and not the moon from the earth, and then went home, having given a promise to attend again the next week. 4 Though the lodge-meetings bored me, the literature had the reverse effect. At the beginning I read mostly books written by Mrs. Besant, of which there were a large number, and five largish volumes entitled: Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine, by Madame Blavatsky, chief founder of the movement. With the portrait of the author in Isis Unveiled I almost fell in love. In both of these authors I read about Mahatmas. I was already prepared for the main ideas of Theosophy (as this philosophy was somewhat erroneously called) by my reading of The Light of Asia. I was a worshipper at the shrine of Buddha as depicted therein. I had read that other people could follow in his steps and bring to an end the procession of their lives (or rather bodies) by attaining Nirvana, a state which could not be defined, but certainly bore no resemblance to any sort of heaven. According to Buddha, this Nirvana was to be attained not by any external means, not by breathings or posturings, not by prayer or supplication, not by the aid of any teacher or guide, but simply by surrendering absolutely all selfishness and turning the full light of reason upon the imperfection of the world and all human fancies, and thus reaching "illumination" and the "true life kept for him who false puts by." I understood that thousands had attained Nirvana, the state of Buddha, the Wise, just as he himself had done, and had gone on into Nirvana. But in these works I read of Mahatmas, men who had attained Nirvana but were nevertheless actually living in human Indian bodies in Tibet. Though they had attained perfection, they had not accepted the full liberty of Nirvana, but remained in touch with man on the threshold of that state, so that they might help others to attain. I wanted above all things to find one of these Mahatmas, to serve him, to learn and practise at his feet. Notwithstanding my coolness towards the celebrities of the Theosophical Society, my lack of response to the contents of the family album, I was completely captivated by the greater, though similar attraction of the Mahatmas. I found from conversation with my new friends that they were very humble in these matters. They worshipped the Masters or Adepts from afar. They said that if they behaved themselves in the station in life to which they had so far attained, they might hope, after some more lives, to approach the feet of the Masters and begin to tread the Path which led - usually through seven or fourteen lives of intense endeavour - to Their estate. In the meantime they sat at the feet of those who were already Their disciples. This was not good enough for me. I had pictured myself as another edition of the Buddha himself, a Nirvani in this life. I was prepared to surrender everything, everything. I wanted this joy not only for myself. I wanted everybody to see that they suffered from themselves, that none else compelled them to hug the wheel of birth and death, and kiss its spokes of agony. The Theosophical Society was founded by the Masters for the purpose of spreading this knowledge of the open door to Nirvana above and brotherhood on earth. I would work for it with every ounce of my strength, with every gasp of my breath. I gave my name for membership to the President, vowing in a broken voice that I would do my best to help the great work. My vehemence disturbed the members standing by; it was perhaps a little unseemly to be so religious in public. My name went up to higher quarters, and after several months' delay I received from London a certificate of membership, though I was only at the age of nineteen. Their rule that minors could be admitted only with the consent of their parents and guardians seems to have been overlooked in my case. In my reading I had pictured one of the Mahatmas as particularly suited to myself. I wanted to go to him and learn. In the privacy of my room From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 7 06:34:11 1996 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 01:34:11 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960407013410_464127266@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Suggested changes to TI statement of purpose Alan, I vote for principles (in spite of the fact that I don't have any). Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 7 17:14:11 1996 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 13:14:11 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960407131410_265992178@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: JRC's idea of inviting Radha & Mme Nine Whomever to become TI Members Liesel, We are not a plebian organization by any means. We have at least two authors who are known around the world (and soon a third) as well as one genuine Prince, in addition to various heretics, troublemakers and enlightened beings. We may be too good for her. Also I doubt that Radha could pass either the psionics and magick exam or meet the humor requirement. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 7 14:15:57 1996 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 15:15:57 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: JRC's Theosophy International 1 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , Rodolfo Don writes >Alan, JRC, > >I would like to create a web page for TI. Could it be appropriate to post >JRC's posting about TI as a first page? > >I could work on it tomorrow and have it ready by the afternoon at my >internet server under TI.html > >How about it! I only need the 'go ahead'. > >Rudy > It's fine with me - but this is TI: you don't have to ask (well, except John, as it's his copyright)! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 7 19:03:04 1996 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 20:03:04 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <0vZn3CAoFBaxEwYK@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: TI membership list In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , Rodolfo Don writes >*I think that it could be included in the first paragraph, but I really >would like to define FREE. Maybe we could all get involved in trying to >define 'FREE' by explaining what it means to us as theosophists.* > >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is comprised of FREE men and women who subscribe to >the Three Objects of the TS, but in a more up to-date-form based on >suggestions by members of the internet community, and expressed thus: I like it, I like it! Unless anyone objects - though I can't see why - I will add this to the next public (May) statement. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun Apr 7 19:53:13 1996 Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 15:53:13 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: Re: JRC's idea of inviting Radha & Mme Nine Whomever to become TI Members Message-Id: <199604072057.QAA08197@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Chuck, Sorry you don't like my brand of sarcasm. I don't consider myself exactly plebeian either. Liesel >Liesel, >We are not a plebian organization by any means. We have at least two authors >who are known around the world (and soon a third) as well as one genuine >Prince, in addition to various heretics, troublemakers and enlightened >beings. We may be too good for her. >Also I doubt that Radha could pass either the psionics and magick exam or >meet the humor requirement. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun Apr 7 20:00:16 1996 Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 16:00:16 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604072104.RAA13086@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI membership list I like "Free" too. As for defining what it means, one could do one's PhD thesis on that. Let it mean whatever it means to individual members, as long as it's some sensible kind of free... like free love isn't our style, & being free of one's body none of us are yet; what it means in terms of actions ðics is debatable, I would say free within Ahimsa. Liesel .............................................................................. >In message , Rodolfo Don > writes >>*I think that it could be included in the first paragraph, but I really >>would like to define FREE. Maybe we could all get involved in trying to >>define 'FREE' by explaining what it means to us as theosophists.* >> >>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is comprised of FREE men and women who subscribe to >>the Three Objects of the TS, but in a more up to-date-form based on >>suggestions by members of the internet community, and expressed thus: > >I like it, I like it! Unless anyone objects - though I can't see why - >I will add this to the next public (May) statement. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > > From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 7 23:43:12 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 00:43:12 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: JRC on TI Mime-Version: 1.0 In message Subject: Re: Suggested changes to TI: Uncertainty? Message-Id: <960408015500_72662.1335_IHD138-2@CompuServe.COM> alexis Hi everyone. I've not had much time to participate lately, but I simply could not let these discussions between alexis and Alan pass me by. I would like to address Alexis' statement: < But those are hardly "Laws" they are simply "immediate cause and immediate effect" in the lowest level of the many physical levels of reality. "Laws" whether "in" or "of" Nature imply far more grandiose events and things than that. The "unertainty principle" deals with wider and more grandiose areas of reality.> With all due respect, Alexis, I think you may be going a bit too far here. Construing the Uncertanty Principle as a law of nature different from the fact that dry wood always burns is not accurate. Both are generalizations of regulaties observed in Nature under particular circumstances. That the Uncertainty Principle derives from sophisticated mathematical deduction and the observation of wood buring derives from direct sensory perception is of little concern. The important point is that both are consistenties of Nature. Perhaps we should abondon the word "law" altogether from the 3 objective. Perhaps we should say something to the effect that "Theosophists are willing to seek verifiable regulaties in the behavior of Humankind and Nature" - the key word here being "verifiable". This would begin to lay a scientific underpinning to Theosophy, something that is sorely lacking at present. Too much of Theosophical discourse is simply the parroting of unsubstantiated ideas. The lack of concern over the verifiablity of theosophical claims simply opens the door to dogma and mythologizing, neither of which serve any higher purpose, and instead serve to dogmatize and limit free and open inquiry. This fact is why the modern world has, for the most part, left theosophy behind. Perhaps as we try to formulate a "new" theosophy we should be sensitive to the fact that the old theosophy has done little by way of open, honest and rigorous intellectual discipline. As a matter of fact, the "old" theosophy has been downright defensive about questioning and challenging its accepted - and mostly unsubstantiated - claims. Simply ask Paul Johnson about this. Perhaps TI would be setting off on a better foot if it recognizes at the onset how important it is to leave the door open for honest intelellectual assesment and criticism. In this regard, seeking *verifiable* consistencies and regularities in Humanity and Nature may be the most meaningful broad statement that could be put forth in this regard. Thanks for considering these ideas. Don DeGracia, PhD From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 8 03:50:57 1996 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 23:50:57 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960407235056_371130814@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TI membership list Alan, "Theosophy International is comprised of FREE men and women..." Suppose we get a slave in the Sudan or Saudi Arabia (where such things still exist) who wants to join? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 8 03:51:48 1996 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 23:51:48 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960407235144_371131243@mail04> Subject: Re: JRC's idea of inviting Radha & Mme Nine Whomever to become TI Members Liesel, I know you don't. I was just having a bit of fun myself. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 8 03:51:55 1996 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 23:51:55 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960407235155_371131359@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TI membership list Liesel, Actually, I'm the senior board member of an organization which has free love as part of its goals, so in that regard I think free is just great to have in the preamble. I will admit to some puzzlement as to why it is needed though. Are we implying that members of other theosophical organizations are not free and if we personally believe that, do we want to make that point as a part of TI? Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 8 03:01:32 1996 Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 23:01:32 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604080405.AAA12434@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Suggested changes to TI: Uncertainty? I guess we'll start where we left off. If you're going to prove everything scientifically, I wonder how you're going to prove scientifically that a very skilled clairvoyant can diagnose a slight heart murmur from Sidney Australia to upstate New York. I checked it out with an EKG, & the diagnosis was correct. That, just as an example. I agree with you that we don't want dogma & beliefs to creep into our system, but I think we have to be on the lookout for those another way. The scientific method, such as we know it today, just isn't broad enough to cover all realms of nature. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR >alexis > >Hi everyone. I've not had much time to participate lately, but I simply could >not let these discussions between alexis and Alan pass me by. > >I would like to address Alexis' statement: > >< But those are hardly "Laws" they are simply "immediate cause and >immediate effect" in the lowest level of the many physical levels of >reality. "Laws" whether "in" or "of" Nature imply far more grandiose events >and things than that. The "unertainty principle" deals with wider and more >grandiose areas of reality.> > >With all due respect, Alexis, I think you may be going a bit too far here. >Construing the Uncertanty Principle as a law of nature different from the fact >that dry wood always burns is not accurate. Both are generalizations of >regulaties observed in Nature under particular circumstances. That the >Uncertainty Principle derives from sophisticated mathematical deduction and the >observation of wood buring derives from direct sensory perception is of little >concern. The important point is that both are consistenties of Nature. > >Perhaps we should abondon the word "law" altogether from the 3 objective. >Perhaps we should say something to the effect that "Theosophists are willing to >seek verifiable regulaties in the behavior of Humankind and Nature" - the key >word here being "verifiable". This would begin to lay a scientific >underpinning to Theosophy, something that is sorely lacking at present. > >Too much of Theosophical discourse is simply the parroting of unsubstantiated >ideas. The lack of concern over the verifiablity of theosophical claims simply >opens the door to dogma and mythologizing, neither of which serve any higher >purpose, and instead serve to dogmatize and limit free and open inquiry. This >fact is why the modern world has, for the most part, left theosophy behind. > >Perhaps as we try to formulate a "new" theosophy we should be sensitive to the >fact that the old theosophy has done little by way of open, honest and rigorous >intellectual discipline. As a matter of fact, the "old" theosophy has been >downright defensive about questioning and challenging its accepted - and mostly >unsubstantiated - claims. Simply ask Paul Johnson about this. Perhaps TI would >be setting off on a better foot if it recognizes at the onset how important it >is to leave the door open for honest intelellectual assesment and criticism. In >this regard, seeking *verifiable* consistencies and regularities in Humanity and >Nature may be the most meaningful broad statement that could be put forth in >this regard. > >Thanks for considering these ideas. > >Don DeGracia, PhD > > > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 8 03:05:06 1996 Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 23:05:06 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604080409.AAA12530@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI membership list After looking at your arguments, I think I want to go back to my original statement, "what's free?" Liesel >Liesel, >Actually, I'm the senior board member of an organization which has free love >as part of its goals, so in that regard I think free is just great to have in >the preamble. I will admit to some puzzlement as to why it is needed though. > Are we implying that members of other theosophical organizations are not >free and if we personally believe that, do we want to make that point as a >part of TI? > >Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > > From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 8 05:54:00 1996 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 96 22:54 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Rudy's suggestion At 02:50 PM 4/7/96 -0500, you wrote: >In message , Rodolfo Don > writes >>*I think that it could be included in the first paragraph, but I really >>would like to define FREE. Maybe we could all get involved in trying to >>define 'FREE' by explaining what it means to us as theosophists.* >> >>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is comprised of FREE men and women who subscribe to >>the Three Objects of the TS, but in a more up to-date-form based on >>suggestions by members of the internet community, and expressed thus: > >I like it, I like it! Unless anyone objects - though I can't see why - >I will add this to the next public (May) statement. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > >I like it too! Absolutely no objectionshere, only support! alexis, MTI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 8 06:02:00 1996 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 96 23:02 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:just plain FREE At 04:08 PM 4/7/96 -0500, you wrote: >I like "Free" too. As for defining what it means, one could do one's PhD >thesis on that. Let it mean whatever it means to individual members, as long >as it's some sensible kind of free... like free love isn't our style, & >being free of one's body none of us are yet; what it means in terms of >actions ðics is debatable, I would say free within Ahimsa. > >Liesel >.............................................................................. lIESEL: "FREE" means "free" and that's that! People define freedom within their own personal parameters, it probably can be best defined as limited only by one's self. I don't think anyone has the right to prescribe what is a "sensible kind of free" that puts one right on the slippery slope to oppression. As to "free love", it's no longer my style, it's not your style, but for those who find it a part of their life, that's freedom. Ahimsa unfortunately isn't something every human being is ready for, and so declaring freedom only to exist within the parameter of Ahimsa is oppresssive of those not strong enough to follow that path. alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 8 06:31:00 1996 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 96 23:31 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Whoa! At 09:01 PM 4/7/96 -0500, you wrote: >alexis > >Hi everyone. I've not had much time to participate lately, but I simply could >not let these discussions between alexis and Alan pass me by. > >I would like to address Alexis' statement: > >< But those are hardly "Laws" they are simply "immediate cause and >immediate effect" in the lowest level of the many physical levels of >reality. "Laws" whether "in" or "of" Nature imply far more grandiose events >and things than that. The "unertainty principle" deals with wider and more >grandiose areas of reality.> >With all due respect, Alexis, I think you may be going a bit too far here. >Construing the Uncertanty Principle as a law of nature different from the fact >that dry wood always burns is not accurate. Both are generalizations of >regulaties observed in Nature under particular circumstances. That the >Uncertainty Principle derives from sophisticated mathematical deduction and the >observation of wood buring derives from direct sensory perception is of little >concern. The important point is that both are consistenties of Nature. Whoa there! I think we have a misunderstanding here (whether semantic or otherwise) I did NOT say that "The Uncertainty Principle" was any kind of Law of Nature. What I said was that this principle deals with things on an abstract level rather than simplistic "cause and effect" phenomena on the physical planes. What I hoped people would understand me to mean was that in neither case was anything so absolutely invariable as the word "Laws" implies to be accepted as appropriate. I was saying there were no laws not passed by legislatures, at least not in anything dealing with either the nature of the human condition or the nature of reality. I was trying to indicate that the word "principles" is less didactic than the word "Laws" and that is why I suggested it's use. The other point I was trying to make is that there are no constancies in nature! > >Perhaps we should abondon the word "law" altogether from the 3 objective. >Perhaps we should say something to the effect that "Theosophists are willing to >seek verifiable regulaties in the behavior of Humankind and Nature" - the key >word here being "verifiable". This would begin to lay a scientific >underpinning to Theosophy, something that is sorely lacking at present. The term "verifiable regularity" to me, would seem to imply things that were common but hardly inevitable. For as I see it, nothing is inevitable. > >Too much of Theosophical discourse is simply the parroting of unsubstantiated >ideas. The lack of concern over the verifiablity of theosophical claims simply >opens the door to dogma and mythologizing, neither of which serve any higher >purpose, and instead serve to dogmatize and limit free and open inquiry. This >fact is why the modern world has, for the most part, left theosophy behind. With this statement I couldn't agree more. In fact I have said the same thing, many times, in many ways, on this forum. > >Perhaps as we try to formulate a "new" theosophy we should be sensitive to the >fact that the old theosophy has done little by way of open, honest and rigorous >intellectual discipline. As a matter of fact, the "old" theosophy has been >downright defensive about questioning and challenging its accepted - and mostly >unsubstantiated - claims. Simply ask Paul Johnson about this. Perhaps TI would >be setting off on a better foot if it recognizes at the onset how important it >is to leave the door open for honest intelellectual assesment and criticism. In >this regard, seeking *verifiable* consistencies and regularities in Humanity and >Nature may be the most meaningful broad statement that could be put forth in >this regard. Don: I don't need to ask Paul Johnson, I've experienced the phenomenon myself, in spades! Back in 1973, when I was much younger and far more idealistic, I was hounded to resignation becuase of my questioning and my sexuality. It won't happen again I am much older now, and at my age, we don't "hound" easily. Your last sentence above: "OIn this regard, etc." is something I can wholeheartedly support and I really think it ought to be included in the TI/ statement. > >Thanks for considering these ideas. > >Don DeGracia, PhD > > Alexis Dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 8 06:49:00 1996 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 96 23:49 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:proof? At 11:07 PM 4/7/96 -0500, you wrote: >To: Don DeGracia, > >I guess we'll start where we left off. If you're going to prove everything >scientifically, I wonder how you're going to prove scientifically that a >very skilled clairvoyant can diagnose a slight heart murmur from Sidney >Australia to upstate New York. I checked it out with an EKG, & the diagnosis >was correct. That, just as an example. I agree with you that we don't want >dogma & beliefs to creep into our system, but I think we have to be on the >lookout for those another way. The scientific method, such as we know it >today, just isn't broad enough to cover all realms of nature. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > >Liesel: As to "scientific proof", well there's a kind of proof quite amenable to being called "scientific". But first I want to object to the term "skilled" and replace it with "talented", clairvoyance,, and I maintain this out of personal experience, "clairvoyance" and all the other paranormal facilities are inborn abilities and not learned techniques. In this, with all due respect for your long friendship with them, I am forced by my own life experience to disagree with the Van Gelders. Now, as you know, both John and I are healers. When John does a reading on a person, theretofore unknown to him, and the person goes to Stanford Hospital the next day and their analysis of the persons conditions etc. match Johns in every respect. That's a kind of scientific proof. Most especially if it is repeatable in every circumstance with a different patient. Now as to my work: When a young man comes to me not simply HIV+ but suffering from Thrush, Lymphoma, and PCP and has a T Cell Count of 0,and, after the first rtreatment the Thrush is gone, after the second the PCP and Lymphoma is gone, and after the thrid his T Cell count has gone up to 750, to me It's proof. To his Doctor it was a "miraculous spontaneous remission". But that was three years ago, and as far as I know he's still healthy. These type of things are amenable to that sort of "proof". Now Aura reading are so subjective they cannot be so proven. But there are instances when "past life reading or experiences" while not totally amenable to proof are certainly indicative of validity. As to Shamanism, which you know is a very important part of my life, it is totally real to those who expereince it, and to those who I cause to expereince it. It is totally unreal except hypothetically to those who have not had the experience. Theosophy, as Don Di Gracia indicates must be willing to stand up in the court of opinion with its ideas and perceptions. We must if we are to be given any respect. Alexis From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 8 13:10:51 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 14:10:51 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: 40 Years Mime-Version: 1.0 Forty Years of Occultism Alan Bain A month or so ago, on the Internet theosophy list, I mentioned that come April 4th I would have been involved in matters theosophical for 40 years to the day, and hinted portentiously (probably) that come the day I would reveal all. Naturally, as is the case with we overworked and busy Adepts, the appointed time and place passed me by without a reminder. As I had finished scanning and proof-reading chapter six of Ernest Wood's "Is This Theosophy ... ?" I was reminded by his experiences of many of my own, including the occasion that has enabled me through the years to recall the precise date and even the approximate hour of my own entry into the mysterious world of occult philosophy (as Cornelius Agrippa called it) or theosophy (as we call it). On the night of 3rd/4th April 1956 I had reached a point in my life whereby it seemed that I had been given no choice but to stand firm on matters of spiritual principle - as it seemed at the time - and was in consequence quite alone in the world, with hardly a single friend, living in a small bedsitter in London. I was exhausted in the same way as one can be after a "psychic battle" and more than ready simply to lie down on the bed in my clothes and fall asleep. But I was afraid. For no reason I could fathom, hard as I tried to rationalise the matter, I was filled with a conviction that if I went to sleep I would die. And I mean die - finished, dead, kaput - no more. The obvious - the only - means of avoiding this was to remain awake, presumably forever, though my thoughts did not follow through that far, and so I tried, tired as I was, not to stay awake, but to prevent myself falling asleep. Eventually - about three in the morning - I realised I was not going to make it, and quite literally resigned myself, reconciled myself to the fact - yes, fact - of my impending demise. By the morning would I would have died. I lay on the bed, no longer fearful, just exhausted and ready as I could be to face the inevitable. And so it was that I awoke - rather late on the 4th April - dead. That is to say that the Alan Bain who lay down on the bed at three in the morning was gone, complete with phobias, inadequacies and inhibitions, and a new Alan Bain had emerged, chrysalis-like, from the shell of the old. Reborn. Within six months I had worked my way through the rudiments of Astrology, Theosophy (via Jinarajadasa) and Qabalah (as in Dion Fortune's "Mystical Qabalah"). Within a year I was heading a small group of students, mostly around my own age - by then 23 - which was unusual for those days, as most people seemed to become interested in such matters in their early forties. Qabalah, later spelt "Kabbalah" to avoid being confused with the "magical" variety, became my personal working and teaching method, and the first draft of my "The Keys to Kabbalah" was completed in 1970-71. It received its latest redefinition and extensions last year, 1995. Like many theosophists since the time of Besant and Leadbeater, I have been involved with all three of the later manifestations of the movement: the Liberal Catholic Church (which I find to be neither liberal nor catholic); Co-Masonry (of limited but some value, once you have finished playing "Knock knock, who's there?") and the Adyar-based Theosophical Society. Like many theosophists I have met, mostly electronically, during the past year or two, I have come to realise that the real strength of the occult or theosophical ideal was that, however imperfectly expressed, by Madame Blavatsky and friends back in 1875. 120 years later, some of us, returning (I suspect) to both our source and our roots, are wondering about starting over, about ridding ourselves of hierarchical and power structures which seem to have done as much harm as they have good. Without their having existed, it is fair to say I would have nothing to write about today, but I think it is also fair to say that *their* day is passing, and we truly are moving into a "New Dimension" if not a "New Age" - no doubt we shall see. Wish me a happy anniversary! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From rdon@garlic.com Mon Apr 8 14:16:12 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 06:16:12 -0800 From: rdon@garlic.com (Rodolfo Don) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: 40 Years >Forty Years of Occultism > >Alan Bain > >A month or so ago, on the Internet theosophy list, I mentioned >that come April 4th I would have been involved in matters >theosophical for 40 years to the day, and hinted portentiously >(probably) that come the day I would reveal all. > >Naturally, as is the case with we overworked and busy Adepts, >the appointed time and place passed me by without a reminder. > >As I had finished scanning and proof-reading chapter six of >Ernest Wood's "Is This Theosophy ... ?" I was reminded by his >experiences of many of my own, including the occasion that has >enabled me through the years to recall the precise date and even >the approximate hour of my own entry into the mysterious world >of occult philosophy (as Cornelius Agrippa called it) or >theosophy (as we call it). > >On the night of 3rd/4th April 1956 I had reached a point in my >life whereby it seemed that I had been given no choice but to >stand firm on matters of spiritual principle - as it seemed at >the time - and was in consequence quite alone in the world, >with hardly a single friend, living in a small bedsitter in >London. > >I was exhausted in the same way as one can be after a "psychic >battle" and more than ready simply to lie down on the bed in my >clothes and fall asleep. But I was afraid. For no reason I >could fathom, hard as I tried to rationalise the matter, I was >filled with a conviction that if I went to sleep I would die. >And I mean die - finished, dead, kaput - no more. The obvious - >the only - means of avoiding this was to remain awake, >presumably forever, though my thoughts did not follow through >that far, and so I tried, tired as I was, not to stay awake, but >to prevent myself falling asleep. > >Eventually - about three in the morning - I realised I was not >going to make it, and quite literally resigned myself, >reconciled myself to the fact - yes, fact - of my impending >demise. By the morning would I would have died. I lay on the >bed, no longer fearful, just exhausted and ready as I could be >to face the inevitable. > >And so it was that I awoke - rather late on the 4th April - >dead. That is to say that the Alan Bain who lay down on the bed >at three in the morning was gone, complete with phobias, >inadequacies and inhibitions, and a new Alan Bain had emerged, >chrysalis-like, from the shell of the old. Reborn. > >Within six months I had worked my way through the rudiments of >Astrology, Theosophy (via Jinarajadasa) and Qabalah (as in Dion >Fortune's "Mystical Qabalah"). Within a year I was heading a >small group of students, mostly around my own age - by then 23 - >which was unusual for those days, as most people seemed to >become interested in such matters in their early forties. > >Qabalah, later spelt "Kabbalah" to avoid being confused with the >"magical" variety, became my personal working and teaching >method, and the first draft of my "The Keys to Kabbalah" was >completed in 1970-71. It received its latest redefinition and >extensions last year, 1995. > >Like many theosophists since the time of Besant and Leadbeater, >I have been involved with all three of the later manifestations >of the movement: the Liberal Catholic Church (which I find to be >neither liberal nor catholic); Co-Masonry (of limited but some >value, once you have finished playing "Knock knock, who's >there?") and the Adyar-based Theosophical Society. > >Like many theosophists I have met, mostly electronically, during >the past year or two, I have come to realise that the real >strength of the occult or theosophical ideal was that, however >imperfectly expressed, by Madame Blavatsky and friends back in >1875. > >120 years later, some of us, returning (I suspect) to both our >source and our roots, are wondering about starting over, about >ridding ourselves of hierarchical and power structures which >seem to have done as much harm as they have good. Without their >having existed, it is fair to say I would have nothing to >write about today, but I think it is also fair to say that >*their* day is passing, and we truly are moving into a "New Dimension" >if not a "New Age" - no doubt we shall see. > >Wish me a happy anniversary! > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thank you, Happy Aniversary! Rudy THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL Web: http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 8 17:34:00 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 18:34:00 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: Suggested changes to TI: Uncertainty? In-Reply-To: <960408015500_72662.1335_IHD138-2@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960408015500_72662.1335_IHD138-2@CompuServe.COM>, Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> writes >Perhaps TI would >be setting off on a better foot if it recognizes at the onset how important it >is to leave the door open for honest intelellectual assesment and criticism. In >this regard, seeking *verifiable* consistencies and regularities in Humanity and >Nature may be the most meaningful broad statement that could be put forth in >this regard. > >Thanks for considering these ideas. > >Don DeGracia, PhD I have been thinking about "Mysteries in Nature" (hoping no one will want to start an in depth discussion about the meaning of "Nature" - if we spend too much time on definitions, we will a) miss the point of TI, and b) not get much done. As I see it, any individual or group of individuals within (or without) TI can do as TI has done, and add to his/her/its point of view "which I/we interpret as follows ..." Respectfully, Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 8 17:36:04 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 18:36:04 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: TI membership list In-Reply-To: <960407235056_371130814@emout08.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960407235056_371130814@emout08.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >"Theosophy International is comprised of FREE men and women..." >Suppose we get a slave in the Sudan or Saudi Arabia (where such things still >exist) who wants to join? > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker No doubt we will discuss it, and decide that the slave is free within the context of TI, if nowhere else ........ Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 8 17:48:54 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 18:48:54 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <0bSnKMAGGVaxEw7Q@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: TI membership list In-Reply-To: <960407235155_371131359@emout10.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960407235155_371131359@emout10.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes > Are we implying that members of other theosophical organizations are not >free and if we personally believe that, do we want to make that point as a >part of TI? > >Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker Do we not exist in the first place (as TI) *because* of a lack of genuine freedom (as we have perceived and experienced it) in one or more theosophical organisations? And are we not determined that such restrictions as we have experienced/observed shall not be allowed to interfere in our own percpetion of the theosophical way of life? Yes, I for one *do* want to make it a point of TI, just as the USA seeks to declare itself the Land of the Free (debatable, too). Alan. --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 8 17:28:00 1996 Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 13:28:00 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604081832.OAA17345@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:just plain FREE Free is ok with me. LFD >At 04:08 PM 4/7/96 -0500, you wrote: >>I like "Free" too. As for defining what it means, one could do one's PhD >>thesis on that. Let it mean whatever it means to individual members, as long >>as it's some sensible kind of free... like free love isn't our style, & >>being free of one's body none of us are yet; what it means in terms of >>actions ðics is debatable, I would say free within Ahimsa. >> >>Liesel >>.............................................................................. >lIESEL: >"FREE" means "free" and that's that! People define freedom within their own >personal parameters, it probably can be best defined as limited only by >one's self. I don't think anyone has the right to prescribe what is a >"sensible kind of free" that puts one right on the slippery slope to >oppression. As to "free love", it's no longer my style, it's not your style, >but for those who find it a part of their life, that's freedom. Ahimsa >unfortunately isn't something every human being is ready for, and so >declaring freedom only to exist within the parameter of Ahimsa is >oppresssive of those not strong enough to follow that path. > >alexis > > > From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 8 18:36:00 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 11:36 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: congratulations At 08:23 AM 4/8/96 -0500, you wrote: > >Forty Years of Occultism >>>>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<< >Wish me a happy anniversary! > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > >Happy Anniversary! Congratulations and commiseration! I got into this thing in 1966 in Boston, via a contact with Sybil Leek. At the time I was a thoroughly materialistic german/Scandanavian trained archtectural and furniture designer. She predicted to my then total amusement that "in five years, you will remember this conversation, see what you are doing and be astonished". Four years later in 1970, in San Francisco, I underwent one of those "dark nights of the soul" too, not precisely the same as your's but enough like to make it clear that it was the same kind of phenomenon. In mine I was given a choice, do a certain "job of work" (again) or go get a new body. After much internal dithering (my immediate desire was the "new Body option") I agreed to do the "work". About a year later, and five years to the day from my conversation with Sybil, I found myself doing an excorcism on someone who needed it badly (it was fully successful) and I remembered Sybil's comments. I was, in fact, astonished. Shortly thereafter I joined the TS for the first time. alexis From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 8 18:31:39 1996 Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 14:31:39 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604081935.PAA17763@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:proof? Alecis, I guess this is one place where we differ. I agree that any form of ESP is inborn & not learned, but I still think that the inborn talent can be used more effectively if it is trained to understand better what it perceives. I don't really know how that works with auras, so I'm not going to say anything on that subject. I'm very glad that you & John have had such successful healings. I think that's great. But it's still my considered opinion that with training you would be even more effective. As for theosophists being given respect, I would say that this would be better as respect for our collective wisdom, than for any shallow scientific proof we could or could not produce. Liesel Member Ti, TSA, TS in Canada, HR ............................................................................... >At 11:07 PM 4/7/96 -0500, you wrote: >>To: Don DeGracia, >> >>I guess we'll start where we left off. If you're going to prove everything >>scientifically, I wonder how you're going to prove scientifically that a >>very skilled clairvoyant can diagnose a slight heart murmur from Sidney >>Australia to upstate New York. I checked it out with an EKG, & the diagnosis >>was correct. That, just as an example. I agree with you that we don't want >>dogma & beliefs to creep into our system, but I think we have to be on the >>lookout for those another way. The scientific method, such as we know it >>today, just isn't broad enough to cover all realms of nature. >> >>Liesel >>Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR >> >>Liesel: > >As to "scientific proof", well there's a kind of proof quite amenable to >being called "scientific". But first I want to object to the term "skilled" >and replace it with "talented", clairvoyance,, and I maintain this out of >personal experience, "clairvoyance" and all the other paranormal facilities >are inborn abilities and not learned techniques. In this, with all due >respect for your long friendship with them, I am forced by my own life >experience to disagree with the Van Gelders. > >Now, as you know, both John and I are healers. When John does a reading on a >person, theretofore unknown to him, and the person goes to Stanford Hospital >the next day and their analysis of the persons conditions etc. match Johns >in every respect. That's a kind of scientific proof. Most especially if it >is repeatable in every circumstance with a different patient. Now as to my >work: When a young man comes to me not simply HIV+ but suffering from >Thrush, Lymphoma, and PCP and has a T Cell Count of 0,and, after the first >rtreatment the Thrush is gone, after the second the PCP and Lymphoma is >gone, and after the thrid his T Cell count has gone up to 750, to me It's >proof. To his Doctor it was a "miraculous spontaneous remission". But that >was three years ago, and as far as I know he's still healthy. These type of >things are amenable to that sort of "proof". Now Aura reading are so >subjective they cannot be so proven. But there are instances when "past life >reading or experiences" while not totally amenable to proof are certainly >indicative of validity. As to Shamanism, which you know is a very important >part of my life, it is totally real to those who expereince it, and to those >who I cause to expereince it. It is totally unreal except hypothetically to >those who have not had the experience. > >Theosophy, as Don Di Gracia indicates must be willing to stand up in the >court of opinion with its ideas and perceptions. We must if we are to be >given any respect. > >Alexis > > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 8 18:31:47 1996 Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 14:31:47 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604081935.PAA17772@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: 40 Years Happy anniversary, Alan, Liesel, member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR ........................................................................... > >Forty Years of Occultism > >Alan Bain > >A month or so ago, on the Internet theosophy list, I mentioned >that come April 4th I would have been involved in matters >theosophical for 40 years to the day, and hinted portentiously >(probably) that come the day I would reveal all. > >Naturally, as is the case with we overworked and busy Adepts, >the appointed time and place passed me by without a reminder. > >As I had finished scanning and proof-reading chapter six of >Ernest Wood's "Is This Theosophy ... ?" I was reminded by his >experiences of many of my own, including the occasion that has >enabled me through the years to recall the precise date and even >the approximate hour of my own entry into the mysterious world >of occult philosophy (as Cornelius Agrippa called it) or >theosophy (as we call it). > >On the night of 3rd/4th April 1956 I had reached a point in my >life whereby it seemed that I had been given no choice but to >stand firm on matters of spiritual principle - as it seemed at >the time - and was in consequence quite alone in the world, >with hardly a single friend, living in a small bedsitter in >London. > >I was exhausted in the same way as one can be after a "psychic >battle" and more than ready simply to lie down on the bed in my >clothes and fall asleep. But I was afraid. For no reason I >could fathom, hard as I tried to rationalise the matter, I was >filled with a conviction that if I went to sleep I would die. >And I mean die - finished, dead, kaput - no more. The obvious - >the only - means of avoiding this was to remain awake, >presumably forever, though my thoughts did not follow through >that far, and so I tried, tired as I was, not to stay awake, but >to prevent myself falling asleep. > >Eventually - about three in the morning - I realised I was not >going to make it, and quite literally resigned myself, >reconciled myself to the fact - yes, fact - of my impending >demise. By the morning would I would have died. I lay on the >bed, no longer fearful, just exhausted and ready as I could be >to face the inevitable. > >And so it was that I awoke - rather late on the 4th April - >dead. That is to say that the Alan Bain who lay down on the bed >at three in the morning was gone, complete with phobias, >inadequacies and inhibitions, and a new Alan Bain had emerged, >chrysalis-like, from the shell of the old. Reborn. > >Within six months I had worked my way through the rudiments of >Astrology, Theosophy (via Jinarajadasa) and Qabalah (as in Dion >Fortune's "Mystical Qabalah"). Within a year I was heading a >small group of students, mostly around my own age - by then 23 - >which was unusual for those days, as most people seemed to >become interested in such matters in their early forties. > >Qabalah, later spelt "Kabbalah" to avoid being confused with the >"magical" variety, became my personal working and teaching >method, and the first draft of my "The Keys to Kabbalah" was >completed in 1970-71. It received its latest redefinition and >extensions last year, 1995. > >Like many theosophists since the time of Besant and Leadbeater, >I have been involved with all three of the later manifestations >of the movement: the Liberal Catholic Church (which I find to be >neither liberal nor catholic); Co-Masonry (of limited but some >value, once you have finished playing "Knock knock, who's >there?") and the Adyar-based Theosophical Society. > >Like many theosophists I have met, mostly electronically, during >the past year or two, I have come to realise that the real >strength of the occult or theosophical ideal was that, however >imperfectly expressed, by Madame Blavatsky and friends back in >1875. > >120 years later, some of us, returning (I suspect) to both our >source and our roots, are wondering about starting over, about >ridding ourselves of hierarchical and power structures which >seem to have done as much harm as they have good. Without their >having existed, it is fair to say I would have nothing to >write about today, but I think it is also fair to say that >*their* day is passing, and we truly are moving into a "New Dimension" >if not a "New Age" - no doubt we shall see. > >Wish me a happy anniversary! > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 8 18:31:26 1996 Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 14:31:26 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604081935.PAA17753@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Whoa! Alexis, you say "there are no constancies in nature." I think there are, but within limits. Otherwise an American MD couldn't arrive in deepest Africa, recognize the belly ache of someone copletely unknown, as probably coming from appendicitis, & find the appendix approximately in the spot where he supposes it to be when he makes his incision. Re: verifiable theosophical claims. I think a good theosophist does verify claims he hears about, but it depends on what method is used. It's not always an admissibly scientific method, but may be something which means something to the person who's verifying. Harry was a dyed in the wool Theosophist to be sure. He lived & breathed theosophy. He said "Don't believe, find out, and then tell yourself that it's probably true." He also called himself a scientist (an engineer, an osteopath. & etc.). But now, for instance, I have no idea how he decided what kind of vibrations an illness gave off. But he selected the homeopathic remedy to counteract it, partly by using something with vibrations 1/2 beat ahead of the illness, so that the 2 vibrations would tend to cancel each other out. It's very scientific, but first you've got to be able to perceive the vibes given off by an illness, plus the ones given off by the remedy, & understand what it is you're perceiving. Also, some of the things i've come to accept as fact, weren't so when I first learned about them. But then, when something happened during the course of living my life, which called for my applying what I'd learned theoretically, I often found out that it worked. That's enough proof for me. I don't know why or how it worked, & I don't really care that much about that end of it. I rather care about that it worked for me. When the ocasion arises, I'll also tell someone else to try see whether it'll work for them as well. & if it works well for both of us, that fortifies that I think it'll usually work. Liesel Member Ti, TSA, TS in Camada, HR .............................................................................. >At 09:01 PM 4/7/96 -0500, you wrote: >>alexis >> >>Hi everyone. I've not had much time to participate lately, but I simply could >>not let these discussions between alexis and Alan pass me by. >> >>I would like to address Alexis' statement: >> >>< But those are hardly "Laws" they are simply "immediate cause and >>immediate effect" in the lowest level of the many physical levels of >>reality. "Laws" whether "in" or "of" Nature imply far more grandiose events >>and things than that. The "unertainty principle" deals with wider and more >>grandiose areas of reality.> > >>With all due respect, Alexis, I think you may be going a bit too far here. >>Construing the Uncertanty Principle as a law of nature different from the fact >>that dry wood always burns is not accurate. Both are generalizations of >>regulaties observed in Nature under particular circumstances. That the >>Uncertainty Principle derives from sophisticated mathematical deduction and the >>observation of wood buring derives from direct sensory perception is of little >>concern. The important point is that both are consistenties of Nature. > >Whoa there! I think we have a misunderstanding here (whether semantic or >otherwise) I did NOT say that "The Uncertainty Principle" was any kind of >Law of Nature. What I said was that this principle deals with things on an >abstract level rather than simplistic "cause and effect" phenomena on the >physical planes. What I hoped people would understand me to mean was that in >neither case was anything so absolutely invariable as the word "Laws" >implies to be accepted as appropriate. I was saying there were no laws not >passed by legislatures, at least not in anything dealing with either the >nature of the human condition or the nature of reality. I was trying to >indicate that the word "principles" is less didactic than the word "Laws" >and that is why I suggested it's use. >The other point I was trying to make is that there are no constancies in >nature! >> >>Perhaps we should abondon the word "law" altogether from the 3 objective. >>Perhaps we should say something to the effect that "Theosophists are willing to >>seek verifiable regulaties in the behavior of Humankind and Nature" - the key >>word here being "verifiable". This would begin to lay a scientific >>underpinning to Theosophy, something that is sorely lacking at present. > >The term "verifiable regularity" to me, would seem to imply things that were >common but hardly inevitable. For as I see it, nothing is inevitable. >> >>Too much of Theosophical discourse is simply the parroting of unsubstantiated >>ideas. The lack of concern over the verifiablity of theosophical claims simply >>opens the door to dogma and mythologizing, neither of which serve any higher >>purpose, and instead serve to dogmatize and limit free and open inquiry. This >>fact is why the modern world has, for the most part, left theosophy behind. > >With this statement I couldn't agree more. In fact I have said the same >thing, many times, in many ways, on this forum. >> >>Perhaps as we try to formulate a "new" theosophy we should be sensitive to the >>fact that the old theosophy has done little by way of open, honest and rigorous >>intellectual discipline. As a matter of fact, the "old" theosophy has been >>downright defensive about questioning and challenging its accepted - and mostly >>unsubstantiated - claims. Simply ask Paul Johnson about this. Perhaps TI would >>be setting off on a better foot if it recognizes at the onset how important it >>is to leave the door open for honest intelellectual assesment and >criticism. In >>this regard, seeking *verifiable* consistencies and regularities in >Humanity and >>Nature may be the most meaningful broad statement that could be put forth in >>this regard. > >Don: >I don't need to ask Paul Johnson, I've experienced the phenomenon myself, in >spades! Back in 1973, when I was much younger and far more idealistic, I was >hounded to resignation becuase of my questioning and my sexuality. It won't >happen again I am much older now, and at my age, we don't "hound" easily. >Your last sentence above: "OIn this regard, etc." is something I can >wholeheartedly support and I really think it ought to be included in the TI/ >statement. >> >>Thanks for considering these ideas. >> >>Don DeGracia, PhD >> >> >Alexis Dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA > > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 8 18:50:03 1996 Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 14:50:03 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604081954.PAA27733@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Suggested changes to TI: Uncertainty? Mysteries is ok with me. LFD ...................................................................... >In message <960408015500_72662.1335_IHD138-2@CompuServe.COM>, Don >DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> writes >>Perhaps TI would >>be setting off on a better foot if it recognizes at the onset how important it >>is to leave the door open for honest intelellectual assesment and criticism. In >>this regard, seeking *verifiable* consistencies and regularities in Humanity and >>Nature may be the most meaningful broad statement that could be put forth in >>this regard. >> >>Thanks for considering these ideas. >> >>Don DeGracia, PhD > >I have been thinking about "Mysteries in Nature" (hoping no one will >want to start an in depth discussion about the meaning of "Nature" - if >we spend too much time on definitions, we will a) miss the point of TI, >and b) not get much done. > >As I see it, any individual or group of individuals within (or without) >TI can do as TI has done, and add to his/her/its point of view "which >I/we interpret as follows ..." > >Respectfully, > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > > From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 8 23:20:34 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 19:20:34 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960408192030_465234816@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TI membership list Liesel, I agree with you. The word "free" has a lot of meanings to different people. Alex and I disagree a lot about it. And in the context of theTI preamble it takes on a rather hostile implication that I really don't think we want. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 8 23:21:46 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 19:21:46 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960408192142_465235742@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: 40 Years Alan, Happy anniversary and many happy returns. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker done. Are you trying to ruin the sacred traditions? :-) Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 8 23:21:57 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 19:21:57 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960408192156_465235911@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TI membership list Alan, I was afraid someone was going to say that. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 8 23:40:43 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 00:40:43 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: 40 Years In-Reply-To: <960408192142_465235742@emout10.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960408192142_465235742@emout10.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Are you trying to ruin the sacred traditions? :-) > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker I expect so. Someone has to. You don't do so bad yourself :-) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From rdon@garlic.com Tue Apr 9 01:44:26 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 18:44:26 -0700 From: rdon@garlic.com (Rodolfo Don) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI membership list >Liesel, >I agree with you. The word "free" has a lot of meanings to different people. > Alex and I disagree a lot about it. And in the context of theTI preamble it >takes on a rather hostile implication that I really don't think we want. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker Chuck, Free shouldn't be a problem to anybody in any TS group. It is well known that one of the characteristics of a theosophist - and we all have talked about it at one point or another - is the freedom of thought and action in the Society. It also happens that in some theosophical groups you see an authoritarian attitude on part of the officials in those groups. I have seen also examples of adoration that reaches almost to the ridiculous. All this given to 'personalities'. I don't care if those personalities are at the top of the ladder (read: power structure), they are still personalities, and they are subjected to all the defects and imperfections that human personalities have. Just because I value my freedom, is that I am a member of TI. I also know that I don't have to belong to any organization. Freedom, just like many other words has been corrupted in its meaning. But to me it is something sacred. I know what it means to me. Basically it means freedom from illusion. I don't want to extend myself more on this, but I don't believe that by saying that we are free men and women, we are being hostile to anybody. We're just saying what we really are. THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL Web: http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue Apr 9 03:35:56 1996 Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 23:35:56 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604090440.AAA20031@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI membership list I just thought of a very important meaning of freedom, at least to me it is. It's the freedom I have of being able to live in the US, where I can pretty well say & do as I please, rather than being forced to live under an oppressive ditatorship. Since I have this background, I'm very sensitive to any abrogation of any freedoms, & I usually notice their slight abrogation the minute it comes up, & I usually protest them. I also just remembered a real good expression of freedom. It's the very touching chorus the prisoners sing in "Fidelio" when they are allowed to come up out of their dank dungeons, and be in the courtyard in the sun for a few minutes. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR ............................................................................. >>Liesel, >>I agree with you. The word "free" has a lot of meanings to different people. >> Alex and I disagree a lot about it. And in the context of theTI preamble it >>takes on a rather hostile implication that I really don't think we want. >> >>Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >>Heretic >>Troublemaker > >Chuck, > >Free shouldn't be a problem to anybody in any TS group. It is well known >that one of the characteristics of a theosophist - and we all have talked >about it at one point or another - is the freedom of thought and action in >the Society. It also happens that in some theosophical groups you see an >authoritarian attitude on part of the officials in those groups. I have >seen also examples of adoration that reaches almost to the ridiculous. All >this given to 'personalities'. I don't care if those personalities are at >the top of the ladder (read: power structure), they are still >personalities, and they are subjected to all the defects and imperfections >that human personalities have. > >Just because I value my freedom, is that I am a member of TI. I also know >that I don't have to belong to any organization. Freedom, just like many >other words has been corrupted in its meaning. But to me it is something >sacred. I know what it means to me. Basically it means freedom from >illusion. I don't want to extend myself more on this, but I don't believe >that by saying that we are free men and women, we are being hostile to >anybody. We're just saying what we really are. > > >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL > > >Web: http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 9 05:47:00 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 22:47 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: definitions At 02:58 PM 4/8/96 -0500, you wrote: >> >>I have been thinking about "Mysteries in Nature" (hoping no one will >>want to start an in depth discussion about the meaning of "Nature" - if >>we spend too much time on definitions, we will a) miss the point of TI, >>and b) not get much done. >> >>As I see it, any individual or group of individuals within (or without) >>TI can do as TI has done, and add to his/her/its point of view "which >>I/we interpret as follows ..." >> >>Respectfully, >> >>Alan >>--------- >>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >> >> > >Alan: Trying to keep us,(the crowd on this list) away from defining things they're interested in, will be as possible as keeping my cats away from tuna. alexis From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 9 05:58:00 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 22:58 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Whoa! At 02:46 PM 4/8/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis, >you say "there are no constancies in nature." I think there are, but within >limits. Otherwise an American MD couldn't arrive in deepest Africa, >recognize the belly ache of someone copletely unknown, as probably coming >from appendicitis, & find the appendix approximately in the spot where he >supposes it to be when he makes his incision. Actually Liesel that is not really always true. My medical friends have told me many times that the appendix is not always where it's supposed to be. Sometimes it's found on the left. Some people's insides are different, it's what makes life interesting for medical folks. American and European MD's are regularly surprised in more exotic climes. People in Africa and the tropics in general get "belly aches" from the most fascinating things. some of them quite alive. I repeat, sometimes things which appear to be both natural and regularly repeatable may be so 95% of the time but they are never so 100% of the time. For that reason I think it is safe to say there are no relaible constancies in nature, everything natural is infinitely variable, only the unnatural, by which I mean manufactured can be invariable, and that is not invariably true. > >Alexis From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 9 06:10:00 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 23:10 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re No training? At 02:40 PM 4/8/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alecis, > >I guess this is one place where we differ. > >I agree that any form of ESP is inborn & not learned, but I still think that >the inborn talent can be used more effectively if it is trained to >understand better what it perceives. I don't really know how that works with >auras, so I'm not going to say anything on that subject. I'm very glad that >you & John have had such successful healings. I think that's great. But it's >still my considered opinion that with training you would be even more effective. Liesel: It would be impossible to be more effective than we are because as Shaman-Tulkus (and any good Shaman is a Tulku)we don't do anything at all! John merely writes down what he's "told", and I simply serve as a viaduct for the Cosmic Harmonic which is directed and utilized by the spirit working with me at that moment. The only training either John or Myself have ever required was provided by the spirits, and that consisted of instructions on how to get out of the way! All it takes to be a healer is a desire to help, compassion, and the ability to remove one's self from the process. It isn't hard to do. I do another kind of healing too, the good old fashioned "laying on of hands" and in that case it's the patient's body that instructs me what to do. It's very easy, the body "pulls" or "sucks" energy where energy is required, and it stops "pulling" or "sucking" when it's had enough. And "laying on of hands" doesn't require any "psychic" ability at all, just caringness! I can teach anyone how to do it, and do it well, in less than two minutes. And they don't have to be "pure" or "holy" or "vegetarians"! The only drawback I've found is that most people just don't care enough about others to bother trying. Especially among the so-called "X-generation". Alexis > > > > From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 9 06:16:00 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 23:16 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: ReOh Yes! At 01:30 PM 4/8/96 -0500, you wrote: >In message <960407235155_371131359@emout10.mail.aol.com>, >Drpsionic@aol.com writes >> Are we implying that members of other theosophical organizations are not >>free and if we personally believe that, do we want to make that point as a >>part of TI? >> >>Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA >>Heretic >>Troublemaker > >Do we not exist in the first place (as TI) *because* of a lack of >genuine freedom (as we have perceived and experienced it) in one or more >theosophical organisations? And are we not determined that such >restrictions as we have experienced/observed shall not be allowed to >interfere in our own percpetion of the theosophical way of life? Alan: I wish it wasn't so, but what you say is absolutely true. The trouble is, many of the people subscribing to this list do not feel free topursue their own personal theosophy. > >Yes, I for one *do* want to make it a point of TI, just as the USA seeks >to declare itself the Land of the Free (debatable, too). > >Alan. >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > Unfortunately America's notion of itself as either the "only" free nation or "the most fee nation" is pathology. alexis> From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 9 06:28:00 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 23:28 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: hostile? At 06:24 PM 4/8/96 -0500, you wrote: >Liesel, >I agree with you. The word "free" has a lot of meanings to different people. > Alex and I disagree a lot about it. And in the context of theTI preamble it >takes on a rather hostile implication that I really don't think we want. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: Hostile to whom? In what way? Free is free is free is free! Ask the Canadians, the former Jugoslavs, the Danes, and the New York section how free they are? Or Were, they're free now. alexis From john@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz Tue Apr 9 05:16:26 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:16:26 +1200 From: john@actrix.gen.nz (John Vorstermans) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI membership list Liesel wrote: >I just thought of a very important meaning of freedom, at least to me it is. >It's the freedom I have of being able to live in the US, where I can pretty >well say & do as I please, rather than being forced to live under an >oppressive ditatorship. Interesting perspective. Freedom is much an illusion and very much a thing of perseption or experience. Certainly in your case you have seen some contrast in to two lifestyles but in the end I think you will find there is little real freedom in either. Cryptic perhaps but worth some contemplation? John -- John Vorstermans PO Box 11-410 Wellington Mobile (025) 432-987 From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 9 07:06:00 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 00:06 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Beethoven At 11:41 PM 4/8/96 -0500, you wrote: >I just thought of a very important meaning of freedom, at least to me it is. >It's the freedom I have of being able to live in the US, where I can pretty >well say & do as I please, rather than being forced to live under an >oppressive ditatorship. Since I have this background, I'm very sensitive to >any abrogation of any freedoms, & I usually notice their slight abrogation >the minute it comes up, & I usually protest them. >I also just remembered a real good expression of freedom. It's the very >touching chorus the prisoners sing in "Fidelio" when they are allowed to >come up out of their dank dungeons, and be in the courtyard in the sun for a >few minutes. >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR >............................................................................. > >Liesel: Old Ludwig was a great worshipper of Freedom, both personal freedom and group freedom. The chorus to which you refer is one of the high points of humanity's creative record! Ludwig may have been dreadfully grouchy andpersonally unkempt but his are some of humankinds greatest musical achievements. (Obviously I'm a fan of his) Mozart is sometimes considered to be the greatest composer that ever lived, and I suppose I must agree. But except in certain instances (The Magic Flute and The MasonicFuneral Music) Mozart speaks to the intelligence, he scintillates. But Beethoven and sadly Richard Wagner speak to the soul. I really despise Wagner as a man, but his music is uttterly sublime. I admire Dmitri Shostakovitch as a person and his music, to me, is almost equally sublime. And that's not being a russian chauvinist. alexis >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 9 11:44:22 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 07:44:22 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960409074420_187519135@mail06> Subject: Re: TI membership list Alan, Very well, I merely brought up the point as something to consider. Free it is. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 9 11:45:35 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 07:45:35 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960409074534_187519419@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Whoa! Liesel, If by Harry, you mean Harry Van Gelder, he used radionics to determine the vibrations he was working with and from the way you describe it he was following an older method of determining the healing rate. We now know that such rates are anything but objective, in the sense that the appendix tends to be in the same place for just about everyone, but that the use of his instruments is almost totally dependent upon the mind of the operator. The problem is that the scientific method gets a little confused when you work in such areas. It is very difficult to test an hypothesis when every hypothesis will work for someone but not for everyone. The difference between science a magick seems to come down to this: In science, not everything will work, but what will work for one will work for all. Example, a rock will fall at the same rate of velocity no matter who drops it. In magick, every method will bring results for some operators, but not all operators will be able to use every method and the results will differ with each one. Example, I may be able to use my instruments to cause a person to, out of nowhere, desire to offer me a certain book. Jerry may not be able to get that, but his enochian angels may be persuaded to do it for him. Funny psionics story that Jerry Scheuler will remember. At the 1987 American Booksellers' Association convention, we were both there hawking our books for LLewellyn. Carl Weschke decided that I should use my equipment to get Shirley McLaine to come to our booth and endorse his products. I was a little uncomfortable with that as I had made a little joke in my book about brainless movie stars but after much pleading I was persuaded and did the work. Well, we did not get Shirley, but we had at least 15 red-headed women come into the booth in the space of a half-hour. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 9 13:20:49 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 14:20:49 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: TI membership list In-Reply-To: <960408192030_465234816@emout10.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960408192030_465234816@emout10.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Liesel, >I agree with you. The word "free" has a lot of meanings to different people. > Alex and I disagree a lot about it. And in the context of theTI preamble it >takes on a rather hostile implication that I really don't think we want. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker What is "hostile" about an expression of freedom? You baffle me. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 9 18:24:00 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 11:24 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom At 01:55 AM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >Liesel wrote: > >>I just thought of a very important meaning of freedom, at least to me it is. >>It's the freedom I have of being able to live in the US, where I can pretty >>well say & do as I please, rather than being forced to live under an >>oppressive ditatorship. > >Interesting perspective. Freedom is much an illusion and very much a >thing of perseption or experience. > >Certainly in your case you have seen some contrast in to two lifestyles but >in the end I think you will find there is little real freedom in either. > >Cryptic perhaps but worth some contemplation? > >John > >-- >John Vorstermans >PO Box 11-410 >Wellington >Mobile (025) 432-987 > > >To this I must respond, Freedom is not at all an illusion, it is an ideal to which all people are inclined. Even those who think not. For instance: most Communists truly believe that their oppressive system is seeking "perfect freedom". Now as to Liesel's experience, she escaped Nazi Germany and fled to America, Liesel is Jewish. I would hardly expect she'll find very little difference between the two systems. No nation or people on this planet have found truly perfect freedom, for that can only be found in anarchy when anarchy is absolutely devoid of any hostility. This is a condition that is presently impossible and so some restraints are needed on violence and other anti-social behaviour. There are countries which I believe to be more Democratic than America, as I believe the British Parliamentary system is superiour to our own, as it is more immediately reponsive to public opinion. But America is as "free" as any place on this planet. I sincerely question the motivations of anyone who can see no difference between America today and Nazi Germany. Alexis Dolgorukii From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 9 18:59:00 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 11:59 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:echo At 09:17 AM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >In message <960408192030_465234816@emout10.mail.aol.com>, >Drpsionic@aol.com writes >>Liesel, >>I agree with you. The word "free" has a lot of meanings to different people. >> Alex and I disagree a lot about it. And in the context of theTI preamble it >>takes on a rather hostile implication that I really don't think we want. >> >>Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >>Heretic >>Troublemaker > >What is "hostile" about an expression of freedom? You baffle me. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > >Moi aussi...me too....Ich auch! alexis From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 9 21:48:24 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:48:24 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960409174820_267812515@mail04> Subject: Re: tradition busting Alan, Traditions, like rules, are made to be broken. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 9 21:49:35 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:49:35 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960409174934_267813749@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: hostile? Alex, I must have been mistaken. I thought that one of the purposes of TI was to try to get along with the other theosophical groups, not insult them by implication. The way the word "free" is being placed in the preamble it implies very obviously that we see ourselves as superior to everyone else. In spite of the fact that we obviously are, it is not going to dealing with them easier. Oh well, I Iike a bit of hostility now and then. It keeps the blood pressure from dropping too low. And what's the point of doing something if no one gets mad at you for doing it? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 9 21:49:44 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:49:44 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960409174942_267813868@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Beethoven Alex, Ludwig's unkemptness qualifies him for adeptship. He had a genuine odor of sanctity. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 9 22:45:03 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 23:45:03 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: Freedom In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >I believe the British >Parliamentary system is superiour to our own, as it is more immediately >reponsive to public opinion. Insofar as there are fewer Brits perhaps, but the present administration, if it wants to go against the obvious wishes of the people, has a parliamentary majority in single figures which allows it to do what it likes. And it does just that. Result: the latest opinion polls show their support in the country at around 19% maximum. The "labour" opposition stands at 71% - but they don't have the majority vote in parliament. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From john@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz Wed Apr 10 00:29:10 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:29:10 +1200 From: john@actrix.gen.nz (John Vorstermans) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom Alexis Dolgorukii wrote: > I sincerely question the motivations of anyone who can see no > difference between America today and Nazi Germany. Of course anyone can see differences when comparing two such examples. I do not sugget that there is no difference between the two. I simply suggest that you need to spend some time contemplating what "FREEDOM" really is before you can make such statement. John -- John Vorstermans PO Box 11-410 Wellington Mobile (025) 432-987 From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 9 23:42:46 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:42:46 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: hostile? In-Reply-To: <960409174934_267813749@emout07.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960409174934_267813749@emout07.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >And what's the point of doing something if no one >gets mad at you for doing it? > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker They give you money for doing it and pat you on the back? They LIKE what you do (hard one that, eh, chuck?) :-) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Apr 10 01:31:56 1996 Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 21:31:56 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604100236.WAA14650@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI membership list Dear John Vorstermans, I don't know how much of an illusion you think it is, if I live in a country where, if I open my mouth to voice an opinion which doesn't conform with the Party Line, they'll right away give me a ride to the nearest concentration camp, or to a Gulag, have your pick. I don't know how free it is, if my German friend's grandfather was made to join the Nazi Party because if he hadn't, he would have lost his job at the German Postoffice; nor how free it was that she herself joined the Hitler Youth, because the other kids in her class threatened to beat her up, if she wouldn't. Incidentally, my cusin Eric, who was brought up Unitarian, but had Jewish ancestors, was beaten up so badly in 4th grade by his classmates that they broke his nose. I hope you don't call that freedom. I don't. Liesel ........................................................................... >Liesel wrote: > >>I just thought of a very important meaning of freedom, at least to me it is. >>It's the freedom I have of being able to live in the US, where I can pretty >>well say & do as I please, rather than being forced to live under an >>oppressive ditatorship. > >Interesting perspective. Freedom is much an illusion and very much a >thing of perseption or experience. > >Certainly in your case you have seen some contrast in to two lifestyles but >in the end I think you will find there is little real freedom in either. > >Cryptic perhaps but worth some contemplation? > >John > >-- >John Vorstermans >PO Box 11-410 >Wellington >Mobile (025) 432-987 > > > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Apr 10 01:40:58 1996 Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 21:40:58 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604100245.WAA19763@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Beethoven Hi, Alexis, We agree on Beethoven ... and on Mozart. When it comes to Wagner, I know you're right. One of my college courses was on Wagner, & I ended it with a 30pp paper on "Meistersinger", which I researched almost as carefully as Wagner did. Did you know that he used some of the original Meister songs? I enjoy Wagner, but the enjoyment is tarnished by the fact that he was the Nazis' folk hero. I like Shostakovitch, but to me, he's not that outstanding. I prefer Aron Copland. Liesel >At 11:41 PM 4/8/96 -0500, you wrote: >>I just thought of a very important meaning of freedom, at least to me it is. >>It's the freedom I have of being able to live in the US, where I can pretty >>well say & do as I please, rather than being forced to live under an >>oppressive ditatorship. Since I have this background, I'm very sensitive to >>any abrogation of any freedoms, & I usually notice their slight abrogation >>the minute it comes up, & I usually protest them. >>I also just remembered a real good expression of freedom. It's the very >>touching chorus the prisoners sing in "Fidelio" when they are allowed to >>come up out of their dank dungeons, and be in the courtyard in the sun for a >>few minutes. >>Liesel >>Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR >>............................................................................. >> >>Liesel: Old Ludwig was a great worshipper of Freedom, both personal freedom >and group freedom. The chorus to which you refer is one of the high points >of humanity's creative record! Ludwig may have been dreadfully grouchy >andpersonally unkempt but his are some of humankinds greatest musical >achievements. (Obviously I'm a fan of his) Mozart is sometimes considered to >be the greatest composer that ever lived, and I suppose I must agree. But >except in certain instances (The Magic Flute and The MasonicFuneral Music) >Mozart speaks to the intelligence, he scintillates. But Beethoven and sadly >Richard Wagner speak to the soul. I really despise Wagner as a man, but his >music is uttterly sublime. I admire Dmitri Shostakovitch as a person and his >music, to me, is almost equally sublime. And that's not being a russian >chauvinist. > >alexis >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Apr 10 01:52:39 1996 Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 21:52:39 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604100256.WAA24928@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Whoa! Chuck, My reason for mentioning Harry was exactly what you're talking about, he did things in ways which can't be proven scientifically, even though they made sense to him. As for your statement "In science what will work for 1 will work for all" is dated. We now know that the experimenter influences the outcome of the experiment. One example they like to talk about is that if you decide a particle is matter, then that's what you perceive, if you decide it's vibes, that's what you perceive. On another plane, I've read of a school system where one teacher was told she had slow learners, & another teacher, with the same kinds of kids was told she had fast learners. Each class lived up to the expectations of the teacher. Liesel .............................................................................. >Liesel, >If by Harry, you mean Harry Van Gelder, he used radionics to determine the >vibrations he was working with and from the way you describe it he was >following an older method of determining the healing rate. >We now know that such rates are anything but objective, in the sense that the >appendix tends to be in the same place for just about everyone, but that the >use of his instruments is almost totally dependent upon the mind of the >operator. >The problem is that the scientific method gets a little confused when you >work in such areas. It is very difficult to test an hypothesis when every >hypothesis will work for someone but not for everyone. >The difference between science a magick seems to come down to this: In >science, not everything will work, but what will work for one will work for >all. Example, a rock will fall at the same rate of velocity no matter who >drops it. In magick, every method will bring results for some operators, but >not all operators will be able to use every method and the results will >differ with each one. Example, I may be able to use my instruments to cause >a person to, out of nowhere, desire to offer me a certain book. Jerry may >not be able to get that, but his enochian angels may be persuaded to do it >for him. >Funny psionics story that Jerry Scheuler will remember. >At the 1987 American Booksellers' Association convention, we were both there >hawking our books for LLewellyn. Carl Weschke decided that I should use my >equipment to get Shirley McLaine to come to our booth and endorse his >products. I was a little uncomfortable with that as I had made a little joke >in my book about brainless movie stars but after much pleading I was >persuaded and did the work. Well, we did not get Shirley, but we had at >least 15 red-headed women come into the booth in the space of a half-hour. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Apr 10 01:57:28 1996 Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 21:57:28 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604100301.XAA29804@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Beethoven Chuck, Unkempt, schmunkempt, fact of the matter is, he was an adept. Liesel >Alex, > Ludwig's unkemptness qualifies him for adeptship. He had a genuine odor of >sanctity. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Apr 10 02:09:44 1996 Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 22:09:44 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604100313.XAA04967@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom Well, John, I think you're lucky that you're in a situation & live in a country where you have to think about what freedom really means. I'm not being facetious, I really mean it. I've seen Hitler, Mussolini, Apartheid, condition in India before Ghandi, banana republics, I've read accounts of the story of American slaves, I've lived under Joseph McCarthy. All those things have sort of managed to drum in to me what comparative freedom is all about. Matter of fact, I can smell the minute someone comes along & tries to abrogate it even one iota. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR ......................................................................... >Alexis Dolgorukii wrote: > >> I sincerely question the motivations of anyone who can see no >> difference between America today and Nazi Germany. > >Of course anyone can see differences when comparing two such examples. I do >not sugget that there is no difference between the two. I simply suggest >that you need to spend some time contemplating what "FREEDOM" really is before >you can make such statement. > >John > >-- >John Vorstermans >PO Box 11-410 >Wellington >Mobile (025) 432-987 > > > > From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Wed Apr 10 03:18:02 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 21:18:02 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re:Beethoven In-Reply-To: <199604100245.WAA19763@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > Hi, Alexis, > We agree on Beethoven ... and on Mozart. When it comes to Wagner, I know > you're right. One of my college courses was on Wagner, & I ended it with a > 30pp paper on "Meistersinger", which I researched almost as carefully as > Wagner did. Did you know that he used some of the original Meister songs? I > enjoy Wagner, but the enjoyment is tarnished by the fact that he was the > Nazis' folk hero. I like Shostakovitch, but to me, he's not that > outstanding. I prefer Aron Copland. > Liesel Liesel ... Yes ... I love Wagner myself, but I think it was Dave Barry that once said "I enjoy Wagner's music, but every time I hear it I get an inexplicable urge to invade Poland". (-:), -JRC From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Apr 10 02:34:56 1996 Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 22:34:56 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604100339.XAA15318@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Beethoven JRC Love your quote. Liesel >On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: >> Hi, Alexis, >> We agree on Beethoven ... and on Mozart. When it comes to Wagner, I know >> you're right. One of my college courses was on Wagner, & I ended it with a >> 30pp paper on "Meistersinger", which I researched almost as carefully as >> Wagner did. Did you know that he used some of the original Meister songs? I >> enjoy Wagner, but the enjoyment is tarnished by the fact that he was the >> Nazis' folk hero. I like Shostakovitch, but to me, he's not that >> outstanding. I prefer Aron Copland. >> Liesel > >Liesel ... > Yes ... I love Wagner myself, but I think it was Dave Barry that >once said "I enjoy Wagner's music, but every time I hear it I get an >inexplicable urge to invade Poland". > (-:), -JRC From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 9 05:45:00 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 22:45 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: 217!!!? At 04:01 PM 4/8/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis: > >At 04:04 1996/04/05 -0500, you wrote: >>Let me be the first to welcome you among us mad ones. Oh by >>the way that is "mad" as in insane, not as in angry. But we're anything but >>cowlike! > >Thanks for the welcome. I'll just lurk most of the time in this list until >I have more time to contribute (coming back from a short Easter holiday to >find 217 messages in my mailbox was a shock--this list certainly is prolific!). > >Take care, > >--==Bob Holmstrom==-- >New McDonald's ad. campaign for U.K.- "2 mad beef patties, special sauce, >lettuce, cheese....." - source unknown > >Heavens to Betsy Bob: How does one answer 217 messages? It has taken me three hours to go through a mere 47! One could become afraid to take holidays! Anyway hope you had a good time, both on holiday, and reading/answering all those messages. alexis From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 9 06:25:00 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 23:25 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Russia & E-Mail Liesel: I am given to understand that the P.C. and E-Mail are alive and well inRussia, and have been for some time. When the Communist die hards mounted their "putsh" that led to the storming of the "whirte House" it was Young Russians and their P.C.'s who kept the world fully informed when the "putschmeisters" had decreed a news blackout. The same is true of the "Velvet Revolution" in Prague and Bratislava, it was P.C. and E-mail that keptr the thing alive. Dictators can only survive long if the absolutely control all information sources and therby all information. In the long run it'll be P.C. that will bring down the Chinese gerontocracy, and eventually Radha will find out that her denial fo the Internets possibilities will be the death blow to Theosophy as she wants it to be. John and I went hunting on the Web for Adyar Brand theosophy and all of the pages and information bits have been recently removed. Too bad. I will send a letter off to the Russians as soon as I have the absolutely best address I can find. I will also post that letter on this list for all to read. alexis From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Tue Apr 9 06:41:12 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 00:41:12 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: TI membership list In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960409011230.006a02b4@mail.deltanet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > Alan: > >Do we not exist in the first place (as TI) *because* of a lack of > >genuine freedom (as we have perceived and experienced it) in one or more > >theosophical organizations? And are we not determined that such > >restrictions as we have experienced/observed shall not be allowed to > >interfere in our own perception of the theosophical way of life? >=20 > We're free in the sense that there's an absence of specific program > to follow or body of doctrines to consider.=20 >=20 > If you were in a diet program, you would hear about dieting. If you > were taking a class in art, you may be painting. Doing the dieting > in a diet program or doing art in an art class is certainly submitting > to a certain structure. But that structure is *self-chosen*, based=20 > upon what you may want to learn. You're free to not diet or not > do paintings outside those classes.=20 >=20 > A theosophical group may decide to study a book. Meetings may be > on that book. There is the lack of "freedom" in those meetings to > study entirely different things. In an even broader sense, there are > many theosophical groups with different focuses and many other spiritual > groups that don't call themselves "theosophical". You and I have the > freedom to seek out and participate in those groups that enhance our > lives and our ability to do good in the world, and leave behind those > that are unproductive to us. You've set an example in this respect, > in producing T.I., as an alternate theosophical group with a different > and unique focus of its own. I don't think that T.I. is better, but > simply different, appealing to a different segment in the "theosophical > market" for helping people set their feet on the path. I wish you > the best of luck in this endeavor, but also hope that you likewise > wish well everyone in the other groups and approaches. > -- Eldon Interesting attmept to catagorize, and in fact reduce TI to just another=20 one of the many factions and perspectives Theosophy has split into. It is= =20 not simply an "other" group or approach ... or perhaps you've defined it=20 that way in your mind, but there is a big difference in fact between TI and= =20 the "other" approaches. Your "approach" may be, for instance, to follow=20 G.deP's own particular take on source literature, and to follow some kind= =20 of path that you evidently see defined somewhere in the vast range of=20 Theosophical literature. Another group may form specifically to=20 investigate what you label as "psychic" phenomena - and you would perhaps= =20 be right to say that the two groups would to some extent be pursuing=20 contradictory ends (if, that is, one accepts your view of what "psychic"=20 is) ... the psychics could not pursue their ends within your group, and=20 you would not pursue yours within the group of psychic investigators.=20 However, *both* could fully legitimately operate as groups, and pursue=20 those seemingly contradictory ends, *within the organization called=20 Theosophy International* ... all members of both groups could call=20 themselves "Members, Theosophy International", and so long as they=20 claimed membership, and agreed to the Three Objects, no "leadership"=20 would try to tell them that what they were doing was *not* theosophy, nor= =20 try to have them removed, nor membership revoked, nor their property=20 taken. You could, simply by desiring to put the effort into it, start the= =20 "Eldon" branch of TI, and teach whoever wished to join it whatever=20 practices or disciplines you believe theosophy to be, and expound on=20 whatever you believe to be the "doctrines" of Theosophy. Of course, many=20 people do not believe there is a specific "path" taught by theosophy, and= =20 virtually every Theosophist has a different view of what, if *any*, the=20 actual "doctrines" of theosophy are ... which is precisely the reason=20 for TI - I think what has happened since the beginning of this list is=20 that many here have been positively astounded by how *great* the=20 diversity of belief and opinion exists within the ranks of those=20 connected to theosophy ... what virtually every organization and offshoot= =20 up to now has done is essentially come down of some *side or sides* of=20 particular issues ... and people can belong to them if they agree, and=20 may even be expelled if they don't.=20 =09TI, especially in this discussion of freedom, is making it clear=20 that the *only* thing required for membership is the acceptance of the=20 =D4hree Objects, which is the only thing *HPB & the Masters* required.=20 =09Those who *do* wish to stay within a particular faction, who not=20 only feel that their reading of theosophical writings and their=20 interpretation of a path are *their* readings, but go a step further and=20 wish to assert that they are the only "correct" readings, or that they=20 are somehow "higher" than all other perspectives, probably will not be=20 attracted to TI - but even in this choice, it is they who choose not to=20 join ... neither themselves, nor whatever practices and beliefs they=20 hold, would be cause them to be *refused* membership, or expelled. =09A house cannot hold a city, but a city can hold many houses. TI=20 is not simply another house, it is the city ... which I believe the TS=20 was supposed to be from the very beginning.=20 =09You may stand on the side and try to catagorize it as just=20 another approach if you like ... but ... your approach *does* fit within=20 it, and you've been invited to join, but apparently *it* does not fit=20 within your "appraoch" ... as you've chosen not to. You've=20 inadevertantly, I fear, catagorized not TI, but only yourself.=20 =09=09=09=09=09=09=09-JRC =20 From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 9 06:49:00 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 23:49 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: wow! At 07:55 PM 4/8/96 -0500, you wrote: Chuck: That's really good stuff below! I agree with every word of it except that it's my belief that Gautamas ideas didn't survive him for more that say 20 minutes and Christianity didn't survive it's actual founders past the Council of Nicea. I also agree that except for you, we are all far too concerned with respectability, and perhaps even far too concerned with science. What the world needs now is good livable answers to peoples existential questions. They don't get them, and right now, today, they don't get them from Theosophy at all. And I may be wrong but I really think that's what theosophy was really intended to do, answer people's existenial questions and alleviate their pain and fear. And, as far as I see it, most of what folks argue about here and elsewhere has nothing at all to do with that. People are afraid they're going to die, and guess what? They are! Theosophy could help with that, but it doesn't. Shamanism does actually help with that,but it's far too obscure at present to help many people. Theosphy is far too much like the Shakers. How to prevent the same thing from happening? Theosophy as it is represented by the intellectual sterility that regularly appears on this list and in theosophical publications, is not going to do anything but drive young folk away! Discussions on "devachan" and Manvantaras, and Nirmanakaya Buddhas, may be fun for elderly Theosophists but the young say "So What?" and go their merry way. If they all say "so What?" and go their merry way, theosophy is a very dead duck. alexis >I think what is going on in the TS is a generational struggle that is the >sign of a spiritual organization going through its first aging pain. > Consider this. A hundred some odd years ago Blavatsky and Judge were dead >and Olcott heading for the final roundup. The first split had already >occurred and it was inevitable that the immediate successors, who, whether we >like them or not, were giants, would put their own often very peculiar stamp >on the thought of the society. >Then about a generation (33+) years later, they all kick over and in their >place a succession of relative non-entities holds leadership positions in all >the groups with the intention of following in the footsteps of their idols >simply because they lacked the ability to do anything else. >Now that group has almost all died off and their replacements are continuing >the deterioration. Combine this with the fact that the TS has been >relatively safe from outside persecution (at least in most of Europe, the US, >India and the antipodes) and you have no reason for people of great ability >to need to take over. >A rot has set in. And when things rot, other things start eating at it from >the inside, in this case, us, at least in the minds of those whose only goal >for the society is to keep the outworn husk intact. Consider if you will the >very real possibility that John Algeo's successor may be Betty Bland and you >see what I mean. And the gods alone know what will come after Radha! >As I see it, the only way to save the TS is to eat out the rotten center fast >enough that it can be replaced with some new growth before all is lost. But >it is possible. At the risk of shocking Alex, I might point to Buddhism >after the death of the immediate followers and their successors and >Christianity after it was pretty obvious that Jesus (whether or not he >existed) was not likely to return in the forseeable future. Both systems >were able to adapt and survive in spite of our opinion of those systems. >What is needed is a new vision of what Theosophy is and is to be, one that >can build on the past but not be controlled by it, recognizing that the >founders and their successors did some great things and some incredibly >stupid things and maybe even a few vile things. Just how we are going to do >that is anyone's guess, but it is going to take a lot of thinking and arguing >and even some--gasp!--work. >But the first thing is to get some younger minds in the TS. We have a few, >but not nearly as many as we need. None of us are getting any younger and we >can easily become old people with old ideas and not realize what is >happening. Also, it is a fact that theosophists are not noted for breeding. > If we do not attract younger people theosophy will go the way of the >Shakers, without even nice furniture to remember it by. >The second thing, in my nonhumble opinion, is to stop genuflecting before >science and academia. Forget them and get out to where the people are. Meet >their spiritual needs and abandon the attempt to try to get respectability. > This isn't the nineteenth century. Soon it will no longer be the twentieth >and respectability is not worth it's weight in mad cow manure. >Third, realize that ideas change. They come and go in fashions and what made >very good sense 150 years ago is nonsense now. Do not expect what we do or >say to be eternal. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > > > From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 9 06:51:00 1996 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 23:51 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:PUNS!>>OY VEY IST MIHR! At 08:07 PM 4/8/96 -0500, you wrote: >On Mon, 8 Apr 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > >> "Welll, Pilgrimmm, I think we reallly should think about this Dark Side of >> the Force thing a little more." >> "I know there is still some good left in Radha." >> "Now, Luke, you remember what I told you when we left Abilene." >> >> Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >> Heretic >> Troublemaker > >Metaphors be with us! (Har har har har har ha ha ha har!). -JRC > >JRC you're almost as bad as my lover! That's a really stinky pun! Shame on you! alexis From poulsen@dk-online.dk Tue Apr 9 12:39:57 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 10:39:57 -200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB2601.152E4FC0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Planes&tattvas (Jerry vs. Jerry) Encoding: 57 TEXT Dear Jerry&Jerry, excuse me for budding in on your discussion, but I have some comments to the remarks made about planes a few days ago. Jerry HE seems to hold the opinion that the Besant-Leadbeater-Bailey enumeration of planes is some sort of novel idea and misunderstand of a teaching by HPB. To the best of my knowledge it is the other way round. And I will proceed to explain. The HPB source material for this is on pages 605-615 of CW vol. XII and at the end of SD 3rd-5th editions. In the semi-esoteric Samkhya system we find 25 tattvas or planes and the reason for this becomes apparent when reading HPB?s notes. Two tattvas were considered esoteric and instead of giving away the whole system thr ancients made up their systems of 5 or 6 principles. The names of these 25 tattvas are partly blinds. The solution to the riddle is that it is a system of 5 major planes with 5 sub-planes each. Esoterically we then get a system of 7 major planes with 7 sub-planes each. The problems arises with the 5 lower planes. HPB and the samkhyas gives these the names of the corresponding 5 elements: akasha, vayu, taijasa, apas and prithivi. The other philosophers give them the names of principles: atma, buddhi, manas, astral, physical. The question is: can a case be made for this enumeration? (else Jerry S. will be in trouble. He will be functioning as a nightly magician in the element of water instead of the astral plane :-) . Not only can there, but in my opinion the second enumeration is the ancient esoteric. I have had no time to make a detailed exposition of the case - but I have made a search of the sanskrit texts on my harddrive. These include writings by Shankara and Vyasa and are generally regarded higher than Samkhya philosophy. Here are my findings: None of the hundreds of hits in 74 volumes on the word tattva connected the term with elements in the sense of the Samkhyas. Dozens of hits each connected words like atma and buddhi with the word t attva. In the Vivekachudamani by Shankara alone he uses the terms atma and tattva together about 10 times. Here are a few examples, mainly from the Mahabharata and Vivekachudamani: budhaastattvaartha (meaning of the term buddhic plane) paraM tattva bhuutena (beyond the planes of the elements) tattva buddhyaa (plane of buddhi) tattva buddhiH (buddhic plane) siddhaa rajjutattva (siddhas, paranormal faculties of the plane of desire) tattvamaatmanaH (the atmic plane) ---- the list is really long I think it speaks for itself. I rest my case (how about that Liesel). In friendship, Kim From poulsen@dk-online.dk Tue Apr 9 12:40:02 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 10:40:02 -200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB2601.1AE8AE60@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Congratulations Alan! Encoding: 7 TEXT Dear Alan, happy anniversary.............eerhh HURRAH.......hmmm In friendship, Kim From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Tue Apr 9 13:04:17 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 9:04:17 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604091304.JAA28113@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: The Messenger, Bland article Somebody else may have pointed out that Betty Bland is identified as First Vice-President of the TSA on page one of The Messenger, which just arrived at my house yesterday. To identify someone as already holding an office for which she is currently running, if a slip, is any awfully Freudian one on the part of the editor. More of concern to me is that someone running for an important office is given the advantage of a lengthy, front-page article in a publication sent to all members, right on the brink of an election. Moreover, that article recounts a personal NDE experience involving the "Council of Light" which might be taken as a sign of her being "elected" in a much higher sense! Unless and until Bing is given an equally prominent place to express himself to the membership between now and the election, I must conclude that this is blatant favoritism, underlined by the way the author is identified. Which suggests a modification of one element of the Bill of Rights: from "challengers for any national office shall have the same information access and election resources as incumbents" to "all candidates for national office shall have equal information access...etc." From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 9 01:05:00 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 02:05:00 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <3utBhDA8ebaxEwZB@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Uncertainty & Scientific Respectability In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960409000155.006a0b64@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960409000155.006a0b64@mail.deltanet.com>, "Eldon B. Tucker" writes >As far as TI goes, I don't think it makes much difference. >It's not what we say that we'll go as a group that matters, >just what we actually do. You may have a statement that >is more precise from your point of view, but would the >average person read this statement and clearly see what >you are saying? > >-- Eldon By our fruits ... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Tue Apr 9 13:18:30 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 9:18:30 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604091318.JAA02626@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Re: Misunderstandings re: K, ES In-Reply-To: ; from "M K Ramadoss" at Apr 8, 96 1:53 pm According to M K Ramadoss: > > This reply is cross-posted to listening-l, where K related matters are > discussed. Any respondent on listening-l may like to cross post the > message here at theos-l@vnet.net Dear Doss: I really wish you hadn't done that. With enough adversaries in Theosophical circles to last a manvantara, I don't need Krishnamurti-ites demanding that I prove everything I say too. > > so I think it more plausible to conclude that he encouraged her > > to maintain the ES and use it as a tool to turn the TS towards > > his own teaching. From what I hear this has been/is being done > > This is the first time I hear of this. If Radha is a disciple or admirer of K., who ran for the presidency on his instructions, wouldn't it be surprising if that *weren't* reflected in the direction she took the ES? My only source for this is a post someone made in which this was asserted as fact here on theos-l. Of course with people and organizations wrapped in secrecy, the chance of an outsider being able to prove anything is next to nil. > > After K's statement that Truth is a Pathless Land, I have not > seen either his claiming any *authority* for himself least of all any > *spiritual* authority, Sometimes actions speak louder than words. The best source I know of regarding this angle on K. is Sloss's Lives in the Shadow. He certainly allowed-- no, acted as if he expected as his proper due-- his followers to treat him with great deference due a World Teacher. While explicitly questioning such behavior. and I have also not seen his mentioning *Masters* > and least of all *his* intimacy with Masters. Since this is a fairly new > revelation to me, can you enlighten me about your source for the above. Actually, on the subject of the Masters, I cannot enlighten you on my source since it was made available to me on a confidential basis. However, perhaps I can find some things *in that source* which will confirm what I am saying. Again, back to Radha-- if she is really a Krishnamurti intimate and disciple, would she be pontificating about the Masters being something *beyond perfected men* about whom it is blasphemy to speak in human terms, unless she somehow thought such a view in harmony with his (secret) teachings? What I'm suggesting is that K. never really denied his intimacy with Masters as completely as it might seem from a superficial reading. Moreover, he acted as if he were precisely what/whom Leadbeater had proclaimed him to be-- the World Teacher. Will dig around for details. Feel free to cross post my response, since we've gotten started down this path, but I don't wish to engage in debates with an expanded group. Cheers P From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 9 13:13:40 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 14:13:40 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: wow! In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes > >Chuck: > >That's really good stuff [...] ! I agree with every word of it except >that it's my belief that Gautamas ideas didn't survive him for more >that say 20 minutes and Christianity didn't survive it's actual >founders past the Council of Nicea. If that long. At least until 325 there was a large degree of freedom of interpretation. With Constantine threatening unpleasant deaths to the bishops he ordered to meet at Nicea, it was conform or else. > I also agree that except for you, we are all far too >concerned with respectability, and perhaps even far too concerned with >science. H.P.B. was soooo respectable! Huh! I still don't know what "Science" is - there are individual sciences, but biology has little in common with philology. Theosophy can at least be defined, albeit loosely. > What the world needs now is good livable answers to peoples >existential questions. They don't get them, and right now, today, they don't >get them from Theosophy at all. And I may be wrong but I really think that's >what theosophy was really intended to do, answer people's existenial >questions and alleviate their pain and fear. The *former* members of my old Bristol UK lodge who walked away after the recent witch-hunting debacle are all people who were/are looking for just that. AND - they are still meeting with a view to finding answers for and within themselves. At the moment most of them won't sign up even for TI because it contains the word "theosophy" in it, bar two of us. > And, as far as I see it, most >of what folks argue about here and elsewhere has nothing at all to do with >that. People are afraid they're going to die, and guess what? They are! >Theosophy could help with that, but it doesn't. Shamanism does actually help >with that,but it's far too obscure at present to help many people. Theosphy >is far too much like the Shakers. How to prevent the same thing from >happening? Theosophy as it is represented by the intellectual sterility that >regularly appears on this list and in theosophical publications, is not >going to do anything but drive young folk away! Discussions on "devachan" >and Manvantaras, and Nirmanakaya Buddhas, may be fun for elderly >Theosophists but the young say "So What?" and go their merry way. If they >all say "so What?" and go their merry way, theosophy is a very dead duck. Actually, I think the young just say "What?" when they hear these jargon (to them) words. The technical "theosophical" terms mean nothing when the are simply produced like rabbits out of a hat as "explanations." Tell people there is "somewhere" you go to when you die, and they will be interested to at least ask "Where?" - and we *then* have a chance to be of service. > >alexis > Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 9 12:54:54 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 13:54:54 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: random thoughts of a barbarian's chum In-Reply-To: <960408192203_465236038@emout07.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 9 12:37:53 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 13:37:53 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <5RKsaCAholaxEw6k@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: TI membership list In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , JRC writes (To Eldon) >you've been invited to join, but apparently *it* does not fit=20 >within your "appraoch" ... as you've chosen not to. You've=20 >inadevertantly, I fear, catagorized not TI, but only yourself. Errr.. John ... Eldon was among the first people on the list to sign up :-| Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 9 12:58:20 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 13:58:20 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: thoughts In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960408204206.1177ac76@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.16.19960408204206.1177ac76@mail.eden.com>, ramadoss@eden.com writes > Let us hope something happens soon. If not, in our life time we may >see the demise of TS as we know it. > > > ...doss Now if the TS could take on board at least the *approach* of TI - which many of us seem to believe is what the founders would have wanted - they may yet save themselves. Otherwise ... R.I.P Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From blafoun@azstarnet.com Tue Apr 9 16:21:09 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 09:21:09 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604091621.JAA16484@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: FOOD FOR THOUGHT FOR THEOS-L READERS Theos-l Readers: The following 3 e-mails were originally posted on alt.religion.eckankar. Mike Mueckler gives his views on life after death, the reality of out of the body experiences, mystical experiences, etc. I thought this might be of some interest to Theso-l readers. Who is Mike Mueckler? He is: Professor Department of Cell Biology and Physiology Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, MO 63110 Please post your comments on Theos-l. If it is okay with people, I will send all replies to Mike. Well, here goes! Some food for thought! Daniel H. Caldwell **************************************************************************** *********************** (1) THE FIRST POST FROM MIKE M. RESPONDING TO A QUESTION FROM WILLIAM MARTENS: >>From: mike@cellbio.wustl >>Subject: Re: Re Scholarly Analysis >>Date: 5 Apr 1996 05:03:09 GMT > > >>In article , >>William Martens wrote:.. >>> >>> Since, in your opinion, the inner worlds that some people experience >>> while they are alive on this physical world are nothing but random >>> neurons firing in the cerebral cortex of the physical brain is it also >>> true (in your oppinion) that the inner worlds that some people believe >>> they will go to after this life are really non-existant as well? >>> >>> In other words is this one physical life all that you personally expect >>> to experience? >>> >>> Do you believe in any kind of continuance of your essential self to >>> survive the physical death of your body? > > >>There is no reason or necessity to postulate the existence of anything >>supernatural to explain "inner" experiences. There are clear >>physiological explanations for these sensory experiences and nothing >>mysterious about them at all. > >>Neither have I seen any evidence for the continued existence of >>consciousness after the brain ceases to function. On the other hand, there >>is abundant evidence for the contrary belief. > >>The universal nature of religion is perfectly understandable in biological >>terms. The "purpose" of a biological entity is to survive and pass on its >>genes to its offspring. The longer an individual survives (within >>limits), the greater is the chance it will successfully pass on its >>genes. With the development of self-awareness in the human along with the >>level of intelligence necessary to recognize the finite nature of the >>individual organism, humans developed religion and the belief in some form >>of immortality as a psychological expression of the "selfish" gene. In >>simpler terms, any being that is intelligent enough to recognize its own >>finite nature will naturally put up a psychological defense, i.e., >>religion. That seems self-evident. Self-survival is the strongest instinct >>of all. > >>I recommend "The Astonishing Hypothesis" by Francis Crick (Simon and >>Schuster). Crick shared the Nobel Prize with Jim Watson for the discovery >>of the helical structure of DNA. For the past 25 years or so he has >>dedicated himself to the study of the neurosciences. The "astonishing >>hypothesis" is just that consciousness is the result of the activity of >>billions of interacting neurons. Crick's wry humor is that this is only >>astonishing to layman, most of whom carry some sort of religious engrams. > >>I don't see how a profound understanding of biology is compatible with >>religious belief. I have only seen them coexist in a very few scientists >>who somehow manage to completely divorce their early religious training >>from all logical scrutiny. > >>If you believe in survival after death, what is it that makes you believe that? **************************************************************************** ******************** (2) DANIEL CALDWELL'S REPLY AND QUESTIONS TO MIKE'S ABOVE POST >>From: Daniel Caldwell >>blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) >>Subject: Re: Re Scholarly Analysis: Some Questions and Comments to Mike >>Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 17:25:09 LOCAL > > > >>MIKE M. writes: >>> >>>There is no reason or necessity to postulate the existence of anything >>>supernatural to explain "inner" experiences. There are clear >>>physiological explanations for these sensory experiences and nothing >>>mysterious about them at all. > >>>Neither have I seen any evidence for the continued existence of >>>consciousness after the brain ceases to function. On the other hand, there >>>is abundant evidence for the contrary belief. MIKE M. , how much do you know about parapsychology? Are you aware of the data of >>this field of endeavor? From my point of view, there is *some* evidence that >>would indicate that consciousness may transcend the brain and in fact can >>sometimes operate outside the confines of the physical body. I am not >>saying that the parapsychological data proves such contentions. All I am >>saying is that this data puts a new slant on the biological data. How aware >>are you of this parapsychological data? Or are you the "typical" kind of >>skeptic of the CSICOP variety? > >>It would be interesting to see what David Lane's views are on this subject. >>My impression is that although he is skeptical of the claims of Eckankar, Lane >>believes that consciousness transcends the body, etc. I may be wrong. HINT! >>HINT! > >>Mike, have you read Dr. Robert Almeder's DEATH AND PERSONAL SURVIVAL: THE >>EVIDENCE FOR LIFE AFTER DEATH? Almeder is a philosopher and approaches the >>subject with an open mind. I could give you a whole list of good books that >>are not written by religious or new age minded people but by critically minded >>people who have looked at the evidence and have felt that there is something >>mysterious about the mind and that science has not fully explained the mind >>nor its relationship to the brain, the nervous system and the body. > >>Are you as skeptical of your own "beliefs" and "conclusions" as you are of the >>beliefs of the Eckists, religionists, and paranormalists? In other words, are >>you a Zetetic skeptic? Are you aware of the writings of Dr. Marcello Truzzi? > >>There is a excellent FAQ written on parapsychology by Dean Radin and several >>other parapsychologists. It is available on the WWW and you can find it if >>you do a search using the word "parapsychology." I will try to find its >>location on the WWW and post it later. > >>Mike, I would like to post the whole of your reply (from which I have quoted >>and responded to) on Theos-l, an Internet Bullentin board for students of >>Theosophy. Is this okay with you? > >>Thanks. > >>Daniel H. Caldwell > > **************************************************************************** ********************** (3) MIKE M.'S REPLY TO DANIEL CALDWELL'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: >From: mike@cellbio.wustl.edu >Subject: Repost: The Mystical Scientist (or is it Scientific Mystic?) >Date: 8 Apr 1996 16:19:41 GMT > > >I am reposting this in response to Daniel Caldwell's questions: > > > I will answer Glen's questions, because it just may open up some eyes >and ears. Not those of the eck participants on this newsgroup, but of the >lurkers, who have always been the object of my posts. Some of this will >be repetitive to old timers on this newsgroup. > > First, the accusation is that I am somehow afraid of my visions, >experiences, etc., and therefore place a materialistic slant on them. It >seems self-evident that this explanation doesn't make any sense. I >started having OOBEs at the age of 15 or16 prior to my exposure to >eckankar. At that time, I was absolutely convinced that they were "real" >in the same sense that most eckists wrongfully interpret these phenomena. >I joined eckankar because it appeared to explain and to place these >experiences into a pleasing (if somewhat simple-minded) religious context >(I was raised a Catholic and fully believed in a Supreme Being, etc.). My >OOB experiences were self-induced after reading the first edition of >"Journeys Out of the Body" by Robert Monroe in 1970. Around this time, I >also met and befriended a professional psychic and medium. I spent much >of my last two years in high school with this gentleman, with whom I had >many interesting experiences. I mention this only to illustrate that I was >totally and completely "sold" on psychic phenomena and the supernatural. >I was fully one of "You" out there. I could not even imagine life without >a spiritual/psychic side. I initially wanted to go to college at Duke in >order to study parapsychology, because Duke had the only semi-respectable >psychic research institute in the country (I ended up going to another >university). > > After I began my intensive training in the sciences in college, leading >through graduate school, postgraduate training, and beyond, I began to >experiment on myself and to evaluate my OOB experiences, read the >scientific literature (such as it was) on this subject and related >phenomena. At the beginning, I was still a totally committed eckist, in >fact, a "leader" in the area I lived in. As my knowledge of science and >the scientific method grew along with my evaluation of my own experiences >and the experiences of others as documented in the scientific literature, >it became clear that the OOBE and so-called mystical experience have a >completely materialistic explanation in the neuron. No evidence for >knowledge at a distance has ever been demonstrated in a properly designed >experiment. Period. Despite what friend Gunnar would have us believe. He >appears to have just started his examination of these data-- I have had >nearly 25 years of it, and have met and spoken to JB Rhine, among others. >I have communicated with many over the years who have had some degree of >control over the OOB state. I was a member of the Monroe Institute for a >year or two in the late seventies (that just means I took one of their >home courses). Neither I nor anyone I have talked to has produced one >shred of evidence that the OOBE is anything but a lucid dream or >hypnagogic experience resulting from the firing of neurons. That is, no >one has produced any evidence that one can obtain information at a >distance in this state. Certainly not the Monroe Institute, despite their >sincerity and efforts. There has been nothing but negative results after >many decades of work on the part of many dedicated investigators around >the World. After so much negative data, in any other branch of science we >would say--enough already. > > Of course, I am very familiar with the *claims* of positive >results--these are a combination of statistical blips, wishful thinking, >sloppy, uncontrolled experiments, faulty equipment, and forgery and >fakery. Indeed, the entire field of parapsychology has been rife with >these unfortunate occurrences. Every time the so-called positive >experiments have been repeated by others using a proper protocol, the >"positive" results vanish. If you saw some of the so-called "positive" >data, most of you would wince and say, so what? We are not talking about >demonstrating the existence of the soul--rather, observing something like >a tiny deviation from the statistical norm using Psi cards or the like. A >Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Ernst Rutheford, once said--if you have to >use statistics to prove something--go back and design the experiment >properly! If a certain type of experiment is repeated often enough, the >outcome will come out "positive" a certain percentage of the time. > > How have I reached my conclusions about mystical phenomena? By an >objective evaluation of all of the subjective and objective evidence >available to me. It would take several volumes to describe all of the >evidence I have sifted through and evaluated. In a way, I was fortunate to >have intensive training in the scientific method and extensive experience >with the the Out-of-Body state. It appears to me that few if any eckists >on this group have actually had OOBEs as described by Monroe, Muldoon, >Schwann, and others. Monroe's descriptions are the least colored, but even >he embellished them considerably. For one thing, he made up the only >incident in his first book that might have provided some sort of >semi-objective evidence for the "reality" of his experiences (the pinching >episode was made up for those of you who have read the book--see Rogo's >book on Astral Projection). The pre-OOBE vibratory state described by >Monroe is a well-known phenomenon called sleep paralysis that occurs >during dreaming. The fact that Monroe, I, and, and many others can become >conscious during sleep paralysis (which precedes the OOBE), illustrates >the dream nature of the experience. This has also been demonstrated in the >laboratory by the use of EEGs on subjects during their OOBEs. You can look >up the data yourselves. > > I have also had the more "mystical" type of experience. It's really no >different. I have described some of my inner experiences (dreams) >involving Twitchell and Gross before on this newsgroup, and the fact that >Gross asked me to contribute some of my experiences to the aborted >biography Brad Steiger started working on. As I recall, one of my >experiences (dreams) is actually reported in one of the eck discourses. >All neurological gobbledegook. Fun, but mundane. This is also a >hypnagogic state where one gains partial control over dream-like images. >These are mixed with subconscious desires and images. One can hear, see, >and experience, virtually anything, including other "planes", sounds, >masters, etc. I believe most people can learn to induce these >experiences. But it takes enormous willpower, patience, and something few >people have--lots of time. I spent a couple of hours a day for a year or >solearning to "catch hold of" the hypnagogic state. I could do it because >I was a teenager with all the free time on my hands that I needed. > > Am I somehow afraid of the Truth? That is not logical and sounds like >classic psychological projection. Who in their right mind would be afraid >of immortality? It was a great intellectual struggle for me to break free >of my ingrained religious beliefs. Indeed, this takes a great deal of >courage from anyone. What doesn't take a lick of courage is to accept >other peoples explanation of YOUR experience, which is what every eckist >does. I did it, too, because it was easy. They tell you exactly what you >want to hear. How many of you have gone out on your own and attempted to >objectively evaluate your "inner" experiences and directly challenged your >most cherished beliefs? On the other hand, how many of you accept whatever >Klemp tells you as fact? Have you REALLY proven it to yourself? You don't >have to put up a facade. These explanations are provided by those ignorant >of physiology, the same way the Shamans used to provide religious >explanations for mental illness, the stars in the night sky, etc. As >science has advanced, these silly explanations have been swept under the >rug by all religions as hidden embarassments. One by one. Do you want to >look under the rug forever for your explanations? > > What do my own personal inner experiences prove or disprove? >Absolutely nothing. The objective data concerning the phenomena in >question are more than sufficient to identify them as neurological states >and to disprove the supernatural hypothesis. I happened to be in the >unusual position of having the scientific training, to have the desire, >and to have developed the subjective abilities to put these phenomena to a >personal test. That is all. > > Ask yourself what evidence you really and truly have that confirms your >religious beliefs. How convincing is that evidence? Would it convince a >dispassionate observer? Would you stake your child's life on it? Would >trained scientific observers with no interest at stake in the outcome draw >the same conclusions? Can you imagine life without immortality, without a >soul, without a master--with only organic molecules in a self-replicating >system? A life that ends when the brain ceases to function? I have >imagined it both ways, and am forced to accept the correct interpretation. >If you can't even imagine it both ways, how can you begin to go beyond >mere religious faith? > >To paraphrase an eck master: You can DISprove it for yourself--if you are >bold and adventuresome. If you are not, then remain an eckist. > >A closing prediction: The very youngest eckists among us will live to see >the day neurobiologists can explain the so-called mystical experience >(i.e., hallucination, lucid dream) at the cellular/molecular levels. No >question about it. Eckankar will have passed into oblivion long before >this, however. Or perhaps eckists will transform into a new type of drug >culture, where one takes a specific neurotransmitter to induce a specific >"experience". > >One last thing. It is certainly possible that my materialistic views are >completely wrong. Scientific theories are constantly in a state of flux >as we gather more data. I would place the odds that I am wrong in this >regard at one in a thousand or less. Religion has been given a fair shake >for millenia, and has proven to be a miserable failure at explaining >anything. The further we advance in our knowledge of the universe, the >more religious viewpoints have to be abandoned. The odds are getting less >and less every day. > >"Picture yourself on a boat on a river, >with tangerine trees, and marmalade skies....." (Lennon/McCartney) **************************************************************************** ********************** END OF TRANSMISSION Happy Chewing! Daniel H. Caldwell From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 9 18:11:04 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 13:11:04 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Misunderstandings re: K, ES (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sitanshu's response is to the point and goes to heart of the issues in the original message. As has been repeatedly pointed out by K, every system, every belief, every religion has not solved human problem. One has just to see what is going on in the world. My problem has to be solved by me and not thru any belief or system. ....doss > Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 09:44:50 -0700 > From: Sitanshu Kumar > Subject: Re: Misunderstandings re: K, ES (fwd) I dont know why such a big fuss is being raised over some masters living in the himalayas. It is true that K never denied the existence of the masters, he simple thought they are largely irrelevant as far as freedom for mankind is concerned. He has stated that very clearly. The theosophist seek the masters as spiritual authority, K said all authority stifles the mind. I think most childish people seek some kind of miracle, some unknown guiding hand, all that is result of fear, and fear can not be solved by any authority(look at the organized religions). It is quite malicious to say that K sought a special position for himself. His presence was selfless. As far as Radha Sloss is concerned, she is no more than a fiction writer like the ones you see on bookstands.( she may have some factual truth, but her mind seeks sensationalism, very much similar to what is shown on popular TV shows likes Cops etc.) sitanshu kumar > From listening-l-owner@zrz.tu-berlin.de Tue Apr 9 09:31:41 1996 > Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 11:27:31 -0500 (CDT) > From: M K Ramadoss > To: listening-l > Subject: Re: Misunderstandings re: K, ES (fwd) > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > TEXT/PLAIN> ; > charset=US-ASCII> > Content-Length: 2999 > > Here is a response from Paul Johnson, for anyone interested. > .....doss > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 08:22:49 -0500 > From: K. Paul Johnson > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Misunderstandings re: K, ES > > According to M K Ramadoss: > > > > This reply is cross-posted to listening-l, where K related matters are > > discussed. Any respondent on listening-l may like to cross post the > > message here at theos-l@vnet.net > > Dear Doss: > > I really wish you hadn't done that. With enough adversaries in > Theosophical circles to last a manvantara, I don't need > Krishnamurti-ites demanding that I prove everything I say too. > > > > so I think it more plausible to conclude that he encouraged her > > > to maintain the ES and use it as a tool to turn the TS towards > > > his own teaching. From what I hear this has been/is being done > > > > This is the first time I hear of this. > > If Radha is a disciple or admirer of K., who ran for the > presidency on his instructions, wouldn't it be surprising if > that *weren't* reflected in the direction she took the ES? My > only source for this is a post someone made in which this was > asserted as fact here on theos-l. Of course with people and > organizations wrapped in secrecy, the chance of an outsider > being able to prove anything is next to nil. > > > > After K's statement that Truth is a Pathless Land, I have not > > seen either his claiming any *authority* for himself least of all any > > *spiritual* authority, > > Sometimes actions speak louder than words. The best source I > know of regarding this angle on K. is Sloss's Lives in the > Shadow. He certainly allowed-- no, acted as if he expected as > his proper due-- his followers to treat him with great > deference due a World Teacher. While explicitly questioning > such behavior. > > and I have also not seen his mentioning *Masters* > > and least of all *his* intimacy with Masters. Since this is a fairly new > > revelation to me, can you enlighten me about your source for the above. > > Actually, on the subject of the Masters, I cannot enlighten > you on my source since it was made available to me on a > confidential basis. However, perhaps I can find some things > *in that source* which will confirm what I am saying. Again, > back to Radha-- if she is really a Krishnamurti intimate and > disciple, would she be pontificating about the Masters being > something *beyond perfected men* about whom it is blasphemy to > speak in human terms, unless she somehow thought such a view in > harmony with his (secret) teachings? What I'm suggesting is > that K. never really denied his intimacy with Masters as > completely as it might seem from a superficial reading. > Moreover, he acted as if he were precisely what/whom Leadbeater > had proclaimed him to be-- the World Teacher. > > Will dig around for details. Feel free to cross post my > response, since we've gotten started down this path, but I > don't wish to engage in debates with an expanded group. > > Cheers > P > From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 9 18:15:00 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 11:15 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Rewonderful At 01:43 AM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >>>>>>cut<<<<<< >JRC: What you have written below is a truly clear and unequivocable description of what those of us who have been drawn to the TI concept have hoped to do. Your clear distinction between the kind of thing TI is, and the kinds of theing the Theosophical Societies do, is really good. I support your statement 100% alexis >Interesting attmept to catagorize, and in fact reduce TI to just another=20 >one of the many factions and perspectives Theosophy has split into. It is= >=20 >not simply an "other" group or approach ... or perhaps you've defined it=20 >that way in your mind, but there is a big difference in fact between TI and= >=20 >the "other" approaches. Your "approach" may be, for instance, to follow=20 >G.deP's own particular take on source literature, and to follow some kind= >=20 >of path that you evidently see defined somewhere in the vast range of=20 >Theosophical literature. Another group may form specifically to=20 >investigate what you label as "psychic" phenomena - and you would perhaps= >=20 >be right to say that the two groups would to some extent be pursuing=20 >contradictory ends (if, that is, one accepts your view of what "psychic"=20 >is) ... the psychics could not pursue their ends within your group, and=20 >you would not pursue yours within the group of psychic investigators.=20 >However, *both* could fully legitimately operate as groups, and pursue=20 >those seemingly contradictory ends, *within the organization called=20 >Theosophy International* ... all members of both groups could call=20 >themselves "Members, Theosophy International", and so long as they=20 >claimed membership, and agreed to the Three Objects, no "leadership"=20 >would try to tell them that what they were doing was *not* theosophy, nor= >=20 >try to have them removed, nor membership revoked, nor their property=20 >taken. You could, simply by desiring to put the effort into it, start the= >=20 >"Eldon" branch of TI, and teach whoever wished to join it whatever=20 >practices or disciplines you believe theosophy to be, and expound on=20 >whatever you believe to be the "doctrines" of Theosophy. Of course, many=20 >people do not believe there is a specific "path" taught by theosophy, and= >=20 >virtually every Theosophist has a different view of what, if *any*, the=20 >actual "doctrines" of theosophy are ... which is precisely the reason=20 >for TI - I think what has happened since the beginning of this list is=20 >that many here have been positively astounded by how *great* the=20 >diversity of belief and opinion exists within the ranks of those=20 >connected to theosophy ... what virtually every organization and offshoot= >=20 >up to now has done is essentially come down of some *side or sides* of=20 >particular issues ... and people can belong to them if they agree, and=20 >may even be expelled if they don't.=20 >=09TI, especially in this discussion of freedom, is making it clear=20 >that the *only* thing required for membership is the acceptance of the=20 >=D4hree Objects, which is the only thing *HPB & the Masters* required.=20 >=09Those who *do* wish to stay within a particular faction, who not=20 >only feel that their reading of theosophical writings and their=20 >interpretation of a path are *their* readings, but go a step further and=20 >wish to assert that they are the only "correct" readings, or that they=20 >are somehow "higher" than all other perspectives, probably will not be=20 >attracted to TI - but even in this choice, it is they who choose not to=20 >join ... neither themselves, nor whatever practices and beliefs they=20 >hold, would be cause them to be *refused* membership, or expelled. >=09A house cannot hold a city, but a city can hold many houses. TI=20 >is not simply another house, it is the city ... which I believe the TS=20 >was supposed to be from the very beginning.=20 >=09You may stand on the side and try to catagorize it as just=20 >another approach if you like ... but ... your approach *does* fit within=20 >it, and you've been invited to join, but apparently *it* does not fit=20 >within your "appraoch" ... as you've chosen not to. You've=20 >inadevertantly, I fear, catagorized not TI, but only yourself.=20 >=09=09=09=09=09=09=09-JRC =20 > > From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 9 18:44:00 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 11:44 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:agreement At 08:23 AM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >>>>>cut<<<<< >Dear Doss: > >I really wish you hadn't done that. With enough adversaries in >Theosophical circles to last a manvantara, I don't need >Krishnamurti-ites demanding that I prove everything I say too. > >>>>>cut >If Radha is a disciple or admirer of K., who ran for the >presidency on his instructions, wouldn't it be surprising if >that *weren't* reflected in the direction she took the ES? My >only source for this is a post someone made in which this was >asserted as fact here on theos-l. Of course with people and >organizations wrapped in secrecy, the chance of an outsider >being able to prove anything is next to nil. >> >>>>>>cut<<<<< > >Sometimes actions speak louder than words. The best source I >know of regarding this angle on K. is Sloss's Lives in the >Shadow. He certainly allowed-- no, acted as if he expected as >his proper due-- his followers to treat him with great >deference due a World Teacher. While explicitly questioning >such behavior. > > and I have also not seen his mentioning *Masters* >> and least of all *his* intimacy with Masters. Since this is a fairly new >> revelation to me, can you enlighten me about your source for the above. > >Actually, on the subject of the Masters, I cannot enlighten >you on my source since it was made available to me on a >confidential basis. However, perhaps I can find some things >*in that source* which will confirm what I am saying. Again, >back to Radha-- if she is really a Krishnamurti intimate and >disciple, would she be pontificating about the Masters being >something *beyond perfected men* about whom it is blasphemy to >speak in human terms, unless she somehow thought such a view in >harmony with his (secret) teachings? What I'm suggesting is >that K. never really denied his intimacy with Masters as >completely as it might seem from a superficial reading. >Moreover, he acted as if he were precisely what/whom Leadbeater >had proclaimed him to be-- the World Teacher. > >Will dig around for details. Feel free to cross post my >response, since we've gotten started down this path, but I >don't wish to engage in debates with an expanded group. > >Cheers >P > Pauk: That was an excellent posting. I think that almost everything you had to say was absolutely true. Krishnamurti was, as my Late Friend Dr.Augusto Liutti put it "evasive and dogmatic". He was also extremely arrogant. He clearly expected everyone to defer to him as if he were the "World Teacher"; One instance: a person asked him: "Mr. Krishnamurti are you the "World Teacher"? K's response was in the negative. The same person then asked: "What are you then"? K responded: "I'm a man who goes around the world teaching". To me that displays a great deal of contempt for his audience. K denied the "Masters" in almost absolute terms, but behaved exactly as if he was one. I think your suppositions about his "arrangement" with Radha are probably true. But she obviously has her own agenda, and as I've said before "used" K. to her own benefit. Sometimes I wonder if K. didn't pull away from the TS becuase he thought he was even too important for it, at other times I wonder if he wasn't just plain scared that he couldn't 'PULL IT OFF" and then, after quitting the TS, he decided to try to do it anyway, and certainly succeeded in avoiding working for a living. As I've said before it took a lot of guts to do what he did in 1929(?) but then, his whole life after that may just have been a fraud. I have never found his writings to be all that profound, just Vedic rehashes and much disguised theosophy. alexis From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 9 18:57:00 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 11:57 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: more At 08:57 AM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >In message , alexis dolgorukii > writes >If that long. At least until 325 there was a large degree of freedom of >interpretation. With Constantine threatening unpleasant deaths to the >bishops he ordered to meet at Nicea, it was conform or else. > Alan: I agree but then Constantine has clearly discovered how useful a Church could be for him if he utterly controlled it, and Bishop Athanasius was his Himmler. >>>>>cut<<<<<< > >H.P.B. was soooo respectable! Huh! I still don't know what "Science" >is - there are individual sciences, but biology has little in common >with philology. Theosophy can at least be defined, albeit loosely. As to HPB: people of her social position don't have to care about being repectable that is a fixation of the Middle classes. And concern with "science" as a generic term only, was a Blavatsky fixation. But then the world of academic sciences was totally different in her day. Theosophists fear that "science" will disprove their ideas", it can't, but then if all your interested in is "technical theosophy" then of course "science" can disprove it. If your belief in Theosophy is predicated on the length of a Manvantara, then if Science proves Blavatsky and the SD wrong on that subject, there goes your "faith". But if theosophy is, as I beieve, simply an approach to philosophy, religion, paranormality, and science, then what possibly can negate an approach? > >> What the world needs now is good livable answers to peoples >>existential questions. They don't get them, and right now, today, they don't >>get them from Theosophy at all. And I may be wrong but I really think that's >>what theosophy was really intended to do, answer people's existenial >>questions and alleviate their pain and fear. > >The *former* members of my old Bristol UK lodge who walked away after >the recent witch-hunting debacle are all people who were/are looking for >just that. AND - they are still meeting with a view to finding answers >for and within themselves. At the moment most of them won't sign up >even for TI because it contains the word "theosophy" in it, bar two of >us. That then, Alan: Is something we have to think about, all of us. Is theosophy too "tainted"? Is it too late? Should we do something new. entirely new? > >> And, as far as I see it, most >>of what folks argue about here and elsewhere has nothing at all to do with >>that. People are afraid they're going to die, and guess what? They are! >>Theosophy could help with that, but it doesn't. Shamanism does actually help >>with that,but it's far too obscure at present to help many people. Theosphy >>is far too much like the Shakers. How to prevent the same thing from >>happening? Theosophy as it is represented by the intellectual sterility that >>regularly appears on this list and in theosophical publications, is not >>going to do anything but drive young folk away! Discussions on "devachan" >>and Manvantaras, and Nirmanakaya Buddhas, may be fun for elderly >>Theosophists but the young say "So What?" and go their merry way. If they >>all say "so What?" and go their merry way, theosophy is a very dead duck. > >Actually, I think the young just say "What?" when they hear these jargon >(to them) words. The technical "theosophical" terms mean nothing when >the are simply produced like rabbits out of a hat as "explanations." Actually I think the progression goes as follows: The young say "what?", and then when told what. say "So What?" and off they go! What they're actually saying is: "What relevance does that nonsense have in my life, how does it help me?" The kind of Technical Theologic Theoosophy that is so typical of the institutional movements is of no real relevance in anyone's actual life, especially the young people. > >Tell people there is "somewhere" you go to when you die, and they will >be interested to at least ask "Where?" - and we *then* have a chance to >be of service. Of course, as a Shaman I tell people that they don't actually die, just shed the body, and that interests them plenty! It's also a service, >> >>alexis >> >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > Alexis> From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 9 19:01:00 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 12:01 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: thoughts At 11:38 AM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >In message <2.2.16.19960408204206.1177ac76@mail.eden.com>, >ramadoss@eden.com writes >> Let us hope something happens soon. If not, in our life time we may >>see the demise of TS as we know it. >> >> >> ...doss > >Now if the TS could take on board at least the *approach* of TI - which >many of us seem to believe is what the founders would have wanted - they >may yet save themselves. Otherwise ... R.I.P > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > >Can they? They Can't! Will they? They Won't! R.I.P. the TS is dead, long live the TI! ALEXIS From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 9 18:32:12 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 13:32:12 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Misunderstandings re: K, ES In-Reply-To: <199604091318.JAA02626@leo.vsla.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, K. Paul Johnson wrote: > Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 08:22:49 -0500 > From: K. Paul Johnson > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Misunderstandings re: K, ES > > According to M K Ramadoss: > > > > This reply is cross-posted to listening-l, where K related matters are > > discussed. Any respondent on listening-l may like to cross post the > > message here at theos-l@vnet.net > > Dear Doss: > > I really wish you hadn't done that. With enough adversaries in > Theosophical circles to last a manvantara, I don't need > Krishnamurti-ites demanding that I prove everything I say too. > Dear Paul: When you break new grounds, there is going to be a lot of questions asked by a lot of people. If after all the questions, a viewpoints still stays firm and solid, it only proves its validity and all of should be thankful to everyone who has taken the time to think and respond. Like participants in theos-l, the participants in listening-l are very serious, intelligent, thinking good people. More wider circulation we get to our views, better the chances of some one coming out of the woodwork with very valuable firsthand information either to support or dispute any fact or statement. Actually all of us will be beneficiaries of my cross posting to listening-l. As mentioned by you, I have cross posted this message of yours. You will get some responses. > > > so I think it more plausible to conclude that he encouraged her > > > to maintain the ES and use it as a tool to turn the TS towards > > > his own teaching. From what I hear this has been/is being done > > > > This is the first time I hear of this. > > If Radha is a disciple or admirer of K., who ran for the > presidency on his instructions, wouldn't it be surprising if > that *weren't* reflected in the direction she took the ES? My > only source for this is a post someone made in which this was > asserted as fact here on theos-l. Of course with people and > organizations wrapped in secrecy, the chance of an outsider > being able to prove anything is next to nil. > > > > After K's statement that Truth is a Pathless Land, I have not > > seen either his claiming any *authority* for himself least of all any > > *spiritual* authority, > > Sometimes actions speak louder than words. The best source I > know of regarding this angle on K. is Sloss's Lives in the > Shadow. He certainly allowed-- no, acted as if he expected as > his proper due-- his followers to treat him with great > deference due a World Teacher. While explicitly questioning > such behavior. > I would take everything Sloss says with a large grain of salt. Had she published her book when K was alive, there would have been more credibility and someone could have even confronted K with Sloss's statement. > and I have also not seen his mentioning *Masters* > > and least of all *his* intimacy with Masters. Since this is a fairly new > > revelation to me, can you enlighten me about your source for the above. > > Actually, on the subject of the Masters, I cannot enlighten > you on my source since it was made available to me on a > confidential basis. However, perhaps I can find some things > *in that source* which will confirm what I am saying. Again, > back to Radha-- if she is really a Krishnamurti intimate and > disciple, would she be pontificating about the Masters being > something *beyond perfected men* about whom it is blasphemy to > speak in human terms, unless she somehow thought such a view in > harmony with his (secret) teachings? What I'm suggesting is > that K. never really denied his intimacy with Masters as > completely as it might seem from a superficial reading. > Moreover, he acted as if he were precisely what/whom Leadbeater > had proclaimed him to be-- the World Teacher. > I tend to disagree that K acted as if he were the World Teacher or for that matter any one of any importance. He always maintained he is just a human being like all of us. While some people may have looked up to him, that was not his fault. It is the fault of the individual. > Will dig around for details. Feel free to cross post my > response, since we've gotten started down this path, but I > don't wish to engage in debates with an expanded group. > When ever the subject of Theosophy or Theosophical Society is mentioned, K is the most well known individual in modern times. When some fairly new and definitive statements are made in all fairness we should expect discussion. The expanded group has people with great personal knowledge and knowledge about K's writings etc. Their input will definitely be very interesting and useful. I am cross posting this message to listening-l. ....doss > Cheers > P > From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 9 21:49:23 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:49:23 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960409174921_267813583@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: random thoughts of a barbarian Doss, One of the huge problems the TS has is centripetalism. As everything has devolved towards the centers of power, the ability to listen to people outside those centers has diminished accordingly. If that is not corrected, the TS will most surely fade into nothingness. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 9 21:49:29 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:49:29 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960409174929_267813682@mail04> Subject: Re: Successors to John Algeo & Radha Burnier Doss, I know Betty and while she is a nice person, she is as charismatic as a stone and while she may prove to be an able administrator, she will not bring any new or creative ideas to the TSA. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 9 21:49:40 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:49:40 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960409174938_267813816@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: wow! Alex, True, true, true. And I have always failed to understand why anyone who is not a Buddhist would give a damn what Nimareankeanaya Buddha is or was or could be anyway. One wonders how long it will be before Radha realizes that she is becoming the TS equivalent of Pio Nino. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Coherence@aol.com Tue Apr 9 21:49:50 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:49:50 -0400 From: Coherence@aol.com Message-Id: <960409174948_187850700@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: PUBLICATION OF HPB's and WQJ's ESOTERIC WRITINGS AND THE MAHATMA LETTERS The questions posed by D. Caldwell via two Correspondents raised some interesting issues and responses. JHE shed a fair amount of light in this area which I was unaware of, such a Judge "de-classifying" certain documents, motivations of Trevor Barker and B. de Z., etc. If there is an ethical question involved with respect to the dissemination of the ML's and ES material, it is good to have all the background information so that anyone approaching these materials can make their own assessments. For example, knowing the history of the publications and the publishing of each of them allows any student to know the historical decisions made in the process of publishing and the ethical questions which were faced. It does not seem fair to students to present the ML's without the information that, either M or KH, forbid, in the letters themselves, them to be published. I don't see the violation of personal privacy to be so much the issue as the prohibition. Regarding the ES and Inner Group material, it would be good to introduce any work containing these with perhaps a brief history, the rules expected of members and the other writings of HPB stating what the requirements were for someone on this particular path. That there were prohibitions and restrictions indicates that there must be some reason. Let the future readers know this so that an informed decision can be made. Then each one should, as HPB says, bow your head in the forum of your own judgement. One thing I did not understand at all. Jerry S. writes: >Personally I find that idea of a >group of students who bend over backwards to be morally upright as >entirely opposed to the spirit of occultism. HPB would probably giggle. This runs exactly counter to what HPB taught repeatedly, and I ask if you could clarify the basis for your comment and especially explain why you think she would giggle. Greg Hoskins From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Tue Apr 9 21:51:35 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 09:51:35 +1200 From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Message-Id: <199604092151.JAA16756@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: wow! Alexis said >> And, as far as I see it, most >>of what folks argue about here and elsewhere has nothing at all to do with >>that. People are afraid they're going to die, and guess what? They are! >>Theosophy could help with that, but it doesn't. Shamanism does actually help >>with that,but it's far too obscure at present to help many people. Theosphy >>is far too much like the Shakers. How to prevent the same thing from >>happening? Theosophy as it is represented by the intellectual sterility that >>regularly appears on this list and in theosophical publications, is not >>going to do anything but drive young folk away! Discussions on "devachan" >>and Manvantaras, and Nirmanakaya Buddhas, may be fun for elderly >>Theosophists but the young say "So What?" and go their merry way. If they >>all say "so What?" and go their merry way, theosophy is a very dead duck. > >Actually, I think the young just say "What?" when they hear these jargon >(to them) words. The technical "theosophical" terms mean nothing when >the are simply produced like rabbits out of a hat as "explanations." > >Tell people there is "somewhere" you go to when you die, and they will >be interested to at least ask "Where?" - and we *then* have a chance to >be of service. >> > >> >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > As required, I will speak from personal experience. My need to know what is life, what is death and what happens after etc, has lead me to study theosophy very seriously, until some light has been shed on the subject. My attitude to death has changed a great deal because of this. I cannot accept something unless I understand it and it fits some where in my mental framework or I understand that I have to change part of the framework to accommodate new ideas. I have been with a life-line organization for the past 4 years and have had to deal with suicidal people, depressed people and people attached to our psychiatric institution. My understanding of devachan, monads, life-atoms, manvantaras etc have helped a great deal with how I deal with each new situation that arises. It has to be ingrained so to be genuine reactions when I am phoned in the dead of night, fast asleep, to deal with a distraught person. My world view has grown large enough to see that in the end, it is maya but not for the people I deal with. I can discuss death with them in a reasonable manner because of my understanding of reincarnation, karma etc. I do not discuss theosophical concepts with these people but what I do discuss is coloured by my involvement with theosophy. The directors know that I am president of the local lodge but they don't seem to worry as long as I don't bring theosophical terms into my conversations. I make not secret of my involvement and dedication the theosophy (at this period of my life) but I do not use the involved terminology when talking about it. I hopefully have understood enough to put it into my own words and discuss death in a way that is different to the current mode without scaring people off. All these theosophical terms have a meaning to me now that is perhaps more real than if I was to think about them in current English terms where I already have meanings attached to them that are not exactly what the theosophical terms mean. To me, anyway, it avoids confusion when I am thinking theosophically. Somewhere in my mind I understand what I am thinking about but the problem occurs when I want to apply understandable words to what I have thought about. So unless I try to really understand what I am thinking about, I cannot bring it into ordinary life where I believe it belongs. I personally do not find the terminology sterile, in fact, with a grasp of the meanings some of it takes on a poetical tone that makes for enjoyable thinking. Manvantara, to me, now has special vastness and scope within it as a concept and so with many of the other words. OK back to the 'real' world of paint brushes and new lodge buildings that need elbow grease. You all have a nice day. > Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 9 22:22:07 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:22:07 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960409172445.27ef9f7e@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:agreement I think that some of those in K's list may be interested in the following msg. Hence I am cross posting it to listening-l. ....doss At 01:47 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >At 08:23 AM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >>>>>>cut<<<<< >>Dear Doss: >> >>I really wish you hadn't done that. With enough adversaries in >>Theosophical circles to last a manvantara, I don't need >>Krishnamurti-ites demanding that I prove everything I say too. >> >>>>>>cut >>If Radha is a disciple or admirer of K., who ran for the >>presidency on his instructions, wouldn't it be surprising if >>that *weren't* reflected in the direction she took the ES? My >>only source for this is a post someone made in which this was >>asserted as fact here on theos-l. Of course with people and >>organizations wrapped in secrecy, the chance of an outsider >>being able to prove anything is next to nil. >>> >>>>>>>cut<<<<< >> >>Sometimes actions speak louder than words. The best source I >>know of regarding this angle on K. is Sloss's Lives in the >>Shadow. He certainly allowed-- no, acted as if he expected as >>his proper due-- his followers to treat him with great >>deference due a World Teacher. While explicitly questioning >>such behavior. >> >> and I have also not seen his mentioning *Masters* >>> and least of all *his* intimacy with Masters. Since this is a fairly new >>> revelation to me, can you enlighten me about your source for the above. >> >>Actually, on the subject of the Masters, I cannot enlighten >>you on my source since it was made available to me on a >>confidential basis. However, perhaps I can find some things >>*in that source* which will confirm what I am saying. Again, >>back to Radha-- if she is really a Krishnamurti intimate and >>disciple, would she be pontificating about the Masters being >>something *beyond perfected men* about whom it is blasphemy to >>speak in human terms, unless she somehow thought such a view in >>harmony with his (secret) teachings? What I'm suggesting is >>that K. never really denied his intimacy with Masters as >>completely as it might seem from a superficial reading. >>Moreover, he acted as if he were precisely what/whom Leadbeater >>had proclaimed him to be-- the World Teacher. >> >>Will dig around for details. Feel free to cross post my >>response, since we've gotten started down this path, but I >>don't wish to engage in debates with an expanded group. >> >>Cheers >>P >> >Pauk: > >That was an excellent posting. I think that almost everything you had to say >was absolutely true. Krishnamurti was, as my Late Friend Dr.Augusto Liutti >put it "evasive and dogmatic". He was also extremely arrogant. He clearly >expected everyone to defer to him as if he were the "World Teacher"; One >instance: a person asked him: "Mr. Krishnamurti are you the "World Teacher"? >K's response was in the negative. The same person then asked: "What are you >then"? K responded: "I'm a man who goes around the world teaching". To me >that displays a great deal of contempt for his audience. K denied the >"Masters" in almost absolute terms, but behaved exactly as if he was one. >I think your suppositions about his "arrangement" with Radha are probably >true. But she obviously has her own agenda, and as I've said before "used" >K. to her own benefit. >Sometimes I wonder if K. didn't pull away from the TS becuase he thought he >was even too important for it, at other times I wonder if he wasn't just >plain scared that he couldn't 'PULL IT OFF" and then, after quitting the TS, >he decided to try to do it anyway, and certainly succeeded in avoiding >working for a living. As I've said before it took a lot of guts to do what >he did in 1929(?) but then, his whole life after that may just have been a >fraud. I have never found his writings to be all that profound, just Vedic >rehashes and much disguised theosophy. > >alexis > > From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 9 22:23:46 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:23:46 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960409172623.27efd7e2@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: random thoughts of a barbarian At 04:50 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >Doss, >One of the huge problems the TS has is centripetalism. As everything has >devolved towards the centers of power, the ability to listen to people >outside those centers has diminished accordingly. If that is not corrected, >the TS will most surely fade into nothingness. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > I agree. ....doss From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 9 22:25:23 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:25:23 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960409172801.27efd78a@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Successors to John Algeo & Radha Burnier At 04:52 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >Doss, >I know Betty and while she is a nice person, she is as charismatic as a stone >and while she may prove to be an able administrator, she will not bring any >new or creative ideas to the TSA. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > Chuck: Recently I spoke to Betty. During my conversation I suggested that she should get on Internet. Let us see. ....DOSS From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 9 22:18:34 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:18:34 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960409172112.27e78024@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: K etc. > Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 14:34:26 -0400 > From: MM1234567@aol.com > Message-Id: <960409143425_372146631@emout09.mail.aol.com> > Subject: are we depending on K? To all dear members of the list: The issue is not about K at all, but about us. About our own pettiness, our own inability to look at ourselves. One of the great escapes we all have is to criticize others, to find faults, this is especially true when it comes to those who are perecived to be spiritual or religious leaders, we build our leaders and we then tear them down. It is a game that we play with spirituality. But in the end after all the gossip, we must still come back to face the life we have, the person that we are, the conflicts and the misery in the world. In the end there are no leaders, no authorities, no one to build, no one built, and no one to tear down. There is only that face in the mirror that we still will not look into the eyes. warm regards, Mark "Our life has brought about a culture, a society, which has become a trap in which we are caught. The trap is built by us; for that trap each one of us is responsible. Though we may revolt against the established order, that order is what we have made, what we have built. And merely to revolt against it has very little meaning, because you will create another established order, another bureaucracy. All this, with the national, racial, religious difeerences, the wars and the shedding of blood and tears, is what we call living, and we don't know what to do. We are confronted with this. Not knowing what to do, we try to escape, or we try to find somebody who will tell us what to do, some authority, guru, teacher, someone who will say, "Look this is the way." "The teachers, the gurus, the philosophers, have all led us astray, because actually we have not solved our problems, our lives are not different. We are the same miserable, unhappy, sorrow-laden people. So the first thing is never to follow another, including the speaker. Never try to find out from another how to behave, how to live. Because what another tells you is not your life. If you rely or depend on another you will be misled. But if you deny the authority of the guru, the philosopher, the theoretician -whether political or theological- then you can look at yourself, then you can find the answer. But as long as one relies and depends on another, however wise he may be, one is lost. The man who says he knows, does not know. So the first thing is never to follow another and that is very difficult because we don't know what to do; we have been so conditioned to believe, to follow." -J. Krishnamurti From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 9 22:38:42 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 23:38:42 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Misunderstandings re: K, ES In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , M K Ramadoss writes > I am cross posting this message to listening-l. > > ....doss Maybe there is a case here for Rudy to put in a link on the TI Web page? I for one don't want to be inundated with listening-l mail, or Krishnamurti mail from the K list - if their subscribers are genuine seekers, then again we could arrange mutual links via the Web. Those of us with Web Browsers can go there if we want, or not go there if we don't want - and they can do the same. What is to stop those on other lists who might be interested subscribing to theos-lists directly? I tend to agree with Paul on this. Also, subscribers to other lists may not take kindly to cross-posts they didn't expect to get. In friendship, Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 9 23:40:32 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:40:32 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Your latest message In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , Rodolfo Don writes >Alan, > >I'm very happy that everything is working fine, and that you had your first >contact. Once you're on the web you're very visible, and that visibility >will continue to increase as time goes by and TI's pages begin to appear in >all the internet data bases. > >I'm open to suggestions to modify the existing page or add other pages with >material written by our members. Do you plan to bring it up at theos-l? > >With best regards, > >Rudy > >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL > > >Web: http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From nlporreco@bpa.gov Tue Apr 9 21:23:00 1996 Date: Tue, 09 Apr 96 14:23:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: Quote Message-Id: <316B05AF@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 19 TEXT I found the following quote printed out a while back but can't recall the source. NLP Food, sexual relationships, drink, are all natural necessities of life, yet excess in them brings on disease, misery, suffering, mental and physical, and latter are transmitted as the greatest evils to future generations, the progeny of the culprits. Work out every cause of evil you can think of trace it to its origin and you will have solved one-third of the problems of evil. The other two-thirds are caused by religion. Ignorance created Gods and cunning took advantage of the opportunity. It is belief in God and Gods that makes two-thirds of humanity the slaves of a handful of those who deceive them under the false pretence of saving them. From blafoun@azstarnet.com Wed Apr 10 01:34:00 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:34:00 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604100134.SAA23814@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Quote The quote below is from the Master K.H. See Mahatma Letters, letter 10 in the first 3 editions. >I found the following quote printed out a while back but can't recall the >source. >NLP > > >Food, sexual relationships, drink, are all natural necessities of life, yet >excess in them brings on disease, misery, suffering, mental and physical, >and latter are transmitted as the greatest evils to future generations, the >progeny of the culprits. > >Work out every cause of evil you can think of trace it to its origin and you >will have solved one-third of the problems of evil. > >The other two-thirds are caused by religion. >Ignorance created Gods and cunning took advantage of the opportunity. > >It is belief in God and Gods that makes two-thirds of humanity the slaves of >a handful of those who deceive them under the false pretence of saving them. > > From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Wed Apr 10 01:40:06 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:40:06 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9604100140.AA08113@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: re: planes & tattvas (Jerry vs Jerry) >Jerry HE seems to hold the >opinion that the Besant-Leadbeater-Bailey enumeration of planes >is some sort of novel idea and misunderstand of a teaching by >HPB. Actually my criticism concerns CWL's enumeration of the solar planes as described in ~Man Visible and Invisible,~ and his confounding them with the "seven bodies of man," which is further confounded with HPB's "seven principles of man." The specific criticism I mentioned to Jerry S. was CWL's description of the five lower solar planes as being atomic in nature. I did not mention Alice Bailey at all. As for the "novelty" of CWL's enumeration of planes, I never gave it any serious thought. I'm more interested in how the terms are used and how they work together then in the particular choice of one word over another. Therefore, even if CWL had substituted HPB's terms, I believe he still would be inconsistent with her teachings. Other than the above, you are quite correct; I do believe that CWL either misunderstood HPB's teachings on the subject, or (I think more likely) never gave much attention to her writings and teachings in the first place. >To the best of my knowledge it is the other way round. And I >will proceed to explain. The HPB source material for >this is on pages 605-615 of CW vol. XII and at the end of SD >3rd-5th editions. The above mentioned pages refer to an extended discussion on tattwas. I think this is a side issue from my own, but looking at this from CWL's point of view, I do see how he might have confounded together the solar planes, tattwas and human principles. Looking at it from this perspective is very interesting, but I submit that from my understanding of HPB's point of view, CWL is still inconsistant with her--as I will explain. HPB, in the above mentioned article gives several definitions of tattwas as: "the substratum of the seven forces of nature; the "forces of nature" (an occult definition); and Prasad's definition (whom she is not necessarily endorsing) as "the substance out of which the universe is formed. All of these definitions point to tattwas being different forms of prakriti, "or atomic matter and the spirit that ensouls it" (605). In HPB's system, the tattwas *correspond* to the principles (612). But remember, a correspondence is not the same as an identity. Though the principles which make up the local universe are the Elements (in a Platonic sense), the same word (principle) is also used in the sense of the human principles. The two are not the same, though they both derive from the same universal principles (a third use of the term). CWL, on the other hand, in his ~Man Visible and Invisible~ has the seven human "bodies" actually *occupying* the seven solar planes of nature. So to describe CWL's system: Atma is on the atmic ("nirvanic" in the original nomenclature) plane; Buddhi on the buddhic plane; the causal and mental bodies are on the mental plane; the astral body on the astral plane; the etheric and physical bodies are on the physical plane. On the three higher planes; the divine (originally mahaparanirvanic), monadic (originally paranirvanic) and atmic (originally nirvanic), CWL has the three aspects of the Solar Logos "Himself" (plate II). "He" ensouls the lower planes through his "Three Outpourings" (plate III): and also ensouls the second and third elemental kingdoms. CWL continues: "At both these stages it is very intimately connected with man, as it enters largely into the composition of his various vehicles, and influences his thought and action" (39). Therefore we have the seven solar planes and the seven "bodies of man" all rolled up into one (as diagramed in plate II). HPB, on the other hand, does not confound the solar planes and the principles, because the principles in her system do not occupy any but the lowest solar plane. >In the semi-esoteric Samkhya system we find 25 tattvas or planes >and the reason for this becomes apparent when reading HPB?s >notes. Two tattvas were considered esoteric and instead of >giving away the whole system thr ancients made up their systems >of 5 or 6 principles. The names of these 25 tattvas >are partly blinds. The solution to the riddle is that it is a >system of 5 major planes with 5 sub-planes each. Esoterically we >then get a system of 7 major planes with 7 sub-planes each. Whoa. The reason for HPB's article is to warn her readers away from the exoteric explanations in the Indian Systems. HPB writes: "This is explained here to enable the student to read between the lines of the so-called occult articles on Sanskrit philosophy, by which they must not be misled" (605). Your reading here may be correct, but I think it is getting far afield from my original point--unless you are showing the identity of planes with tattwas. If this is your point, I have only agreement here. But the human principles are different, as they are the seven *aspects* of the manifestation of the universal principles (Glossary). >The problems arises with the 5 lower planes. HPB and the >samkhyas gives these the names of the corresponding 5 elements: >akasha, vayu, taijasa, apas and prithivi. The other philosophers >give them the names of principles: atma, buddhi, manas, astral, >physical. Here lies the confusion, I believe. HPB discusses the *correlations* of the tattwas and the human principles (610 etc), but she does not say that they are the same in this context. If her discussion was in the context of the principles in nature, in an esoteric sense, then we could talk about the identity of tattwas and principles. But here, she is not. Her correlations are with the "principles of man." Therefore, they are just what she calls them: correlations. The confounding of correlations and identities creates chaos where there was once sense, and has been the source of confusion with students who have indiscriminately mixed together the teachings of different theosophical writers. An obvious example of mixing a correlation to an identity would be to take the correlation of the color "red" to Mars and call it an identity. Though there is a correlation of "red" and "mars" in HPB's system, it does not mean that one can substitute "red" for "Mars" in a statement and get the same meaning. In the same manner, we have to be very careful about the correlations of cosmic, solar and terrestrial planes, principles, bodies, souls and egos. Though there are undoubtedly correlations between them, one cannot be substituted for the other. We also have to be careful about the different uses of the same word. For instance we can't substitute an elephant's leg for a human's--though both are called "legs." Solar and human principles are also different. Therefore, if one decides to adopt the name "Manasic plane" for a particular solar plane, that does not mean that the human manasic principle resides on that plane just because the word "manas" was used in both cases. I think the root of the confusion has to do with a blurring of the matter and the consciousness side of nature, and CWL's re- arranging of the principles into the solar planes. In HPB's system, only the physical plane of the solar planes has an atomic nature. In CWL's system, the lower five solar planes have an atomic nature--thus atomic matter extends to his solar "atmic plane." In HPB's system, the 7 human principles are limited to the seven prakritic subplanes of the solar physical plane (658). In CWL's system, the consciousness of the average human extends into the solar mental plane, while a Master's consciousness extends to the Atmic (nirvanic) plane. In contrast, the solar plane that corresponds to CWL's "mental" is called the "jivic" in HPB's system. Where CWL's solar "mental" plane corresponds to the normal state of consciousness for the average person in CWL's system, it is the plane of consciousness of the Prateyka Buddha in HPB's! >The question is: can a case be made for this enumeration? (else >Jerry S. will be in trouble. He will be functioning as a nightly >magician in the element of water instead of the astral plane :-) >. I think Jerry S. will remain safe because as a magician, he can zap that darn plane and make it into anything he wants it to be :-) >Not only can there, but in my opinion the second enumeration is >the ancient esoteric. I have had no time to make a detailed >exposition of the case - but I have made a search of the >sanskrit texts on my harddrive. These include writings by >Shankara and Vyasa and are generally regarded higher than >Samkhya philosophy. Here are my findings: >None of the hundreds of hits in 74 volumes on the word tattva >connected the term with elements in the sense of the Samkhyas. The "hits" and "misses" don't surprise me. For the misses, why would one want to link together words that already have essentially the same meaning in the first place? Tattwas are the elements. As for the "hits," they appear to be a very proper combination of words to enumerate planes. Remember, the principles are *derived* from the elements (see HPB's ~Theosophical Glossary.~). However, keep in mind (as I mentioned in my message to Jerry S.) that HPB uses the term element here in the Platonic sense, not in the medieval/physical alchemical one. Here elements are not atomic--otherwise a "principle" could not be "divine." Whether or not the "second enumeration" is the "ancient esoteric" I don't know, but it is not the one used by HPB, nor did she use the tattwas--except in the context of the broader discussion you cited above. >Dozens of hits each connected words like atma and buddhi with >the word tattva. In the Vivekachudamani by Shankara alone he >uses the terms atma and tattva together about 10 times. >Here are a few examples, mainly from the Mahabharata and >Vivekachudamani: >budhaastattvaartha (meaning of the term buddhic plane) >paraM tattva bhuutena (beyond the planes of the elements) >tattva buddhyaa (plane of buddhi) >tattva buddhiH (buddhic plane) >siddhaa rajjutattva (siddhas, paranormal faculties of the plane >of desire) >tattvamaatmanaH (the atmic plane) ---- the list is really long It appears from your list that the word "tattwa" is being translated as "plane." I think this is quite correct if we use HPB's definition of a plane as an extension of space. Of course, this definition does not necessarily imply physicality (Glossary). Therefore I think the examples you give above are quite appropriate and are consistent with HPB, but not with CWL or any other system that gives the principles an atomic nature and has them occupying the solar planes. A good illustration of the difference between HPB's and CWL's systems concerns what they were able to do. Under CWL's system, he was able to "visit" the "Buddhic" and "Nirvanic" planes and described them in some detail. A good take off on this kind of thinking was Paul Twitchell's description of the Eck Masters "astral traveling on the Atmic plane." This kind of word bending works in CWL's system, and made it possible for him to do some really amazing things. But in HPB's system, these usages only create oxymorons. >I think it speaks for itself. I rest my case (how about that >Liesel). > >In friendship, > >Kim And I rest mine :-) A very excellent post Kim. I really had to do some careful thinking before responding. We go through this kind of thing over and over again in our classes when we discuss the principles. Last year, I asked a member of one of our classes to study CWL's version of the seven principles (which she wasn't familiar), compare it to what she read of HPB's system, and report it back to the class. Since she had studied HPB first, she had a terrible time trying to figure out what CWL was talking about because he blurred together all of those fine distinctions that she had learned about when studying HPB. Regarding our respective points, I think we are a bit out of phase with each other. Most likely it is because my original post did not really elaborate on what I meant concerning the differences in CWL and HPB's systems. Therefore, I used the above response as an opportunity to do some of that elaboration. Concerning your points regarding the tattwas, I don't really have an argument with what you have presented, and I tried to communicate this between the cautions. The center of my argument really concerns CWL's arrangement of principles and planes as compared to HPB's. The identities and correlations of tattwas, principles and elements is, I think, a secondary confusion. I just wish you waited until after our conference so that I would have more time to get into this subject. Best Jerry From 76400.1474@compuserve.com Wed Apr 10 01:47:06 1996 Date: 09 Apr 96 21:47:06 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re:OK on Semantics Message-Id: <960410014706_76400.1474_HHL58-2@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: > Most humans are afraid of developing >awareness of the levels of the relative realities beyond the >physical/emotional because they are afraid of what they will learn about the >nature of the human condition by way of that awareness. I think you hit the nail on the head. > My only >real complaint in regard to your position is that I have a strong suspicion >that you are over simplifying something that really isn't at all simple. Of course I am. And, no, it isn't. BUt what I am trying to do, is show some theosophists that it can be put into relatively simple words, and really doesn't need the vast array of confusing and misleading terminology that theosophy now uses. >Jerry: here's one spot where I disagree, but not only with you. I just >cannot accept the notion of "seven planes of existence" I see the relative >realities as composed of infinite numners of levels of reality. Does that >mean I disagree with HPB? Yep! I think the so-called "seven cosmic planes" >are a tremendous over-simplification of abstract reality. I doubt that HPB would disagree with you. Her 7 planes is only a model--one of many models that human beings create from time to time to try to structure the magical universe. Its as good as any. The fact is, within those 7 planes, there are, as you say, an infinite number of possible experiences (just like there are millions of separate and distinct experiences going on here on Earth right now). > Of course the body doesn't go >anywhere, but as to the "spirit". perhaps it can, perhaps, on occasion, it >does. Well, I don't know about "spirit" but consciousness sure seems to move around, or as I like to say, shift its focus. I agree with Richard that Theosophy needs to concentrate on a psychological perspective, or psychogenesis, if it is to survive. Thats why I prefer to talk about sensitivity and shifting conscious focus, rather than going to other planes or globes. >Well, I don't know Jerry. Any dicipline that regularly leads to abuse can be >said to have an "in-built" flaw. What is there, intrinsic to Yoga and >"magic" that so regularly produces spiritual onanism? I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I see yoga and magic as techniques or devices that we human beings can use as a means to an end. If someone smokes at night and burns down their house, I would not blame fire. The fact that only a few use magic and yoga successfully is a demonstration of human beings at the present time, and not the fault of the devices used. I probably risk saying this to you, but I see Shamanism as another device or technique, and it too is only successful for the few. Jerry S. Member, TI From blafoun@azstarnet.com Wed Apr 10 01:53:55 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:53:55 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <199604100153.SAA02480@web.azstarnet.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Publication of the Mahatma letters and the E.S. Writings ROUGH DRAFT OF MY COMMENTS=20 ON PUBLICATION OF THE MAHATMA LETTERS=20 AND THE ESOTERIC WRITINGS. I must say that I agree completely with what Jerry HE said about the Mahatma Letters and the Esoteric Writings of HPB. Therefore I won=92t go over that ground again but will add some additional points and evidence that readers on Theos-l (as well as Correspondents A and B) may not be aware of. Reference is made by Correspondent B to the fact that one of the Masters (K.H. in particular) wrote the following concerning the publication of his own letters and notes to Sinnett: "The letters, in short, were not written for publication or public comment upon them, but for private use, and neither M. nor I would ever give our consent to see them thus handled." (Mahatma Letter No. 63 in the first 3 editions. One should read the whole letter from which I have quoted in order to see the context in which those words were made.) But there is another letter from the Mahatma K.H. which throws additional light on the issue of publishing the letters from the Masters. In the summer of 1884, Mohini Chatterji and Laura C. Holloway were writing a book on Theosophy entitled *Man: Fragments of Forgotten History*. Both Mohini and Laura were chelas of K.H. In a letter addressed to Mohini, Master K.H. wrote: "You may, if you choose so, or find necessity for it, use in =91Man=92 [the above titled book] or in any other book you may chance to be collaborating for, anything I may have said in relation to our secret doctrines in any of my letters to Messrs. Hume or Sinnett. Those portions that were private have never been allowed by them to be copied by anyone; and those which are so copied have by the very fact become theosophical property. Besides, copies of my letters---at any rate those that contained my *teachings*---have always been sent by my order to Damodar and Upasika [HPB], and some of the portions even used in the *Theosophist*. You are at liberty to even copy them *verbatim* and without quotation marks....Thus not only you, a chela of mine, but anyone else is at liberty to take anything, whole pages, if thought proper, from any of my =91copied=92 letters and= convert their =91dross=92 into pure ore of gold, provided they have well grasped the thought. Show this to L.C.H. who was already told the same." Letter 39 in *Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom, First Series*. It should also be noted that a great deal of the *teaching * letters from K.H. and M. were quoted in the following books published in the 1880s: *The Occult World* by A.P. Sinnett. (First edition published 1881) *Esoteric Buddhism* by A.P. Sinnett. (First edition published 1883) *The Occult World* by A.P.S. See 4th English edition, 1884, Appendix, pp. 145-149 for an additional KH letter. *Man: Fragments of Forgotten History* by Two Chelas [Chatterji and Holloway) (First edition, published 1885) *The Secret Doctrine* by H.P. Blavatsky. (First published 1888). See especially Vol. I where HPB quotes from several of KH=92s letters to= Sinnett. In additional to the above books, excerpts from the Masters=92 letters were published in various articles in *The Theosophist* (1881-1883). Also W.J. Judge published lengthy extracts from K.H.=92s letters to Sinnett dealing with Kamaloka and Devachan. See *The Path*, August, 1889, Nov., 1889, May, 1890 and June, 1890. These articles have been reprinted by The Theosophy Company, LA, in their compilation *Theosophical Articles and Notes*, 1985, pp. 236-247. HPB also quoted extracts from KH=92s Letters to Sinnett in the pages of= *Lucifer*. Judge published the Prayag Letter [also contained in *The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett." in *The Path* in the early 1890s. Etc., etc. It would be an interesting exercise to take a copy of *The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnettt" and underline in red all the passages that have been published in the above sources. Directing attention back to KH=92s letter to Mohini in which mention is made of the "=91copied=92 letters" which have "become theosophical property", Francesca Arundale, an early Theosophist, had "three manuscript books" of "these early teachings" from the Masters. Evidence indicates that Sinnett copied these "teachings" from the letters of the Masters and sent them to London for the benefit of Arundale and other students of Theosophy. These "teaching letters" as found in Arundale=92s manuscript books were eventually published by C. Jinarajadasa in 1923 under the title *The Early Teachings of the Masters 1881=971883*. This book by Jinarajadasa was published some= months before A. Trevor Barker published the complete collection of letters from the Masters K.H. and M. in London in Dec. 1923. In the light of the above historical facts, would Correspondent B and U.L.T. associates be willing to study *The Early Teachings of the Masters*? Would they be willing to publicly circulate this volume by Jinarajadasa or a similarly compiled work?=20 Now another issue. Correspondent B mentions that he has read the Mahatma Letters. And he also admits that U.L.T. Associates privately read and study the Letters. BUT if we are to take literally and at face value the Master K.H.=92s prohibition on the publishing of the letters in their entirety,= then once Correspondent B or any U.L.T. associate reads this prohibition, would not reason and logic dictate that they should close the book and never pick The Mahatma Letters up again? As H.N. Stokes once wrote about this very subject, "If *The Mahatma Letters* are private documents today, no one without a diploma of sanctity and a special permit from the Mahatmas is more entitled to read them than any others." Speaking of H.N. Stokes, the editor of the *O.E. Library Critic* (Washington, D.C.), Dr. Stokes wrote at least two articles on the U.L.T.=92s attitude toward *The Mahatma Letters." The articles are: "Is the U.L.T. Boycotting =91The Mahatma Letters=92?" (*O.E. Library= Critic*, April, 1934.) "Magazine =91Theosophy=92 Places =91The Mahatma Letters=92 on U.L.T. Index Expurgatorius." (*O.E. Library Critic*, May-June, 1935. Stokes notes that soon after *The Mahatma Letters" were first published in London in Dec., 1923, *Theosophy* Magazine (the L.A.-based U.L.T. periodical) "hailed" the publication of these Letters as follows: "These *Letters* are, beyond all question the one great and final contribution to Theosophical literature and history since the *Secret Doctrine.* They solve the hitherto baffling and inscrutable mysteries in connection with the public course of the Movement, by bringing to light the missing links of its degradation through theosophists, theosophical societies, and the world at large....Let all true Theosophists rejoice at the light that is now shed on the dark places of the past and present=85." ( *Theosophy*, March, 1924) But Stokes points out that four U.L.T. magazines (including *Theosophy*) had the practice of quoting from *The Mahatma Letters* but never telling their readers that they were quoting from the book entitled *The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnettt*. Stokes found that in the years 1928-1933, these four U.L.T. magazines had quoted 87 times from the Letters. Stokes writes: =20 "...=85of the 87 quotations from *The Mahatma Letters* only one gives reference; the others afford not the slightest clue to the source, not the slightest possibility of the student locating it without laborious search. He is not even permitted to know the existence of such a book as *The Mahatma Letters*." (*O.E. Library Critic*, April, 1934.) In the other article cited above, Stokes discusses an article published in *Theosophy* Magazine for February, 1935. The anonymous U.L.T. associate writes for two or three pages on the *Mahatma Letters* but then concludes: "All that is taught in the Letters is contained in *The Secret Doctrine*...and is there presented in proper form for students under the direct instruction and sponsoring of the Mahatmas themselves. The publication of the Mahatma Letters in violation of Their own injunction, and recourse to these Letters [by Theosophical students] instead of to *The Secret Doctrine* for instruction in Occultism, shows the difference between true and false psychology. Mr. Sinnett=92s use of the Letters was such as= to close to him the door opened via H.P.B. with the Mahatmas: What will be the effect of the unlawful publication and use of them thus made possible to so many =91hopeless Incurables in the Mysteries=92?" Stokes points out that several of the assertions made in this quotation are not true. Stokes goes on to say: "But when the *Theosophy* writer speaks of =91false psychology=92 and of =91hopeless Incurables in the Mysteries=92 one is prompted to ask whether= these rather strong terms do not apply to himself. He is constantly referring in these articles to *The Mahatma Letters*. Consequently he must have read them. If so, why does he do that which he thinks it improper for others to do because of their private nature? And why did the magazine *Theosophy* in its series [of articles] later published as *The Theosophical Movement* [in 1925 as a book] constantly quote from documents [written by HPB and] marked private and issued to E.S.T. members under pledge of secrecy? Are we to suppose that this anonymous writer, or the editors of *Theosophy*, are above all rules applying to lesser mortals? No, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If=20 *The Mahatma Letters* are private documents today, no one without a diploma of sanctity and a special permit from the Mahatmas is more entitled to read them than any others, or to discourage others from doing what he does himself when it suits his purpose....Sensible students will not be deterred by talk from those who do not practise what they preach=85." (*O.E. Library Critic*, May-June, 1935. In the above quote from Stokes, he refers to the book *The Theosophical Movement* issued by the top officials of the U.LT., Los Angeles, CA. In Chapter XI ("Work of the Esoteric Section", pp. 163-177) of this book, the anonymous author(s) quote(s) from two of HPB=92s E.S. documents which were marked: "strictly private and confidential". The author of this chapter writes: "Permissible extracts from the *Preliminary Memorandum* to the E.S. applicants show her esoteric treatment=85." Then long extracts are given= from this E.S. document. Permissible extracts? Who gave the writer of this chapter permission to quote from HPB=92s "strictly private and confidential" paper? This is not discussed in the pages of *The Theosophical Movement*. Jerry HE brings up the fact that Judge in an E.S.T. document of Dec., 1894 "declassifed" HPB=92s E.S. Instructions. As soon as I find it in my file, I will post this Judge document on Theos-l. Permissible extracts only, of= course! Thanks to everyone who gave their two cents on these topics. I am hoping Eldon T. and Rich T. will share their thoughts on all of this on Theos-l. Daniel H. Caldwell From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 9 23:36:01 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:36:01 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: wow! In-Reply-To: <199604092151.JAA16756@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604092151.JAA16756@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz>, Bee Brown writes >My understanding of >devachan, monads, life-atoms, manvantaras etc have helped a great deal with >how I deal with each new situation that arises. It has to be ingrained so to >be genuine reactions when I am phoned in the dead of night, fast asleep, to >deal with a distraught person. My world view has grown large enough to see >that in the end, it is maya but not for the people I deal with. I can >discuss death with them in a reasonable manner because of my understanding >of reincarnation, karma etc. I do not discuss theosophical concepts with >these people but what I do discuss is coloured by my involvement with >theosophy. Of course - is that not part of the wonder of theosophical study? But you would not get very far if you used the terminology to the distraught person who would not understand it. Maybe, after being helped by you, they might later, because of what they have found in your helping them, ask more detailed questions by means of which they may begin to study themselves. I doubt if this often happens, but my guess is that it could, and maybe sometimes does - I know it has in my own work over the years. Not everyone will take is as far as you or I - but maybe they are not so dumb as me, and get the hang of it faster! You are doing a great job - two, by the look if it :-) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From 76400.1474@compuserve.com Wed Apr 10 01:47:02 1996 Date: 09 Apr 96 21:47:02 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: semantics--to Richard I. Message-Id: <960410014701_76400.1474_HHL58-1@CompuServe.COM> Richard Ihle writes> >Jerry, I was agreeing with your first comment 110% (assuming you were talking >about *savikalpa-samadhi*); however, did you change your point of view in the >second? Yes, I was talking about savikalpa-samadhi, or samadhi with "traces." I don't think I changed my point of view in the second, but rather tried to describe it differently (which is how semantics or words get me into so much trouble). In the savikalpa there is still a trace of self, but the surroundings are also self, and so produces a tremendous sense of oneness. Nothing much can be said about the nirvikalpa samadhi, having no traces at all it is beyond words to describe (oneness and otherness both disappear). > In the first case, however, would you not agree >that the term *total environment* might be overly easily confused with >*Prakriti*--which includes everything from the most rarefied "Substance" >(Spirit) down to the most gross? Right. But Alexis used the term not me. When in samadhi, one is sensitive to the spiritual, but nothing else, hence not really a "total environment" which would include all planes. > Naturally, of course, I am fairly >certain that when you said "you become your environment" you were merely >referring to the all-pervading quality of Spirit. Here again, the semantics seems to have bitten me. Its difficult to get it completely right, and as Eldon rightly points out, this is a main cause of Theosophical friction. When consciousness crosses the Abyss, it enters savikalpa samadhi and when consciousness at this state looks out at its surroundings, it sees itself and feels those surroundings to be itself. In a sense this could be called a merger of the subject and object, but in another sense it is a hightened sensitivity to the Self. I don't recall hearing the term "Prakriti-laya" before, but I will check it out. I certainly understand the meaning as you give it. Forgive me, but my study of Sanskrit was years ago, and is terribly rusty. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@compuserve.com Wed Apr 10 02:30:42 1996 Date: 09 Apr 96 22:30:42 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: more Message-Id: <960410023042_76400.1474_HHL74-1@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: >Actually I think the progression goes as follows: The young say "what?", and >then when told what. say "So What?" and off they go! What they're actually >saying is: "What relevance does that nonsense have in my life, how does it >help me?" It has no relevance at all, for anyone, until they are ready for it. Like HPB says in the intro to the Voice, it is only for the few. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@compuserve.com Wed Apr 10 02:30:44 1996 Date: 09 Apr 96 22:30:44 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Giggling at the Morally Upright Message-Id: <960410023043_76400.1474_HHL74-2@CompuServe.COM> Greg: >One thing I did not understand at all. Jerry S. writes: >>Personally I find that idea of a >>group of students who bend over backwards to be morally upright as >>entirely opposed to the spirit of occultism. HPB would probably giggle. > >This runs exactly counter to what HPB taught repeatedly, and I ask if you >could clarify the basis for your comment and especially explain why you think >she would giggle. > >Greg Hoskins First of all, Greg, let me tell you that HPB never established an occult school nor did she serve as guru to occult students. She founded and fostered Theosophy and the Theosophical Society, which is *not* an occult school. Her insistence on ethics and morals was directed to her TS students to keep them out of trouble. Her teachings on Chelaship reflect the one-on-one type of training found in India, and is not reflective of Western schools. Western occult students, depending on their experience and understanding, would either be heedless of such warning or would no longer need it. I, for one, practice ethics because it makes common sense to do so (i.e., I believe in karma), and because I feel it is the right thing to do. But I don't "bend over backwards to be morally upright." Why? Because it always inflates the ego, which is exactly the opposite result that true occultism desires to affect. I did this in my youth when I was a good Christian. I feel, rightly or wrongly, that I have progressed from those days. I have nothing at all against ethics and morals or in learning and practicing them. But when people go to the extreme of worrying about being "morally upright" (which is equivalent to holier than thou) then I can only feel sorry for them. Chuck said it well when he said in a recent posting that such people are "buffoons" and I dare say that that is how HPB would have seen them too. Jerry S. Member, TI From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Apr 10 02:44:30 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 21:44:30 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Quote In-Reply-To: <316B05AF@mortar.bpa.gov> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII It is from Mahatma Letters. ...doss From blafoun@azstarnet.com Wed Apr 10 03:04:11 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 20:04:11 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604100304.UAA03670@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Better Copy (?) of: Publication of the Mahatma letters and the E.S. Writings The first copy of the below post had lots of numbers in places where there should have been quotation marks and apostrophes! Hoping this copy will be more readable. Sorry. DHC. ROUGH DRAFT OF MY COMMENTS ON PUBLICATION OF THE MAHATMA LETTERS AND THE ESOTERIC WRITINGS. I must say that I agree completely with what Jerry HE said about the Mahatma Letters and the Esoteric Writings of HPB. Therefore I won"t go over that ground again but will add some additional points and evidence that readers on Theos-l (as well as Correspondents A and B) may not be aware of. Reference is made by Correspondent B to the fact that one of the Masters (K.H. in particular) wrote the following concerning the publication of his own letters and notes to Sinnett: "The letters, in short, were not written for publication or public comment upon them, but for private use, and neither M. nor I would ever give our consent to see them thus handled." (Mahatma Letter No. 63 in the first 3 editions. One should read the whole letter from which I have quoted in order to see the context in which those words were made.) But there is another letter from the Mahatma K.H. which throws additional light on the issue of publishing the letters from the Masters. In the summer of 1884, Mohini Chatterji and Laura C. Holloway were writing a book on Theosophy entitled *Man: Fragments of Forgotten History*. Both Mohini and Laura were chelas of K.H. In a letter addressed to Mohini, Master K.H. wrote: "You may, if you choose so, or find necessity for it, use in "Man" [the above titled book] or in any other book you may chance to be collaborating for, anything I may have said in relation to our secret doctrines in any of my letters to Messrs. Hume or Sinnett. Those portions that were private have never been allowed by them to be copied by anyone; and those which are so copied have by the very fact become theosophical property. Besides, copies of my letters---at any rate those that contained my *teachings*---have always been sent by my order to Damodar and Upasika [HPB], and some of the portions even used in the *Theosophist*. You are at liberty to even copy them *verbatim* and without quotation marks....Thus not only you, a chela of mine, but anyone else is at liberty to take anything, whole pages, if thought proper, from any of my "copied" letters and convert their "dross" into pure ore of gold, provided they have well grasped the thought. Show this to L.C.H. who was already told the same." Letter 39 in *Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom, First Series*. It should also be noted that a great deal of the *teaching * letters from K.H. and M. were quoted in the following books published in the 1880s: *The Occult World* by A.P. Sinnett. (First edition published 1881) *Esoteric Buddhism* by A.P. Sinnett. (First edition published 1883) *The Occult World* by A.P.S. See 4th English edition, 1884, Appendix, pp. 145-149 for an additional KH letter. *Man: Fragments of Forgotten History* by Two Chelas [Chatterji and Holloway) (First edition, published 1885) *The Secret Doctrine* by H.P. Blavatsky. (First published 1888). See especially Vol. I where HPB quotes from several of KH"s letters to Sinnett. In additional to the above books, excerpts from the Masters letters were published in various articles in *The Theosophist* (1881-1883). Also W.J. Judge published lengthy extracts from K.H."s letters to Sinnett dealing with Kamaloka and Devachan. See *The Path*, August, 1889, Nov., 1889, May, 1890 and June, 1890. These articles have been reprinted by The Theosophy Company, LA, in their compilation *Theosophical Articles and Notes*, 1985, pp. 236-247. HPB also quoted extracts from KH"s Letters to Sinnett in the pages of= *Lucifer*. Judge published the Prayag Letter [also contained in *The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett." in *The Path* in the early 1890s. Etc., etc. It would be an interesting exercise to take a copy of *The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnettt" and underline in red all the passages that have been published in the above sources. Directing attention back to KH"s letter to Mohini in which mention is made of the "copied letters" which have "become theosophical property", Francesca Arundale, an early Theosophist, had "three manuscript books" of "these early teachings" from the Masters. Evidence indicates that Sinnett copied these "teachings" from the letters of the Masters and sent them to London for the benefit of Arundale and other students of Theosophy. These "teaching letters" as found in Arundale"s manuscript books were eventually published by C. Jinarajadasa in 1923 under the title *The Early Teachings of the Masters 1881------1883*. This book by Jinarajadasa was published some months before A. Trevor Barker published the complete collection of letters from the Masters K.H. and M. in London in Dec. 1923. In the light of the above historical facts, would Correspondent B and U.L.T. associates be willing to study *The Early Teachings of the Masters*? Would they be willing to publicly circulate this volume by Jinarajadasa or a similarly compiled work? Now another issue. Correspondent B mentions that he has read the Mahatma Letters. And he also admits that U.L.T. Associates privately read and study the Letters. BUT if we are to take literally and at face value the Master K.H."s prohibition on the publishing of the letters in their entirety, then once Correspondent B or any U.L.T. associate reads this prohibition, would not reason and logic dictate that they should close the book and never pick The Mahatma Letters up again? As H.N. Stokes once wrote about this very subject, "If *The Mahatma Letters* are private documents today, no one without a diploma of sanctity and a special permit from the Mahatmas is more entitled to read them than any others." Speaking of H.N. Stokes, the editor of the *O.E. Library Critic* (Washington, D.C.), Dr. Stokes wrote at least two articles on the U.L.T."s attitude toward *The Mahatma Letters." The articles are: "Is the U.L.T. Boycotting The Mahatma Letters?" (*O.E. Library Critic*, April, 1934.) "Magazine Theosophy Places The Mahatma Letters on U.L.T. Index Expurgatorius." (*O.E. Library Critic*, May-June, 1935. Stokes notes that soon after *The Mahatma Letters" were first published in London in Dec., 1923, *Theosophy* Magazine (the L.A.-based U.L.T. periodical) "hailed" the publication of these Letters as follows: "These *Letters* are, beyond all question the one great and final contribution to Theosophical literature and history since the *Secret Doctrine.* They solve the hitherto baffling and inscrutable mysteries in connection with the public course of the Movement, by bringing to light the missing links of its degradation through theosophists, theosophical societies, and the world at large....Let all true Theosophists rejoice at the light that is now shed on the dark places of the past and present." ( *Theosophy*, March, 1924) But Stokes points out that four U.L.T. magazines (including *Theosophy*) had the practice of quoting from *The Mahatma Letters* but never telling their readers that they were quoting from the book entitled *The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnettt*. Stokes found that in the years 1928-1933, these four U.L.T. magazines had quoted 87 times from the Letters. Stokes writes: "Of the 87 quotations from *The Mahatma Letters* only one gives reference; the others afford not the slightest clue to the source, not the slightest possibility of the student locating it without laborious search. He is not even permitted to know the existence of such a book as *The Mahatma Letters*." (*O.E. Library Critic*, April, 1934.) In the other article cited above, Stokes discusses an article published in *Theosophy* Magazine for February, 1935. The anonymous U.L.T. associate writes for two or three pages on the *Mahatma Letters* but then concludes: "All that is taught in the Letters is contained in *The Secret Doctrine*...and is there presented in proper form for students under the direct instruction and sponsoring of the Mahatmas themselves. The publication of the Mahatma Letters in violation of Their own injunction, and recourse to these Letters [by Theosophical students] instead of to *The Secret Doctrine* for instruction in Occultism, shows the difference between true and false psychology. Mr. Sinnett"s use of the Letters was such as to close to him the door opened via H.P.B. with the Mahatmas: What will be the effect of the unlawful publication and use of them thus made possible to so many hopeless Incurables in the Mysteries?" Stokes points out that several of the assertions made in this quotation are not true. Stokes goes on to say: "But when the *Theosophy* writer speaks of "false psychology" and of "hopeless Incurables in the Mysteries" one is prompted to ask whether these rather strong terms do not apply to himself. He is constantly referring in these articles to *The Mahatma Letters*. Consequently he must have read them. If so, why does he do that which he thinks it improper for others to do because of their private nature? And why did the magazine *Theosophy* in its series [of articles] later published as *The Theosophical Movement* [in 1925 as a book] constantly quote from documents [written by HPB and] marked private and issued to E.S.T. members under pledge of secrecy? Are we to suppose that this anonymous writer, or the editors of *Theosophy*, are above all rules applying to lesser mortals? No, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If *The Mahatma Letters* are private documents today, no one without a diploma of sanctity and a special permit from the Mahatmas is more entitled to read them than any others, or to discourage others from doing what he does himself when it suits his purpose....Sensible students will not be deterred by talk from those who do not practise what they preach." (*O.E. Library Critic*, May-June, 1935. In the above quote from Stokes, he refers to the book *The Theosophical Movement* issued by the top officials of the U.LT., Los Angeles, CA. In Chapter XI ("Work of the Esoteric Section", pp. 163-177) of this book, the anonymous author(s) quote(s) from two of HPB"s E.S. documents which were marked: "strictly private and confidential". The author of this chapter writes: "Permissible extracts from the *Preliminary Memorandum* to the E.S. applicants show her esoteric treatment." Then long extracts are given from this E.S. document. Permissible extracts? Who gave the writer of this chapter permission to quote from HPB"s "strictly private and confidential" paper? This is not discussed in the pages of *The Theosophical Movement*. Jerry HE brings up the fact that Judge in an E.S.T. document of Dec., 1894 "declassifed" HPB"s E.S. Instructions. As soon as I find it in my file, I will post this Judge document on Theos-l. Permissible extracts only, of course! Thanks to everyone who gave their two cents on these topics. I am hoping Eldon T. and Rich T. will share their thoughts on all of this on Theos-l. Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 17:08:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Re: Very attent on your saying Message-ID: <199704090008.RAA26250@proxy2.ba.best.com> Estrella: At 07:05 PM 4/7/97 -0400, you wrote: >Hello to all the ones who write here. >I was listening with attention all of your letters to this place. >Seems that Thoa, you are very versed in issues of body healing, >and you seem like a nice person , who is also very intelligent and wise, >and also funny, the thing i like most of a person, because the world and >the labor we have to do in this world is too serious for taking it seriously. >hahahahaha! :) (with a "Peanuts" caracter like laugh) I agree. We need laughter!!! I don't care how silly one looks! Now, I'm going to forever imagine you with a "Peanuts" voice and laughter. :o) >Also i find Liesel very versed in this kind of subjects. i enjoyed the \ >digest of 97-3 (that's the name i got) with all the funny-replies to the >pepole, talking about cutting the toenails and stuff like that, but also i >want to talk of serious topic issues, really. my hunger of knowing is very >intense, and i want to learn more, and especially, be a better person, >acomplishing the profund topics of Theosophy, so i can enter the "narrow path" >if, of course, i really deserve that,i think i do, so as the whole humanity. Just wanting to be a better person means you're on the road to being a better person! Once we think that we're perfect, that's when we are not on the road. Will the PERFECT person please stand up! >i couldn't be substracted to the fact that i was keeping an eye of the \ >serious discussion of Thoa-Liesel about healing-native like healing (chaman of >i don't know- what country ???) -kabalah-Golden Dawn-books-etc,etc,etc. >Since you did'nt answer my question (an innocent one comming from a graduate >student of biology) of who you are-where do you live etc,etc, i have to >figure out that Thoa is a female-young girl no more than 30-student of Theosophy-Student of art,before,she was college student of Engeneering-it is right?? >I don't know even from what country you are!! i did told u....at least i >know that some human being called (itselve,because i don't know if is a she-he) >M.K.Ramadoss (very funny and intelligent, that's what i like of some pepole here, the sense of humor) I hope the mystery now clears. If I could include an ASCII picture of myself, I would. The computer is an important way of communicating as we have never been able to before. However, it can also be impersonal and mysterious. You can't look at a person's physical and determine character. I'm pretty good at getting a vibe from a person by looking at them. I don't judge him/her immediately, but I do keep my first impression in mind. Usually, several meetings afterward confirm my feeling. >First: >About healing, i don't know so much of it, i think i know nothing. but i know >that the healer has to be in perfect state of health to can heal, because of >if not, the sickness can be transported of the sick person to the healer. >If is not the case, the healer,like every human being, especcialy in the >occidental civilization, has some sickness, he has to GENERATE THE ENERGY >from whithin him-her to can have enough to heal the pepole. if is not the > > > >case, the healer can get sick. That is very true. A healer has to be a balanced person in order to heal effectively. I think the healer has to live the healthy life in order to tell another person to live a healthy life. I always thought that it's kind of silly for a priest to advise a person on marriage and family. As far as the shaman, he/she came to being a shaman by going through a very ill state and then coming out of it by agreeing to be a shaman. A shaman has to be well prepared mentally/physically/spiritually in order to heal. Otherwise, the journey can be very dangerous for the shaman. As far as generating internal energy, oriental medicine uses a process called stirring up the qi or internal life energy. By being an adept at that, the healer can transmit healing energy to the patient. Reiki is one such example. Now, if you don't believe in that, just the healing touch is enough. Studies have shown that stroking in a loving way, massages, etc., have promoted healing. There was an experiment in which rabbits were given things that would clog their arteries (I think). Most rabbits developed clogged arteries with the exception of one group. Upon investigation, they found that the reason was because those rabbits were the one that was constantly petted and carressed. Love is a great cure all! >Secound (about healing) >In the Theosophy, we know that we have a diffrent quantity of bodies, the > > > >astral (kama rupa) the mental (manasa rupa) etc,etc,etc. (i think we all >know that. but the point is that, to have real progress, the healing, it has >to be, not first the spiritual and later the phisic, astral one, but ALL OF > > >them at the same time, i know it is difficult, but with a lot of practice and >will we all can achieve this. other: it is true, is very slow and it carries > > >the risk of losing the control, but i think if it is all correlated, then, >why we are making things by separate?? ALL IT IS, with and whithin, everything > >is part of the circle, inside and around,i really have some difficulty to > >\ >explain this well, but i think is like this. for some pepole is more easy doing >the healing of a body first then the other ones at a time, is valid also i\ > > >think. I agree. I wrote on that to Liesel today. >Third: > >I'm not shure if The Golden Dawn order was ruled-founder of Diane Moon[, i > > >think was the name?[ Con Fortune,[ D , but that woman i think was part one time of the society >of a magic order that was part of that the terrible Aleister Crowley, then, > >a dark magic order (I prefer the name "dark" or "obscure" for the black type > > >of magic, in english, to evade racial subjects that only get us to a bad joke >an a lost of time.) If the name is not that, or if i'm confusing the order, > >please tell me. in Mexico we don't get so much information of that kind. I'm just starting to learn about the Kabbalah. From what I've heard of Aleister Crowley, he seems like an unpleasant character. I heard of rumors that he did all sorts of awful rituals, and started satanic cults. Some people are convinced that it is very true. Someone told me that there is one in California near San Francisco, which is near where I live. Then again, I heard that all those ritual rumors were just symbolic. That he used symbolic replacement instead of doing the actual deeds. I don't know and I don't care. He's dead and hopefully his cults will just stick among themselves. I figure if a person is attracted to evil, he/she will find it anywhere. If a person wants to be in an evil cult, that is his/her choice, just as long as it does not involve hurting innocent people or children. >Fourth: >About kabalah, i read in a book long time ago, that this person of the book > > >divided the world-year (zodiac type division) that we all are ruled by 72 >genies or angels that all their names are obtained from the sacred name of > >God (Jewish-Kabalah version) and that, like we have a certain personality > > >depending the time hour and place of our birth,and the zodiac assign us a >certain zodiac sign/ascendant, we have a certain genie/angel that rules/ > > >protect us since our birth. Uh, Alan, can you answer this question? I'm sure you can give a much better answer than I can. >Fifth: > > >I was reading the other day the book of Edward Schure (the great initiates) >is a very hard-to-digest book, very heavy stuff. in the Moses part, i read > > > >some explanations of the sacred name of God (Jewish version) and in that >time, for me it seemed very clear. if you wish, you can read that part for >getting a more clear point of view of that. I don't understand. Could you please clarify? >Sixth: >No point. (just a joke and a leap to the seventh) Hee, hee, hee (in a "Peanuts" way) ;o) >Seventh: >I really enjoyed your discussions. if you have some material that can be > > >intresting, i told you the themes of my interest in the later letter)  [D( [Dbe free to write. i'm at the haunt of knowledge and friends, especcialy. > > >It is cool talking to pepole who have also the freedom to make themselves >so much fun of itselves,and that makes you very important. remember that Knowledge, friends and heart is good! >also Gandhi was well know for his jokes in time of distress. >Very happy of considering your friend, > >Estrella > >P.S. Be free to write. no kidding., I like Gandhi, too. I admire him greatly. I consider you a friend, too. You, too, please feel free to comment on anything, and don't be shy. Also, don't be afraid to straighten anyone out if you don't agree with his/her opinion. That's what makes this list interesting. Theosophists definitely have their opinions! Thoa :o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 17:02:42 GMT From: gbartle@uclink.berkeley.edu (Gregg Bartle) Subject: Crowley, bookstores etc. Message-ID: <334bc1d0.3402859@uclink> On Tue, 8 Apr 1997 20:21:41 -0400 (EDT), Thoa wrote: >......................... From what I've heard of Aleister Crowley, >he seems like an unpleasant character. I heard of rumors >that he did all sorts of awful rituals, and started satanic cults....... >Someone told me that there is one in California near San Francisco, which >is near where I live. > Just a brief little side note here. First off, ol' Uncle Al is often badly misunderstood, or sometimes understood all *too* well; in any event, his writings, while demanding, can be quite rewarding to the student. Secondly, to help Thoa in her book search, I have a suggestion. If you're not to far away in the S.F. BAy Area, you should definitely check out 'Shambhala Books' on Telegraph Ave. in Berkeley. While this is only a one room bookstore, it's stock of new books on religious, metaphysical and related topics is positively amazing for it's breadth and depth. Furthermore, if your don't get satisfaction at Shambhala, 'Moe's Books' (the absolutely best general used book store in this corner of the galaxy) is right next door. ............. (A note to any former, current or wanna-be Berkeleyites out there - Moe Moskowitz, the owner, lord, master and soul of 'Moe's Books' for well over thiry years, passed away last week at the age of 70. For myself, and many others, this marks the end of an era. The store had been an almost weekly pilgrimage site for me since my college days in the 60's. Interested parties may want to check out the store's website at http://www.moesbooks.com . Moe was a friend.) Well, none of this is theosophy (except that theosophy is sharing), so back to our muttons. Peace to all beings - Gregg Bartle, member Theosophy International From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 12:38:23 -0700 From: "Romero Cortez D.Ma." Subject: a tip (i hope works) Message-ID: <199704091937.PAA20078@elvis.vnet.net> For Liesel: For what you said of the problem understanding my letter, seems that the e-mail system that i have misspells the letters of the place. try to paste the lower row with the anterior one, and maybe you can read some of the letter. Estrella. Ah: and it says about the supposed lider of Golden Dawn (i think, im not shure) is Dion Fortune the name, i wrote, confirm me if i'm right. Thoa:I read your letter, still waiting the rest of it. jaja..:-) Thanks to you and to M.K.Ramadoss for the gentleness of answering my letter about yourselves. you too, Liesel. now i know you r a gentle grandmother of german origin, :) Well. i think is all for now.thanks for the aclarations. The Deva point i didnt knew, and i think it is true, for helping the healer. Remember thann in occidental civilization the doctors pray to Jesus for helping some patients that are not in good shape. P.S.Seems that this keyboard has some difficulties,like spelling morethan 1 or 2 letters at the same time. with my system of e-mail, probably you will recieve bad spelling words, like i think Liesel got. if is not that the problem, Liesel, please tell me in whaat you don't understand well. i'll try to make it more clear. Thanks to everyone here,.seems yoou know much,much more than i do.  From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 15:40:16 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: Krishnaj and higher powers Message-ID: <199704092056.QAA29253@ultra1.dreamscape.com> When I read that, it occurred to me that I think "higher powers" are guiding me too ... namely my Higher Self ... namely, I believe that everyone else's Higher self is guiding them to. I believe we all have our guardian angels or wnatever one wishes to call it, our share of higher powers, so I don't think it at all unusual that Krishaj had them too. His may have inspired a more advanced human being than I am and most of us are, but I think the mechanics are the same. That still leaves open the question of Masters or Teachers as guides. Well, imagine what you will, but again Krishnaj is not the only one thus blessed, if he was, which I think may be so because he was extraordinarily gifted. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 16:01:19 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: the more efficient alternative Message-ID: <199704092117.RAA09475@ultra1.dreamscape.com> To DSArthur, Very valid argument, and very difficult to give a cut & dried solution to. Life isn't cut & dry. What I do with it, is I do the best I can. Since I believe that, among other consequences, killing and torturing animals creates negative karma, I'm in favor of keeping such events to a minimum in my personal life. I have no qualms at all with medical students cutting up a cadaver. That's not a living entity anymore, but a discarded body. As for mice, they bother the hell out of me, so I get rid of them, preferably by chasing them out of the house, and plugging up the hole that lets them in. If that doesn't work, I study the method of killing them first and try to choose the quickest least painful way. I'm not completely vegetarian anymore either. I had to make a choice of eating vegetarian cuisine by myself, or eating chicken & fish in the common dining room and being able to socialize. I think I made this choice because not socializing was a more immediate inconvenience, than eating the negative vibes still present in the dead meat, the fear that the animal felt when it got killed. Besides, I'm rapidly approaching that stage of life where cooking for myself will become very cumbersome. Someone else might have chosen differently. Liesel > From: DSArthur@aol.com >To: theos-l@vnet.net >Subject: "The More Efficient Alternative" >Message-ID: <970408115431_-1703781798@emout09.mail.aol.com> > > I grasp Liesel's comment ... but I'm not sure I understand her point. Is >she suggesting >that, somehow, it would be preferable for budding surgeons to prefect >their skills >first on cadavers (electronic or otherwise) or animals before attempting to >perform them on >humans? > As for Karmic consequences, lower species of all kinds have been suffering >at the hands >of humans since the very dawn of humanity. I am not an advocate of suffering >per se but >I can't help but wonder what someone like Liesel does about, say, an >infestation of mice >in her kitchen. Does she put out "Mousepruff" (a very efficient rodent >poison) or spring- >loaded traps (either lethal or benign)? Or, instead, out of concern for >Karmic consequence- >quences, does she simply endure the infestation because "they have as much of >a need >to be there as we do." > I am not trying to put Liesel (and others who may agree with her) on the >spot but this is >an issue that has perplexed philosophers for ages. I understand, for >example, that even >that towering theosophical personage, William Q. Judge, "had to have meat" in >order to >survive physically for as long as he did. So how many animals suffered and >died for the >express benefit of Judge? My point is that Theosophists need to look at "the >big picture" >before rushing to judgment about small segments of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dennis > > >------------------------------ > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 15:10:15 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: Re: Crowley, bookstores etc. Message-ID: Gregg: >Just a brief little side note here. First off, ol' Uncle Al is often badly >misunderstood, or sometimes understood all *too* well; in any event, his >writings, while demanding, can be quite rewarding to the student. > >Secondly, to help Thoa in her book search, I have a suggestion. If you're >not to far away in the S.F. BAy Area, you should definitely check out >'Shambhala Books' on Telegraph Ave. in Berkeley. While this is only a one >room bookstore, it's stock of new books on religious, metaphysical and >related topics is positively amazing for it's breadth and depth. >Furthermore, if your don't get satisfaction at Shambhala, 'Moe's Books' (the >absolutely best general used book store in this corner of the galaxy) is >right next door. > ............. >(A note to any former, current or wanna-be Berkeleyites out there - Moe >Moskowitz, the owner, lord, master and soul of 'Moe's Books' for well over >thiry years, passed away last week at the age of 70. For myself, and many >others, this marks the end of an era. The store had been an almost weekly >pilgrimage site for me since my college days in the 60's. Interested parties >may want to check out the store's website at http://www.moesbooks.com . Moe >was a friend.) > >Well, none of this is theosophy (except that theosophy is sharing), so back >to our muttons. > > > Peace to all beings - > > Gregg Bartle, member Theosophy International Thanks, Gregg. I'm going to have to check it out. I've been going to Minerva Books in Palo Alto. Excellent book collection, but not enough of Kabbalah. There was a Shambhala book store in Boston that was the best religious/philosophy bookstore I've ever seen. It has a coffee shop attached. I gather that Moe had arranged for his store to continue in the way he liked it. As far as that Crowley dude, I don't really have an opinion on him. I was repeating what I was told. I have no hesitation reading any of his writings, and I have read some of his writings. Some accounts of him was that he's actually quite normal but hedonistic, and was reacting to hypocrisy that he witnessed in his childhood. Thus, all those talk of satanism may just be his way of just stirring up the prim and proper bloods. I have no doubt that some of his followers took him literally and may have done awful stuff. Have a great one. Thoa :o) From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 10 05:04:11 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 01:04:11 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960410010410_268160920@emout04.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TI membership list Alan, I think I answered you question in other posts, but in case they got lost in the e-mail machine, the problem is not with the expression of freedom. That's a good thing. What I question is the wisdom of the context in which the word is placed. It really sounds like we are looking for a fight with other theosophists, which, while great fun, is not exactly how we may want TI as an organziation (gad! I hate that word) to be presented. We don't want to come off as creating something purely for the purpose of putting down our fellow theosophists, no matter how much they deserve it. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 10 05:04:24 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 01:04:24 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960410010424_268161044@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Freedom Alex, If we had a Parliamentary system, Newt Gingrich would be running the country. Now that may give me great pleasure and satisfaction, but I doubt you would enjoy it. The parliamentary system makes for very efficient government, but it does little to protect the minority from the excesses of whomever wins the majority. That is why parliamentary systems tend to be very unstable in times of crisis. In point of fact, a very good case can be made that it was the weakness of a parliamentary system that allowed Hitler to take power. With all due respect to our British friends on this list, I find it difficult to regard as free a country with an Official Secrets Act and no judicial review. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From john@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz Wed Apr 10 05:34:05 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:34:05 +1200 From: john@actrix.gen.nz (John Vorstermans) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI membership list Liesel wrote: >Dear John Vorstermans, John is fine.... >I don't know how much of an illusion you think it is, if I live in a country >where, if I open my mouth to voice an opinion which doesn't conform with the >Party Line, they'll right away give me a ride to the nearest concentration >camp, or to a Gulag, have your pick. We are obviously on two totally different wave lengths here. I made my point regarding "Freedom" as a composite spiritual being. These physical aspects of ourselves are merely a tool for experience and understanding, which will hopefully eventually lead to wisdom and enlightenment or samadi. Certainly the experience of a soul born as a Jew in Nazi Germany is going to be differenent from a soul born in todays very materialistic USA. Yes there is "apparent" freedom in the USA. However I believe this experience of what you call freedom is not really true freedom at all. Certainly from a physical aspect there seems to be more freedom for the USA citizen as far as speech or movement is concerned but this has more to do with the souls dharma and karma than it has to do with freedom. If you look deep enough at the individuals or probably even better, yourself, you will find that you actually have very little freedom. You will find many constraints around you, most probably generated by your own beliefs and values and your own past experiences. There will be others dictated by the society you live in. True freedom is not something that is easy to express in words. That is why I suggested contemplating on the concept for a while and see what comes up. I am not saying I am right but this is my opinion as I currently understand it. I also live in what you might call a relativly free country, New Zealand but I honestly do not believe I am any more free than the Jew in Germany to go through the experiences that I as a spirituall being have decided it is necessary to go through. Sure I can run from experiences that look cruel or harsh but eventually they tend to come back for me to face. It is too easy to generalise and think we know what is right and wrong when often we can only see the physical or emotional impact of an experience. The experience is often much more than we will ever understand. The challenge is to try and understand it from all it's aspects. Confused? John -- John Vorstermans PO Box 11-410 Wellington Mobile (025) 432-987 From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 06:06:00 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 23:06 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: more on freedom At 07:28 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >>>>>>cut<<<<<< >Of course anyone can see differences when comparing two such examples. I do >not sugget that there is no difference between the two. I simply suggest >that you need to spend some time contemplating what "FREEDOM" really is before >you can make such statement. > >John > >-- >John Vorstermans >PO Box 11-410 >Wellington >Mobile (025) 432-987 > > >But John, those were the two countries Liesel Deutsch was referring to when she said she felt free in America, Your reply, as I recall was that if she thought about it she'd see there wasn't much difference between the two. So then I didn't bring my comparison up from out in left field. Sure America is far from perfect, I spend a great deal of time and energy raising hell about that distance. Sure there are countries in the world that are more Democratic than America, although I do not confuse Democracy and Freedom. But there are places that, in fact, are more free than America. But, by and large, America is a pretty free place. There are a really large numbers of places that are very much less free, and some places that are infinitely less free. I have spent much of the last 40 years contemplating the meaning of "Freedom", and I think I have a very good idea what it means. The "Militias" and "The Freemen" talk about freedom too, but what they mean is hostile anarchy, and in that situation no one is free. Alexis Dolgorukii From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 06:26:00 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 23:26 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: sanctity At 05:05 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, > Ludwig's unkemptness qualifies him for adeptship. He had a genuine odor of >sanctity. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Actually Chuck: Ludwig apparently just had a genuine odour! But, you bring up an important point. There is no reason the believe he WASN'T an adept! It is my belief, and my expereince, that there is a group of Adepts whose purpose is music, and whose manifesting spirits are what the Hindus call Ghandarvas (I think that's correct) or Music Devas, I call then music angels! There are many differing fields of endeavours for adpetii, and music is one, as medicine is one, as art is one, as Government is one, etc. My definition of what qualifies a person as an adept is that their lives made an important catalytic effect on humanity. Beethoven was a seminal creator of music. He changed the way the Western World viewed music, he ended an era, and began a new one. That's quite enough, in my view, to qualify him as an adept. alexis, MTI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 06:34:00 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 23:34 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Insult? At 05:03 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, >I must have been mistaken. I thought that one of the purposes of TI was to >try to get along with the other theosophical groups, not insult them by >implication. The way the word "free" is being placed in the preamble it >implies very obviously that we see ourselves as superior to everyone else. > In spite of the fact that we obviously are, it is not going to dealing with >them easier. >Oh well, I Iike a bit of hostility now and then. It keeps the blood pressure >from dropping too low. And what's the point of doing something if no one >gets mad at you for doing it? > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: I have to say that the notion that our use of the word "Free" in Alan's statement of the goals and purposes of theosophy international would "insult" other groups, never even crossed my mind. If the idea that we are, in fact, "free" insults members of other groups, well, perhaps we are hitting close to the mark. Radha Burnier has made theAdyar Society anything BUT free and I don't believe anyone, as an individual or as a looseknit group of individuals needs to condone or excuse this by silence.Maybe I've made a mistake in my understanding, but I wasn't aware that the purpose of TI was to get along with the three other groups, I thought we were to provide an alternative avenue of action for those alienated by the three existing groups. alexis, MTI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 07:26:00 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 00:26 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Wagner At 09:47 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >Hi, Alexis, > >We agree on Beethoven ... and on Mozart. When it comes to Wagner, I know >you're right. One of my college courses was on Wagner, & I ended it with a >30pp paper on "Meistersinger", which I researched almost as carefully as >Wagner did. Did you know that he used some of the original Meister songs? I >enjoy Wagner, but the enjoyment is tarnished by the fact that he was the >Nazis' folk hero. I like Shostakovitch, but to me, he's not that >outstanding. I prefer Aron Copland. > >Liesel > > >Liesel: I love Copeland's music, and the fact that he was a Gay man makes him very special to me. But I think Shostakovitch is a far more universal composer. More so even than Prokovieff who I really like. Only in one work "L'Ange De Feu" did Prokovieff rise above Shostakovitch. Now, just because the Nazi's liked something doesn't really tarnish it. After all I know for a fact that Adolf Hitler's favourite composer was Franz Lehar! Did you know Hitler officially declared that Lehar was an Aryan. That's really funny, becuase you know as well as I do that Lehar was a Hungarian Jew! I did forget another truly transcendental composer who was actually a Nazi, and that is Richard Strauss. But Rosenkavalier is one of the most wondrous things ever composed, not to mention Ariadne auf Naxos and Elektra and Salome. Music I think comes from "outside" and the great composer is simply a vehicle for it'sproduction ergo they can be terrible people, and yet write incredibly transcendental music. Otherwise, how do we explain it? alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 07:33:00 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 00:33 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Wagner At 10:21 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: >> Hi, Alexis, >> We agree on Beethoven ... and on Mozart. When it comes to Wagner, I know >> you're right. One of my college courses was on Wagner, & I ended it with a >> 30pp paper on "Meistersinger", which I researched almost as carefully as >> Wagner did. Did you know that he used some of the original Meister songs? I >> enjoy Wagner, but the enjoyment is tarnished by the fact that he was the >> Nazis' folk hero. I like Shostakovitch, but to me, he's not that >> outstanding. I prefer Aron Copland. >> Liesel > >Liesel ... > Yes ... I love Wagner myself, but I think it was Dave Barry that >once said "I enjoy Wagner's music, but every time I hear it I get an >inexplicable urge to invade Poland". > (-:), -JRC > >Ah yes..the germans...the Russians...(my family had large estates in Poland)...the austrians...the Lithuanians....the Swedes.....and even the Hungarians (in Gregor Rokoczy's time)...and of course the Mongols and the Teutonic Knights...all felt the urge to invade Poland...EVERYBODY invades Poland..tha Nazis just capitalized on what appears to be a universal hobby! The fascinating thing about R.Wagner, is that despite the fact that he was a totally dispicable SOB, he was something of a left-wing political revolutionary, especially in his younger days! He was certainly a sexual revolutionary! alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 07:35:00 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 00:35 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: we don't At 12:22 AM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alan, >I think I answered you question in other posts, but in case they got lost in >the e-mail machine, the problem is not with the expression of freedom. > That's a good thing. What I question is the wisdom of the context in which >the word is placed. It really sounds like we are looking for a fight with >other theosophists, which, while great fun, is not exactly how we may want TI >as an organziation (gad! I hate that word) to be presented. >We don't want to come off as creating something purely for the purpose of >putting down our fellow theosophists, no matter how much they deserve it. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >why not? alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 07:44:00 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 00:44 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Newtie At 12:25 AM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, >If we had a Parliamentary system, Newt Gingrich would be running the country. > Now that may give me great pleasure and satisfaction, but I doubt you would >enjoy it. The parliamentary system makes for very efficient government, but >it does little to protect the minority from the excesses of whomever wins the >majority. That is why parliamentary systems tend to be very unstable in >times of crisis. In point of fact, a very good case can be made that it was >the weakness of a parliamentary system that allowed Hitler to take power. >With all due respect to our British friends on this list, I find it difficult >to regard as free a country with an Official Secrets Act and no judicial >review. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker Chuck: He might have been, but only for a little while, and he wouldn't be running it now! He'd have lost a "vote of confidence" long ago, and his own party would have "divided in the lobhy" and chucked him out! Now, the question is: do we want stability at any price or do we want liberty? The two things may not necessarily be complimentary! As to Hitler, he took power because 98%of the German people voted him into office in a totally honest election!The German's wanted Hitler, the German's loved Hitler...they only got unlovinmg when he lost! I know you've seen "The Triumph of The Will"...those Germans weren't cheering that way because they were afraid of Hitler! Now, we may not have an official secrets act, but we certainly have the equivalent! Or else why did we have "The Pentagon Papers" brouhaha? Do you know the threaats that folks with a security clearence like mine have to listen to when they leave the service? O.K. they don't have Judicial Review and we do. I've never known a Brit who seemed to feel deprived. alexis the anglophile, MYI, FTSA > > From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 10 17:31:46 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:31:46 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960410133145_466633458@mail04> Subject: Re: Whoa! Liesel, In the realm of physics and chemistry, what works for one has to work for all or the experiment is a failure. The idea that the experimenter influences the results of his experiment is limited only to those conditions created by the experiment. Or, to put it another way, all the observers of the moon have not changed its orbit one iota. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 10 17:31:50 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:31:50 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960410133149_466633533@emout04.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Beethoven Liesel, Of course he was an adept. That's why he had an odor of sanctity. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Apr 10 17:30:38 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:30:38 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604101834.OAA08179@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI membership list Chuck, Nobody's answering you, but I think you have a point there. We don't want to stand there "we're free & you aren't, nja, nja, njaaa!" Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canadam HR ........................................................................ >Alan, >I think I answered you question in other posts, but in case they got lost in >the e-mail machine, the problem is not with the expression of freedom. > That's a good thing. What I question is the wisdom of the context in which >the word is placed. It really sounds like we are looking for a fight with >other theosophists, which, while great fun, is not exactly how we may want TI >as an organziation (gad! I hate that word) to be presented. >We don't want to come off as creating something purely for the purpose of >putting down our fellow theosophists, no matter how much they deserve it. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Apr 10 17:40:54 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:40:54 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604101845.OAA13286@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Wagner Boy, Alexis, You know all the details about everybody's sex life. I knew Leonard Bernstein was gay, or bisexual, he had a wife, but I didn't know it about Aaron Copland. What kind of revolutionary sex life did Wagner have? I wouldn't put it past him to have done it standing on his head. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR ............................................................................ >At 10:21 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >>On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: >>> Hi, Alexis, >>> We agree on Beethoven ... and on Mozart. When it comes to Wagner, I know >>> you're right. One of my college courses was on Wagner, & I ended it with a >>> 30pp paper on "Meistersinger", which I researched almost as carefully as >>> Wagner did. Did you know that he used some of the original Meister songs? I >>> enjoy Wagner, but the enjoyment is tarnished by the fact that he was the >>> Nazis' folk hero. I like Shostakovitch, but to me, he's not that >>> outstanding. I prefer Aron Copland. >>> Liesel >> >>Liesel ... >> Yes ... I love Wagner myself, but I think it was Dave Barry that >>once said "I enjoy Wagner's music, but every time I hear it I get an >>inexplicable urge to invade Poland". >> (-:), -JRC >> >>Ah yes..the germans...the Russians...(my family had large estates in >Poland)...the austrians...the Lithuanians....the Swedes.....and even the >Hungarians (in Gregor Rokoczy's time)...and of course the Mongols and the >Teutonic Knights...all felt the urge to invade Poland...EVERYBODY invades >Poland..tha Nazis just capitalized on what appears to be a universal hobby! >The fascinating thing about R.Wagner, is that despite the fact that he was a >totally dispicable SOB, he was something of a left-wing political >revolutionary, especially in his younger days! He was certainly a sexual >revolutionary! > >alexis > > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Apr 10 17:53:01 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:53:01 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604101857.OAA18431@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI membership list Dear John, No, not confused. I see now that you're talking freedom from an entirely different angle. You're talking about the one that one acquires over lifetimes, by comprehending & loosening the karma fetters which bind, the ones acquired from one's family, one's body & make up,,& one's society. One comes closer to that kind of freeedom when one learns to operate on the astral plane with out a physical body, & one becomes freer still, when one attains devachan, & I guess the final freedom is nirvana. Is that what you were talking about? I guess political freedom is included in that package, but your concept is much wider. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR .............................................................................. >Liesel wrote: > >>Dear John Vorstermans, > >John is fine.... > >>I don't know how much of an illusion you think it is, if I live in a country >>where, if I open my mouth to voice an opinion which doesn't conform with the >>Party Line, they'll right away give me a ride to the nearest concentration >>camp, or to a Gulag, have your pick. > >We are obviously on two totally different wave lengths here. I made my point >regarding "Freedom" as a composite spiritual being. These physical aspects of >ourselves are merely a tool for experience and understanding, which will >hopefully eventually lead to wisdom and enlightenment or samadi. > >Certainly the experience of a soul born as a Jew in Nazi Germany is going to >be differenent from a soul born in todays very materialistic USA. Yes there >is "apparent" freedom in the USA. However I believe this experience of what >you call freedom is not really true freedom at all. > >Certainly from a physical aspect there seems to be more freedom for the USA >citizen as far as speech or movement is concerned but this has more to do with >the souls dharma and karma than it has to do with freedom. If you look deep >enough at the individuals or probably even better, yourself, you will find >that you actually have very little freedom. You will find many constraints >around you, most probably generated by your own beliefs and values and your >own past experiences. There will be others dictated by the society you live in. > >True freedom is not something that is easy to express in words. That is why >I suggested contemplating on the concept for a while and see what comes up. >I am not saying I am right but this is my opinion as I currently understand it. >I also live in what you might call a relativly free country, New Zealand but I >honestly do not believe I am any more free than the Jew in Germany to go through >the experiences that I as a spirituall being have decided it is necessary to >go through. Sure I can run from experiences that look cruel or harsh but >eventually they tend to come back for me to face. > >It is too easy to generalise and think we know what is right and wrong >when often we can only see the physical or emotional impact of an >experience. The experience is often much more than we will ever >understand. The challenge is to try and understand it from all it's >aspects. > >Confused? > > >John > >-- >John Vorstermans >PO Box 11-410 >Wellington >Mobile (025) 432-987 > > > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Apr 10 17:55:31 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:55:31 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604101859.OAA18526@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Whoa! Chuck, I'm not sure you're right about all the observers not having changed to orbit of the moon. They for sure don't all see it one just like the other, being human people. LFD >Liesel, >In the realm of physics and chemistry, what works for one has to work for all >or the experiment is a failure. The idea that the experimenter influences >the results of his experiment is limited only to those conditions created by >the experiment. >Or, to put it another way, all the observers of the moon have not changed its >orbit one iota. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > > From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 10 21:43:10 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:43:10 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960410174309_466841964@mail04> Subject: Re: sanctity Alex, You and I have an obvious disagreement on this. I"m probably just a bit old fashioned but I always thought an adept was one who had advanced in certain mystical areas. Now as regards music, there is no question Beethoven was an adept and he did make a lasting impact on humanity. But could he make a teacup appear underground? And why would he (or anyone else) want to? There you go, taking me seriously again. :-) Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 10 21:44:16 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:44:16 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960410174413_466842787@emout06.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Insult? Alex, There is a small but important difference is saying that your purpose is to try to get along with other groups and actually doing it without saying it. If we want to promote TI as an active alternative to the arrogance and affrontery that is found in the other organizations, I am all for it. But if we start by giving the impression in our preamble that we are in it for the brawl, then we may very well turn off the very people we want to attract. I don't see how that can benefit TI or anyone else. It works like this. The ordinary theosophist on a jackass sees the word FREE and immediately thinks "Hell, I'm already free, what do I need with them?" Then another little part of his brain starts saying, "How dare they say I'm not free?" Before you know it he is no longer thinking but saying "Those TI nuts think that they have the only true Theosophy and I don't want any part of them!" This is not what we want. Never underestimate the capacity of people to feel insulted. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 10 21:44:31 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:44:31 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960410174430_466843078@mail06> Subject: Re: Wagner Alex, It's actually quite easy to explain. Very often genius manifests itself in extremes, a person may be an absolutly brilliant artist and a child molester (Gauguin), or a great composer and a nut (Wagner). When there is that much energy pent up in the soul it rushes to find an outlet and often, driven by that force, the genius does not see where it is taking him. The only exception to this seem to be physicists and most mathematicians, possibly because their work is so all-absorbing that it leaves no time for anything else. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 10 21:44:36 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:44:36 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960410174434_466843125@emout04.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: hostile? Alan, Not always. Sometimes people get very mad at me (I have a file drawer of nothing but death threats) but an occasional pat on the back is welcome. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 10 21:44:42 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:44:42 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960410174442_466843194@mail02.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Newtie Alex, Don't be sure about the vote of no confidence. Look at the popularity figures of the European prime ministers. And the Pentagon Papers case is exactly what I'm talking about. They got published no matter what the government wanted (it lost the case, remember?) As far as Brits feeling oppressed, see Alan's post to you and I can add one word "Spanner." Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From john@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz Wed Apr 10 22:18:56 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:18:56 +1200 From: john@actrix.gen.nz (John Vorstermans) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: more on freedom alexis dolgorukii wrote: >>But John, those were the two countries Liesel Deutsch was referring to when >she said she felt free in America, Your reply, as I recall was that if she >thought about it she'd see there wasn't much difference between the two. I said no such thing. I simply stated that freedom was a term that has hiden meanings and suggested that one loks closly at the concept from an inner point of view. Yes, these is a difference in cultures and under different political systems but this is not what I was talking about. > So >then I didn't bring my comparison up from out in left field. Sure America is >far from perfect, I spend a great deal of time and energy raising hell about >that distance. Sure there are countries in the world that are more >Democratic than America, although I do not confuse Democracy and Freedom. >But there are places that, in fact, are more free than America. But, by and >large, America is a pretty free place. There are a really large numbers of >places that are very much less free, and some places that are infinitely >less free. I have spent much of the last 40 years contemplating the meaning >of "Freedom", and I think I have a very good idea what it means. The >"Militias" and "The Freemen" talk about freedom too, but what they mean is >hostile anarchy, and in that situation no one is free. You no doubt have a good idea of freedom from a humanistic point of view as you explain above but I am approaching the subject from a different point of view which I am trying to point out. Perhaps I should say "freedom" IMHO from a physical point of view is an illusion for most people today. Until we reach enlightenment there is no such thing and one we have reached it we might laugh at the concept. John -- John Vorstermans PO Box 11-410 Wellington Mobile (025) 432-987 From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Apr 10 22:51:02 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:51:02 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: TI membership list In-Reply-To: <199604101834.OAA08179@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604101834.OAA08179@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. deutsch" writes >Chuck, > >Nobody's answering you, but I think you have a point there. We don't want to >stand there "we're free & you aren't, nja, nja, njaaa!" > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canadam HR >........................................................................ I have answered Chuck ... and we're not saying that. The importance of the "free" part of the statement is as much a declaration of ethos, of setting a standard for the future. We *are* free and we want to *stay* free. Nowhere in the TI statement do we denigrate *any* other theosophical setups - on the contrary, we hope to be of service *in amity* with them. If they seek to denigrate us, or deprive their members of any freedoms, the problems arising, if any, are theirs, not ours. I hope that TI is something that will be looking forward, not backwards. Let us learn from the mistakes of the past without parading them triumphantly as our raison d'etre. Our raison d'etre is to promote the three objects in the best way we know how - and to seek and find even better ways by working together freely and honestly. Yep. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 10 05:03:07 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 01:03:07 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960410010306_268160223@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The Messenger, Bland article Short conversation upon reading Betty Bland's article in the last Messenger. GERDA: It's a pity she decided to come back. CHUCK: Stop that! GERDA (laughing) But if wants to be Christian, wouldn't she be happier in Heaven? CHUCK: No, they won't let her do Sufi Dancing. That's why she came back! Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 10 05:04:20 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 01:04:20 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960410010418_268161009@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: random thoughts of a barbarian's chum Alan is thinking again! Run for your lives! :-) Chuck the Barbarian MTI,FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 05:47:00 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 22:47 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: At 08:36 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >The quote below is from the Master K.H. See Mahatma Letters, letter 10 in >the first 3 editions. > > > > >>Work out every cause of evil you can think of trace it to its origin and you >>will have solved one-third of the problems of evil. >> >>The other two-thirds are caused by religion. >>Ignorance created Gods and cunning took advantage of the opportunity. >> >>It is belief in God and Gods that makes two-thirds of humanity the slaves of >>a handful of those who deceive them under the false pretence of saving them. >> >> > >Daniel: Many thanks, I've saved this, and will print it and put it up on the wall in my office. It is exactly what I have been saying, almost word for word, for the last 20 years! One of the major elements in my book "Here We All Are.....SO?" Is the elaboration of that theme. Perhaps now I won't be seen as so terribly "out in left field" in my view of religion and the religious. Perhaps now I understand better why His Highness Karan Singh, Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir, whom some of us believe to be K.H.'s Grandson, sought me out. Alexis Dolgorukii From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 05:57:00 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 22:57 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: www At 07:45 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >>>>large cut<<<<<< >>Web: http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >--------- Rudy: That is a really wonderful thing you've done. The creation of a home page on the world wide web is just what Theosophy International needed. And it's also a perfect example of what TI is all about, a member saw a need and filled it. Thank you very much and congratulations on your initiative. I think this is what young people and unstuffy old ones really want and need, a place where one doesn't have to KowTow to some stuffy administration that "knows it all". I have to admit I'm curious though: "GARLIC. COM"?????? You don't live in Gilroy California (The Garlic Capital of the World) or do you? My computer Guru just installed "Netsacpe Gold" and tomorrow night he's going to show me how to use it. (He's asleep now) The first place I go will be the TI web site! alexis Dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 06:35:00 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 23:35 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Pio Nino At 04:57 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, >True, true, true. And I have always failed to understand why anyone who is >not a Buddhist would give a damn what Nimareankeanaya Buddha is or was or >could be anyway. >One wonders how long it will be before Radha realizes that she is becoming >the TS equivalent of Pio Nino. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: You mean you didn't think it WAS her ambition to "become Pio Nino"? alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 06:58:00 1996 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 23:58 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:more At 08:50 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis: >> Most humans are afraid of developing >>awareness of the levels of the relative realities beyond the >>physical/emotional because they are afraid of what they will learn about the >>nature of the human condition by way of that awareness. > I think you hit the nail on the head. > >> My only >>real complaint in regard to your position is that I have a strong suspicion >>that you are over simplifying something that really isn't at all simple. > Of course I am. And, no, it isn't. BUt what I am trying to do, is >show some theosophists that it can be put into relatively simple words, and >really doesn't need the vast array of confusing and misleading terminology >that theosophy now uses. That, my friend, is exactly what I've been saying and drawing some contumely for. > >>Jerry: here's one spot where I disagree, but not only with you. I just >>cannot accept the notion of "seven planes of existence" I see the relative >>realities as composed of infinite numners of levels of reality. Does that >>mean I disagree with HPB? Yep! I think the so-called "seven cosmic planes" >>are a tremendous over-simplification of abstract reality. > I doubt that HPB would disagree with you. Her 7 planes is only >a model--one of many models that human beings create from time to >time to try to structure the magical universe. Its as good as any. The fact >is, within those 7 planes, there are, as you say, an infinite number of >possible experiences (just like there are millions of separate and >distinct experiences going on here on Earth right now). O.K. Jerry, I understand it's "only a model" or "su]ymbol", and it's clear that you do too. But, what about all the old "shell backs" who think the universal reality is some kind of onion? I know HPB wouldn't disagree with me, but HPB isn't the problem. CWL, Besant, Jinarajadasa. and Arundale et al, are the problem. If any of those people had made it clear theywere speaking symbolically or creating models of reality to make the comprehension of abstractions more attainable, we'd not be in such a pickle. > >> Of course the body doesn't go >>anywhere, but as to the "spirit". perhaps it can, perhaps, on occasion, it >>does. > Well, I don't know about "spirit" but consciousness sure >seems to move around, or as I like to say, shift its focus. I agree >with Richard that Theosophy needs to concentrate on a psychological >perspective, or psychogenesis, if it is to survive. Thats why I prefer >to talk about sensitivity and shifting conscious focus, rather than >going to other planes or globes. O.K. Let's agree on this: you say consciousness and I say spirit, but in my book I constantly interidentify the two phenomena. Spirit is disembodied consciousness and awareness. That's all I believe it to be, that's all I have experienced it to be. But I have worked with Roberto Assagioli and I know that his Jungian approach is a long way from my ideas about psychogenesis. I also aprehend there is a great danger in using a so-called "psychological" approach to theosophy as it tends to either avoid or euphemise reality into psychological states of physical human consciousness, and they, as I see it, are the least important aspects of consciousness. > >>Well, I don't know Jerry. Any dicipline that regularly leads to abuse can be >>said to have an "in-built" flaw. What is there, intrinsic to Yoga and >>"magic" that so regularly produces spiritual onanism? > I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree on this one. >I see yoga and magic as techniques or devices that we human beings >can use as a means to an end. If someone smokes at night and >burns down their house, I would not blame fire. The fact that only a >few use magic and yoga successfully is a demonstration of human >beings at the present time, and not the fault of the devices used. I >probably risk saying this to you, but I see Shamanism as another >device or technique, and it too is only successful for the few. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > It is clear that you too acknolwedge that Yoga and "Magic" are regularly abused. In fact, in my over thirty years of experience I have seen them more frequently abused than utilized correctly. And no, the techniques themselves, are clearly not to "blame". But the point that I was attempting to make is that any technigue which is more easil misused than used correctly, perhaps is in need of replacement with something more "foolproof"nd I use the word advisedly. From your point of view I suppose that Shamanism, that is "Echte Shamanism der ding an sich", is a "technique", though I question the meaning of "device". And, in fact, it may be true in some or many cases. But, in the case of the fully successful Shaman, it is not so, it is then a "state-of-beingness". I am sure that you will disagree and that I will draw some ire on my head from other directions, but the fully developed senior shaman/shamanka is post-human. As you know I regard the dfully developed Shaman as a synonym for the Tibetan Tulku, and they too are "post-human". HPB was a Tulku, she was also a Shaman. With her ancestry she came by it very naturally. The history of pre-christian Russia is the history of Shamanism. alexis, MTI, FTSA > From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 07:08:00 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 00:08 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Oh No! At 09:34 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis: >>Actually I think the progression goes as follows: The young say "what?", and >>then when told what. say "So What?" and off they go! What they're actually >>saying is: "What relevance does that nonsense have in my life, how does it >>help me?" > > It has no relevance at all, for anyone, until they are ready for it. >Like HPB says in the intro to the Voice, it is only for the few. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > >Jerry: I can't begin to tell you how much I hate that "only for the few stuff". If Blavatsky really believed that, then she was dead wrong! If humanity is to survie into the new century they really need this stuff. Pretending it cannot be explained to many people, is, I think, a total ego trip. The young need the information theosophy represents in order to make decisions about life and their place in it. There is absolutely nothing that has harmed the theosophical movement more than the concept that"they'll come when they're ready" or that "quality is preferable to quantity". Well my firend, I joined the TS originally well over 20 years ago, and in all that time I haven't been exposed to all that much "quality". In fact the highest quality I've encountered is here on Theos-L. alexis From Richtay@aol.com Wed Apr 10 07:15:00 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 03:15:00 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960410031500_188192367@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Giggling at the Morally Upright Jerry S. wrote, "But when people go to the extreme of worrying about being "morally upright" (which is equivalent to holier than thou) then I can only feel sorry for them." Um -- I don't get it. The words "morally upright" mean no more to me than simply "try to be good, altruistic people." There is no air of superiority, no necessary comparison with anyone, only an impersonal standard of kindness, generosity, lessening of ego, etc. And I agree with Greg that ethics and morality is EXACTLY what Theosophy is founded on. Even the most cursory look at *The Voice of the Silence* can assure us of that. Furthermore, the training of the chela was not different in kind from the ordinary training the T.S. members were invited to pursue -- it was merely different in degree. Look at HPB's articles on Chelaship, Occultism Versus the Occult Arts, etc. and see how very strict the rules were about morality, sexuality, truthfulness, diet, conduct., etc. etc. The chelas were expected to be the most moral of all, in spite of having stirred up tremendous karmic forces within themselves that speedily brought down heaps of their own "junk" from past lives. Chelas have the toughest row to hoe of all, in that they are held to HIGHER standards while feeling and suffering more intensely than anyone else -- usually in complete absence of CONSCIOUS contact from the guru until probation is passed. That at least is what I read from HPB's published material. From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 07:17:00 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 00:17 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB? At 09:36 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >Greg: >>One thing I did not understand at all. Jerry S. writes: >>>Personally I find that idea of a >>>group of students who bend over backwards to be morally upright as >>>entirely opposed to the spirit of occultism. HPB would probably giggle. >> >>This runs exactly counter to what HPB taught repeatedly, and I ask if you >>could clarify the basis for your comment and especially explain why you think >>she would giggle. >> >>Greg Hoskins > > First of all, Greg, let me tell you that HPB never established >an occult school nor did she serve as guru to occult students. She >founded and fostered Theosophy and the Theosophical Society, which >is *not* an occult school. Her insistence on ethics and morals was >directed to her TS students to keep them out of trouble. Her teachings >on Chelaship reflect the one-on-one type of training found in India, and >is not reflective of Western schools. Western occult students, depending >on their experience and understanding, would either be >heedless of such warning or would no longer need it. I, for one, >practice ethics because it makes common sense to do so (i.e., I >believe in karma), and because I feel it is the right thing to do. But I >don't "bend over backwards to be morally upright." Why? Because it >always inflates the ego, which is exactly the opposite result that >true occultism desires to affect. I did this in my youth when I was a >good Christian. I feel, rightly or wrongly, that I have progressed from >those days. > I have nothing at all against ethics and morals or in learning >and practicing them. But when people go to the extreme of worrying >about being "morally upright" (which is equivalent to holier than thou) >then I can only feel sorry for them. Chuck said it well when he said >in a recent posting that such people are "buffoons" and I dare say >that that is how HPB would have seen them too. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > >Oh here I agree with you whole heartedly Jerry my friend. If there is one thing that HPB WASN'T it's morally up-tight. The hyper-puritannical ideology of the Esoteric Sections whould hardly have caused her to "giggle" it would have enraged her. That nonsense is entirely the product of the coterie I call the "Second Generation of theosophical Leaders" The folks that gave us the Krishnamurti debacle. I personally practice, and teach ethics, because I believe it's the only way to "grease the skids" of society, I have never been any knd of Christian, and I really don't believe in Karma as theosophy teaches it. I do what's right, because it's right, and for no other reason. Theere is an immense difference between being ethical and fullof probity and in being "up-tight", the ES is up-tight! The Puritans were "up-tight". It is my belief that "uyp-tighht" people make no evolutionary advances in consciousness, in expansion of awarenesses, or in understanding. The morally up-tight also do a lot of harm in the world. alexis, MTI, FTSA From Richtay@aol.com Wed Apr 10 07:35:10 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 03:35:10 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960410033509_466390081@mail02.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Pio Nino Chuck wrote, why anyone who is >not a Buddhist would give a damn what Nimareankeanaya Buddha is or was or >could be anyway. Is that word supposed to be "Nirmanakaya"? From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Wed Apr 10 08:59:52 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:59:52 +1200 From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Message-Id: <199604100859.UAA09332@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: wow! >In message <199604092151.JAA16756@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz>, Bee Brown > writes >>My understanding of >>devachan, monads, life-atoms, manvantaras etc have helped a great deal with >>how I deal with each new situation that arises. It has to be ingrained so to >>be genuine reactions when I am phoned in the dead of night, fast asleep, to >>deal with a distraught person. My world view has grown large enough to see >>that in the end, it is maya but not for the people I deal with. I can >>discuss death with them in a reasonable manner because of my understanding >>of reincarnation, karma etc. I do not discuss theosophical concepts with >>these people but what I do discuss is coloured by my involvement with >>theosophy. > >Of course - is that not part of the wonder of theosophical study? But >you would not get very far if you used the terminology to the distraught >person who would not understand it. Maybe, after being helped by you, >they might later, because of what they have found in your helping them, >ask more detailed questions by means of which they may begin to study >themselves. I doubt if this often happens, but my guess is that it >could, and maybe sometimes does - I know it has in my own work over the >years. Not everyone will take is as far as you or I - but maybe they >are not so dumb as me, and get the hang of it faster! > >You are doing a great job - two, by the look if it :-) > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > I hope so :-) I use the terminology for my own purposes to help the thinking process not to talk about to others. It is like when I was a first year anthropology student and some of us were sitting in the coffee shop with some 3rd year students who were busy discussion anthropology in a language that we did not understand and we asked them to explain it to us in plain English. They explained to us that there is special terminology in anthro and other disciplines that have whole concepts embedded in them and once we had learned them then it was like a sort of shorthand of anthropology where a few words were used to express a greater anthropological view. As we progressed in our studies, we found this to be so and to a smaller extent we could also sound learned to new students if we chose to. I look at the theosophical terminology in the same way and there is no point in talking about manvantaras and such things to anyone not acquainted with the concepts embedded in them. I find them convenient tools to think with and to convert what I can understand into daily life. If the views I have seen expressed here about the theosopical terminology is anything to go by, I guess I must be an old fuddy duddy who is getting covered in theosophical dust by now. I have been theosophical for 5 years now but that is no guarantee that I will remain so in future days. What ever happens I will be thankful for the leg up the path that Theosophy has given me, dust and all. So I was only attempting to illustrate that Theosophy from the founders was useful to me but I suppose they are not everybodies cup of tea. The paint brush behaved quite nicely and the net curtains are up so roll on Friday and the library will be open for business. Buye for now. Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From rdon@garlic.com Wed Apr 10 13:22:38 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 06:22:38 -0700 From: rdon@garlic.com (Rodolfo Don) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: www >At 07:45 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >>>>>large cut<<<<<< >>>Web: http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html >> >>--------- > >Rudy: > >That is a really wonderful thing you've done. The creation of a home page on >the world wide web is just what Theosophy International needed. And it's >also a perfect example of what TI is all about, a member saw a need and >filled it. Thank you very much and congratulations on your initiative. I >think this is what young people and unstuffy old ones really want and need, >a place where one doesn't have to KowTow to some stuffy administration that >"knows it all". Thanks, I hope we all contribute to it, and keep the site alive, just like theos-l. > >I have to admit I'm curious though: "GARLIC. COM"?????? You don't live in >Gilroy California (The Garlic Capital of the World) or do you? My computer >Guru just installed "Netsacpe Gold" and tomorrow night he's going to show me >how to use it. (He's asleep now) The first place I go will be the TI web site! You're right. I live in Gilroy. I guess that makes us almost next door neighbors. I was thinking that maybe after next week, that I will be in Idaho and Oregon, Gene and I could go to San Francisco and meet you and John. What do you think? > >alexis Dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA Rudy THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL Web: http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Wed Apr 10 14:25:56 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 10:25:56 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604101425.KAA22278@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Attitudes about K. In response to the two replies to my post about Krishnamurti and the Esoteric Section: Attitudes are habitual mental patterns, ways of interpreting experience, "points of view." They evoke emotions, which are psycho-physiological reactions to events *as interpreted* by the perceiver. The attitude I bring to the question of Krishnamurti's relationship to Radha Burnier and Theosophical history in general is clearly not that of the two persons who responded to my comments. It is based on wide familiarity with the history of the Theosophical movement, which has been characterized by secrecy, exclusivism, evasion of unpleasant truths, and fantasy about Masters and initiations. What now appears to be going on in the Esoteric Section is that Krishnamurti is becoming the object of the same adulation that he denounced during his life. My attitude therefore is to question why this is happening and to consider alternative explanations, one of which is that Krishnamurti himself sanctioned Radha Burnier's course of action-- which had been developing for six years before his death. Moreover, based on familiarity with Theosophical history, I tend to have a cynical attitude about the extent to which people deceive themselves and others about their true motivations. What attitudes are revealed in the two comments? "I don't know why such a big fuss is being raised over some masters living in the himalayas." Translation: not only do I not share your interest in this topic, I deplore it as inappropriate. So the attitude is one of dismissal. "It is quite malicious to say that K sought a special position for himself." Translation: anyone whose expressed opinion about my hero differs from mine has motivations that are evil and harmful. The attitude is thus not merely of dismissal but accusation and moral blame. Radha Sloss is "no more than a fiction writer...[who} seeks sensationalism, very similar to what is shown on popular TV." Translation: I condemn, look down on, and resist granting any plausibility to the portrayal of Krishnamurti found in this book. The attitude seems to be one of blaming the messenger. Comment #2: "The issue is not about K at all, but about us...our own pettiness, our own inability to look at ourselves." Translation: I don't have to pay the slightest attention to any critical scholarship, any information about Krishnamurti that might shake up my worldview-- it's all totally irrelevant. "It is a game that we play with spirituality." Translation: any effort to figure out the historical truth behind the inflated images of spiritual leaders is blameworthy and can be ignored. Again, an attitude of blaming the messenger. The quote from Krishnamurti is absolutely irreproachable. It does not however mean that there is no valid function for critical historians. In short, Doss, there is no reasonable hope of dialogue with people who, instead of engaging a question on the basis of evidence and mutual respect, denigrate the motivations and basic approach of the person who raises the question in the first place. Since I didn't really "raise" the question, however, so much as volunteer a possible alternative to someone else's hypothesis (that Radha had double-crossed K) it does not seem profitable to pursue the matter further. The effect, if not the intent, of your friends on listening-l, is to squelch any interest in discussion. From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Apr 10 15:32:42 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:32:42 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Attitudes about K. In-Reply-To: <199604101425.KAA22278@leo.vsla.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Paul: Glad to see your response. I would like to mention that from what I have seen on listening-l, there is wide ranging very open unrestricted views are expressed there. Again as I had earlier mentioned, as for factual matters, there are a number of people on that list who know or have access to much of the material relating to K and his works. Secondly, as for Sloss' Book, I look up on it with a very large grain of salt. If she had published the book while K was alive, it would have provided an opportunity for getting a feedback from K. She waited until K died and then published the book and she is not a young person. She is in her sixties and she was fully grown adult to have written and published the book when K was alive if she wanted to. .....doss ----------------------------------------------- On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, K. Paul Johnson wrote: > Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 09:36:36 -0500 > From: K. Paul Johnson > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Attitudes about K. > > In response to the two replies to my post about Krishnamurti > and the Esoteric Section: > > Attitudes are habitual mental patterns, ways of interpreting > experience, "points of view." They evoke emotions, which are > psycho-physiological reactions to events *as interpreted* by > the perceiver. > > The attitude I bring to the question of Krishnamurti's > relationship to Radha Burnier and Theosophical history in > general is clearly not that of the two persons who responded to > my comments. It is based on wide familiarity with the history > of the Theosophical movement, which has been characterized by > secrecy, exclusivism, evasion of unpleasant truths, and fantasy > about Masters and initiations. What now appears to be going on > in the Esoteric Section is that Krishnamurti is becoming the > object of the same adulation that he denounced during his > life. My attitude therefore is to question why this is > happening and to consider alternative explanations, one of > which is that Krishnamurti himself sanctioned Radha Burnier's > course of action-- which had been developing for six years > before his death. Moreover, based on familiarity with > Theosophical history, I tend to have a cynical attitude about > the extent to which people deceive themselves and others about > their true motivations. > > What attitudes are revealed in the two comments? "I don't know > why such a big fuss is being raised over some masters living in > the himalayas." Translation: not only do I not share your > interest in this topic, I deplore it as inappropriate. So the > attitude is one of dismissal. "It is quite malicious to say > that K sought a special position for himself." Translation: > anyone whose expressed opinion about my hero differs from mine has > motivations that are evil and harmful. The > attitude is thus not merely of dismissal but accusation and > moral blame. Radha Sloss is "no more than a fiction > writer...[who} seeks sensationalism, very similar to what is > shown on popular TV." Translation: I condemn, look down on, and > resist granting any plausibility to the portrayal of > Krishnamurti found in this book. The attitude seems to be one > of blaming the messenger. > > Comment #2: > > "The issue is not about K at all, but about us...our own > pettiness, our own inability to look at ourselves." > Translation: I don't have to pay the slightest attention to any > critical scholarship, any information about Krishnamurti that > might shake up my worldview-- it's all totally irrelevant. "It > is a game that we play with spirituality." Translation: any > effort to figure out the historical truth behind the inflated > images of spiritual leaders is blameworthy and can be ignored. > Again, an attitude of blaming the messenger. The quote from > Krishnamurti is absolutely irreproachable. It does not however > mean that there is no valid function for critical historians. > > In short, Doss, there is no reasonable hope of dialogue with > people who, instead of engaging a question on the basis of > evidence and mutual respect, denigrate the motivations and > basic approach of the person who raises the question in the > first place. > > Since I didn't really "raise" the question, however, so much as > volunteer a possible alternative to someone else's hypothesis > (that Radha had double-crossed K) it does not seem profitable > to pursue the matter further. The effect, if not the intent, > of your friends on listening-l, is to squelch any interest in > discussion. > From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Apr 10 15:54:18 1996 Date: 10 Apr 96 11:54:18 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: re: bodies vs principles (yet again!) Message-Id: <960410155417_76400.1474_HHL93-1@CompuServe.COM> Jerry H-E: I have read your recent post, and I have heard you say that CWL is in conflict with HPB either deliberately or in ignorance several times in the past. I agree that there seem to be at least some conflicts, but not as many as you suggest. As I understand it, the CWL model talks about bodies and planes, which basically are made of the same "stuff" which is to say, out of the tattvas or cosmic elements. HPB, on the other hand talks about planes and principles, and only mentions bodies once that I know of, where she specifically mentions three subtle bodies. Other than semantical word-smiths, where is there any conflict? I find myself agreeing with both CWL and HPB here, and have never been able to grasp what you are talking about. I have always viewed "bodies" as objective vehicles of consciousness, and "principles" as subjective states of consciousness. So, I tend to see them as going together rather than conflicting. > Actually my criticism concerns CWL's enumeration of the >solar planes as described in ~Man Visible and Invisible,~ and >his confounding them with the "seven bodies of man," which is >further confounded with HPB's "seven principles of man." Here is exactly my problem--I just don't see the "confounding" that you seem to see. To me CWL says that we have a physical body on the physical plane, an astral body on the astral plane, and so on. I don't see this as confounding anything. Nor does it conflict with HPB in any way that I have ever found. > HPB, on the other hand, does not confound the solar >planes and the principles, because the principles in her system >do not occupy any but the lowest solar plane. Here I disagree with your interpretation. I believe that she teaches that the seven cosmic planes each have seven principles, that the seven principles of the physical plane (the lowest) are a reflection of "wheels-within-wheels" wherein the seven cosmic principles are each expressed on each cosmic plane. Just like each plane has seven suplanes, so each has seven principles. You seem to be implying that there are no principles expressed on any of the other cosmic planes. Am I missing something? Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Apr 10 17:05:47 1996 Date: 10 Apr 96 13:05:47 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re:more Message-Id: <960410170547_76400.1474_HHL60-1@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: > I know HPB wouldn't disagree with >me, but HPB isn't the problem. CWL, Besant, Jinarajadasa. and Arundale et >al, are the problem. If any of those people had made it clear theywere >speaking symbolically or creating models of reality to make the >comprehension of abstractions more attainable, we'd not be in such a pickle. Well, I can't disagree with you on this one. I would include Judge and G de P on your list as well. As a matter of fact, the first writer that I came across to use the term "model" for descriptions of the universe was in a book by Robert Anton Wilson. Only very recently do we see theosophists acknowledging this. >. I also aprehend there is a great danger in using a so-called >"psychological" approach to theosophy as it tends to either avoid or >euphemise reality into psychological states of physical human consciousness, >and they, as I see it, are the least important aspects of consciousness. Agreed. But psychogenesis will not replace cosmogenesis or homogenesis but rather supplement them. This should help avoid this pitfall. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Apr 10 17:05:57 1996 Date: 10 Apr 96 13:05:57 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Giggling at the Morally Upright Message-Id: <960410170556_76400.1474_HHL60-3@CompuServe.COM> Richtay: >Um -- I don't get it. The words "morally upright" mean no more to me than >simply "try to be good, altruistic people." There is no air of superiority, >no necessary comparison with anyone, only an impersonal standard of kindness, >generosity, lessening of ego, etc. It is, after all, a matter of interpretation. My interpretation of the way in which the term was being used is as I have said. The exact phrase used was: "bend over backwards to be morally upright." This is not simply trying to be a good person. Bending over backward implies trying too much. One who is, in fact, a good person, needn't have to bend over backward. A person who has "only an impersonal standard of kindness, generosity, lessening of ego, etc." will not need to bend over backward--goodness should come naturally and spontaneously. >And I agree with Greg that ethics and morality is EXACTLY what Theosophy is >founded on. Even the most cursory look at *The Voice of the Silence* can >assure us of that. You seem to have entirely missed my point. I said that ethics and morality is what Theosophy (large T) is founded on. I have no quarrel with your statement here. But, I said before and will say again, Theosophy is *not* an occult school. I was speaking of occult schools, and especially about Western occult schools, of which most theosophists know next to nothing (which is ok). >Furthermore, the training of the chela was not different in kind from the >ordinary training the T.S. members were invited to pursue -- it was merely >different in degree. Look at HPB's articles on Chelaship, Occultism Versus >the Occult Arts, etc. and see how very strict the rules were about morality, >sexuality, truthfulness, diet, conduct., etc. etc. The chelas were expected >to be the most moral of all, in spite of having stirred up tremendous karmic >forces within themselves that speedily brought down heaps of their own "junk" >from past lives. HPB gave us one of the classic Hindu occult training schemes in which morality and ethics play a large part, yes. That is fine, and should carry over to Theosophy, which was certainly HPB's intent. But not all occult schools, even in the East, are this way (I don't believe that any in the West are). Believe it or not, some actually use sex as part of their training (horrors!). Tantra, for example, uses the 5 Ms (all of the things that traditional Brahmans find repulsive) for the very purpose of breaking down this kind of rigid moralistic thinking. And to dismiss Tantricism as "left-handed" simply begs the issue. Even H.H. The Dali Lama has great respect for Buddhist Tantricism which uses sex--the karmamudra or action seal-- in its training programs. Don't forget that I originally said "Personally I find that idea of a group of students who bend over backwards to be morally upright as entirely opposed to the spirit of occultism." I did not say that it was against the spirit of Theosophy. It is, I think, against the spirit of most occult schools, the few exceptions being those that HPB alluded to. >Chelas have the toughest row to hoe of all, in that they >are held to HIGHER standards while feeling and suffering more intensely than >anyone else -- usually in complete absence of CONSCIOUS contact from the guru >until probation is passed. There are Chelas, and there are Chelas. You are talking about HPB's description. If you think that it gets easier after attaining Adepthood, then you just may be in for a real surprise. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Apr 10 17:05:48 1996 Date: 10 Apr 96 13:05:48 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Oh No! Message-Id: <960410170548_76400.1474_HHL60-2@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: > Pretending it >cannot be explained to many people, is, I think, a total ego trip. Whoa! I never said it couldn't be explained. It can, and it is, and will continue to be. But after hearing the message, most folks leave the TS and go elsewhere. Most folks want instant enlightenment. Publishers know this. My own publisher, for example, puts things on the covers of my books that say "easy" and "anyone can do it" and "fast results" and so on, which makes me squirm. This is exactly what people want to hear. It sells books. But, alas, it is not the truth. Jerry S. Member, TI From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 10 17:30:30 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:30:30 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960410133029_466632401@emout06.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Successors to John Algeo & Radha Burnier Doss, If the next time I see Betty she has turned from Bland to pale and gone bald, I'll know that she has been on this list. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 10 17:31:32 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:31:32 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960410133132_466633267@emout04.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Giggling at the Morally Upright Jerry, Buffoons is exactly the word for them. HPB wrote a good Victorian game to keep her audience happy, but in her personal life she was anything but what would have been considered moral in her time and she had great fun playing little, and not so little pranks on those who thought they were. Now as for me, I try to be as immoral as possible because it is said that the wicked shall prosper and I like the idea of prosperity. :-) Remember, the gods created stuffed shirts so that the rest of us could let the hot air out of them. Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker When I hear the word "moral", I reach for my helmet. From blafoun@azstarnet.com Wed Apr 10 17:30:52 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:30:52 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604101730.KAA15342@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: re: bodies vs principles (yet again!) Yet Again! Here is a challenge to both Jerry HE and Jerry S to have an ongoing series of discussions to try to come to some consensus or at least to see where they really disagree on these subjects. I know Jerry HE is busy right now planning the finishing touches, etc. on the Judge Conference, but I hope after that, he will have some free time to carry on this discussion with Jerry S. I would suggest to both parties that they present some "excerpts" from HPB, Leadbeater, etc. illustrating their various points. Daniel Caldwell >Jerry H-E: >I have read your recent post, and I have heard you say that CWL is in >conflict with HPB either deliberately or in ignorance several times in >the past. I agree that there seem to be at least some conflicts, but >not as many as you suggest. > As I understand it, the CWL model talks about bodies >and planes, which basically are made of the same "stuff" which is >to say, out of the tattvas or cosmic elements. HPB, on the other >hand talks about planes and principles, and only mentions bodies >once that I know of, where she specifically mentions three subtle >bodies. Other than semantical word-smiths, where is there any >conflict? I find myself agreeing with both CWL and HPB here, and >have never been able to grasp what you are talking about. I have >always viewed "bodies" as objective vehicles of consciousness, >and "principles" as subjective states of consciousness. So, I tend >to see them as going together rather than conflicting. > >> Actually my criticism concerns CWL's enumeration of the >>solar planes as described in ~Man Visible and Invisible,~ and >>his confounding them with the "seven bodies of man," which is >>further confounded with HPB's "seven principles of man." > Here is exactly my problem--I just don't see the >"confounding" that you seem to see. To me CWL says that >we have a physical body on the physical plane, an astral body >on the astral plane, and so on. I don't see this as confounding >anything. Nor does it conflict with HPB in any way that I have >ever found. > >> HPB, on the other hand, does not confound the solar >>planes and the principles, because the principles in her system >>do not occupy any but the lowest solar plane. > Here I disagree with your interpretation. I believe that >she teaches that the seven cosmic planes each have seven >principles, that the seven principles of the physical plane (the lowest) >are a reflection of "wheels-within-wheels" wherein the seven cosmic >principles are each expressed on each cosmic plane. Just like >each plane has seven suplanes, so each has seven principles. You >seem to be implying that there are no principles expressed on any >of the other cosmic planes. > >Am I missing something? > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > > From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 18:03:00 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 11:03 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Up-tight is the word! At 02:18 AM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >Jerry S. wrote, > >"But when people go to the extreme of worrying about being "morally upright" >(which is equivalent to holier than thou) then I can only feel sorry for >them." > > >Um -- I don't get it. The words "morally upright" mean no more to me than >simply "try to be good, altruistic people." There is no air of superiority, >no necessary comparison with anyone, only an impersonal standard of kindness, >generosity, lessening of ego, etc. I have always found words like "morality" and Morals" offensive becuase I have never seen them used in any way but as extensions of a religous point-of-view. Being altruistic is one thing, being "good" is a meaningless term except when used to children and dogs. > >And I agree with Greg that ethics and morality is EXACTLY what Theosophy is >founded on. Even the most cursory look at *The Voice of the Silence* can >assure us of that. Ethics yes, but morelaity NO. Why would a Buddhist-Hindu Document support what is essentially "Christian Morality"? HPB was clearly not a Christian. > >Furthermore, the training of the chela was not different in kind from the >ordinary training the T.S. members were invited to pursue -- it was merely >different in degree. Look at HPB's articles on Chelaship, Occultism Versus >the Occult Arts, etc. and see how very strict the rules were about morality, >sexuality, truthfulness, diet, conduct., etc. etc. The chelas were expected >to be the most moral of all, in spite of having stirred up tremendous karmic >forces within themselves that speedily brought down heaps of their own "junk" >from past lives. Chelas have the toughest row to hoe of all, in that they >are held to HIGHER standards while feeling and suffering more intensely than >anyone else -- usually in complete absence of CONSCIOUS contact from the guru >until probation is passed. Most of that, no matter who wrote it or is purported to have written it, is sheer nonsense. Sexuality and diet have absolutely nothing to do with being a good person. Conduct and truthfulness, of course do, but I will tell you that being a self-appointed "Chela" is simply an ego trip and is, in fact, unethical, becuase it presumes a kind of spiritual superiority which is both harmful to others and useless to the self-appointed one. Don't forget, Adolf Hitler was virtually asexual and a total vegetarian, but it didn't make him a "good person". I would like to know on what grounds a person has the right to make a probably baseless assumption that they are, in fact, a Chela of a Guru, unless the Guru him or her self informs them of this. > >That at least is what I read from HPB's published material. > The Esoteric section of the TS is a haven for puritannical up-tight people. Chuck Cosimano calls them "Buffoons". I disagree, Buffoons are harmless, puritans are not! And that is what I read from life itself. Jerry Schueler says they would make HPB "giggle", I rather think it would enrage her, she was easily enraged. alexis dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Apr 10 18:06:47 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:06:47 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Attitudes about K. In-Reply-To: <199604101618.MAA29244@pipe10.nyc.pipeline.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Pamela: You are very perceptive. I do the same for gossip. I just skim Star sometimes, but do not buy as I do not want my money to support it. I do the same with any other publication dealing with such matters. ...doss On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, pamela plummer wrote: > Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:18:44 -0400 > From: pamela plummer > To: M K Ramadoss > Cc: theos-l@vnet.net, listening-l > Subject: Re: Attitudes about K. > > > > Doss, > > Your posting of the theos-l and listening-l > comments about K was amusing. > > Comment #2 mentioned "critical scholarship". This is > interesting. Gossip, however,is an unfruitful > avenue of exploration. For this I skim The Star > that appears at the checkout counter of the supermarket. > > -- > All best, > pamela plummer > From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 18:06:00 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 11:06 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: up-tightagain At 02:37 AM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >Chuck wrote, > >why anyone who is >>not a Buddhist would give a damn what Nimareankeanaya Buddha is or was or >>could be anyway. > >Is that word supposed to be "Nirmanakaya"? > >Rich: what is it about "morally upright" people that causes them to lose their sense of humour? Chuck is obviously just playing with words. Could it be you find it "blasphemous" that he do so? alexis dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Apr 10 18:14:36 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:14:36 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Freedom Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Here is my 2 cents worth on the subject discussion. Physical freedom is essential. But even in the freeeeest society, there are going to be restrictions and limits. Others safety and rights need to be protected. How about psychological freedom? Are we psychologically free from our conscious and sub-conscious biases, prejudices, opinions, beliefs, past experiences, authority? At least I cannot say that I am 100% psychologically free from all of the above . The question is can we be totally free pschologically. Once we are, then what next? Something to consider. ....doss From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Wed Apr 10 18:14:43 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 14:14:43 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604101814.OAA28346@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Chains and rounds Someone on another list has asked me a stumper. Where, prior to HPB, does one find the doctrine of chains and rounds? I know that the Kabbalah has something similar, and the Hopis their doctrine that this is the fourth world. But in its full-blown form, the chains/rounds material does not seem to appear in print earlier than HPB. By full-blown, I mean the combination of 1) The doctrine of invisible globes as companions to the physical planets, on other planes and 2) The passage of life-waves through these chains in repeated "rounds." Thanks if you can help. From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 18:14:00 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 11:14 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Great! At 08:24 AM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >>At 07:45 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >>>>>>large cut<<<<<< >>>>Web: http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html >>> >>>--------- >> >>Rudy: >> >>That is a really wonderful thing you've done. The creation of a home page on >>the world wide web is just what Theosophy International needed. And it's >>also a perfect example of what TI is all about, a member saw a need and >>filled it. Thank you very much and congratulations on your initiative. I >>think this is what young people and unstuffy old ones really want and need, >>a place where one doesn't have to KowTow to some stuffy administration that >>"knows it all". > >Thanks, I hope we all contribute to it, and keep the site alive, just like >theos-l. > >> >>I have to admit I'm curious though: "GARLIC. COM"?????? You don't live in >>Gilroy California (The Garlic Capital of the World) or do you? My computer >>Guru just installed "Netsacpe Gold" and tomorrow night he's going to show me >>how to use it. (He's asleep now) The first place I go will be the TI web site! > >You're right. I live in Gilroy. I guess that makes us almost next door >neighbors. I was thinking that maybe after next week, that I will be in >Idaho and Oregon, Gene and I could go to San Francisco and meet you and >John. What do you think? > >> >>alexis Dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA > >Rudy > >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL > > >Web: http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Rudy: I think that would be great! John and I used to live in San Juan Bautista, I had to drive him to gilroy every morning while it was still dark to catch the bus for San Jose, and then pick him up again in the evening. But we really did like it down there. But when they transferred him to San Francisco, it was just too much. Plan to come for dinner, let us know if it needs to be vegetarian. You do know there's a wolf in our house? our address is: 16-A Henry Street, San Francisco, 94114-1215 our voice phone is: 415-861-1936 > alexis dolgorrukii, MTI, FTSA> > > > > > > From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 18:26:00 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 11:26 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "K" Paul: Based on your most recent postings I'd say my own hypotheses (that Radha double crossed "K") was wrong and that you were right, she was just dutifully following his plans. That would tend to be born out by what's currently going on in the ES. A Krishnamurti "true believer" is just like any other 'true believer", to disagree in the slightest with their idolatry is to draw down upon one's self "contumely and scorn and actual hatred". This is how it's always been. If one sets out to be a "truth teller" one has got to make one's self immune to all that. To be a teller of unpleasant truths one requires a very thick skin! When I say that I see Krishnamurti as "evasive and dogmatic" and a monstrously stuffed shirt, I do not expect to be told that "you have a right to your opinion", I know better. To a "true believer" the only opinion anyone "has a right to" is the one they themselves hold. I have been strongly and loudly "anti" the Judeo-Christian-Islamic system of Human Oppression for many, many years now, and so I'm used to the hostility. If you're going to write controversial books, you'd best accustom yourself to it. alexis dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 18:33:00 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 11:33 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: and more At 12:13 PM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis: >> I know HPB wouldn't disagree with >>me, but HPB isn't the problem. CWL, Besant, Jinarajadasa. and Arundale et >>al, are the problem. If any of those people had made it clear theywere >>speaking symbolically or creating models of reality to make the >>comprehension of abstractions more attainable, we'd not be in such a pickle. > Well, I can't disagree with you on this one. I would include Judge >and G de P on your list as well. As a matter of fact, the first writer that I >came >across to use the term "model" for descriptions of the universe was in a book >by Robert Anton Wilson. Only very recently do we see theosophists acknowledging > >this. Oh absolutely, I have to say my omission of Judge and G de P was inadvertant, I hope they weren't feeling "left out". I suppose this comes from having most of my Theosophy via the Adyar Bunch. I do think the use of the "owrd "model" in the context we're discussing precedes Wilson's use of it, but I'd have to do some research to prove it. I do, however, remember one Albert Eisntein using it when explainging his work to me when I was a kid. (No kidding > >>. I also aprehend there is a great danger in using a so-called >>"psychological" approach to theosophy as it tends to either avoid or >>euphemise reality into psychological states of physical human consciousness, >>and they, as I see it, are the least important aspects of consciousness. > Agreed. But psychogenesis will not replace cosmogenesis or >homogenesis but rather supplement them. This should help avoid this >pitfall. I'll definitely go along with that just so long as it's not based on Freud or Jung. They are both far too Judeo-Christian in their value judgements. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > alexis dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA> From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 10 18:41:00 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 11:41 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Subject: Re: morality Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:34 PM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >Jerry, >Buffoons is exactly the word for them. HPB wrote a good Victorian game to >keep her audience happy, but in her personal life she was anything but what >would have been considered moral in her time and she had great fun playing >little, and not so little pranks on those who thought they were. >Now as for me, I try to be as immoral as possible because it is said that the >wicked shall prosper and I like the idea of prosperity. :-) >Remember, the gods created stuffed shirts so that the rest of us could let >the hot air out of them. > >Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker >When I hear the word "moral", I reach for my helmet. > >Chuck: You are not immoral, you are amoral, and there's one hell of a difference. Actually "morality" is a religion based copnecption used to oppress humans! You will notice that the morally up-tight usually try to weasel their way out of it by conjoining "ethics" and "morality" but it doesn't really work because ethics is a valid conception and morality isn't. The morally up-tight are, just like their imaginary dieties, busybodies! Actually I think the "gods" (in whom I, being one, don't believe" )invented stuffed shirts as a horrible negative example to all of us as to how NOT to be! One really good thing though Chuck, no one will ever accuse you of being a "stuffed shirt". alexis, MTI, FTSA when I hear the word moral I tend to reach for my sword..Nothung! From poulsen@dk-online.dk Wed Apr 10 22:57:18 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:57:18 -200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB2720.6B3E43A0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: planes&tattvas Encoding: 25 TEXT Jerry H-E: >The center of my argument really concerns CWL's arrangement of principles >and planes as compared to HPB's. The identities and correlations of tattwas, >principles and elements is, I think, a secondary confusion. > I just wish you waited until after our conference so that I >would have more time to get into this subject. Jerry, let us postpone our discussion untill you are done. It is an exquisite experience to discuss with someone with your preparation and level of scholarship. I will be slightly handicapped by not owning or ever having read a book by CWL :-) (I have tried, I have tried, two times!). But I will try to figure out his meaning from your posts. The terminology must be defended succesfully or abandoned, you know my reason for going into this. In friendship, Kim From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Wed Apr 10 19:11:16 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:11:16 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: WWW Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Rudy ... *Congratulations* on a wonderful job - I visited the TI Web Page from work this morning (my home computer doesn't have windows & can't run Netscape) & saw it, graphics & all in its full glory. I hope we can perhaps add a couple links to other documents, and maybe anyone who knows of other organizations that have pages might be able to get it publisized .. or even directly linked. A *wonderful* start ... -JRC From Coherence@aol.com Wed Apr 10 19:58:50 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 15:58:50 -0400 From: Coherence@aol.com Message-Id: <960410155848_268617236@mail06> Subject: Re: Giggling at the Morally Upright In a message dated 96-04-09 22:46:17 EDT, you write: >>One thing I did not understand at all. Jerry S. writes: >>>Personally I find that idea of a >>>group of students who bend over backwards to be morally upright as >>>entirely opposed to the spirit of occultism. HPB would probably giggle. >> >>This runs exactly counter to what HPB taught repeatedly, and I ask if you >>could clarify the basis for your comment and especially explain why you >think >>she would giggle. >> > First of all, Greg, let me tell you that HPB never established >an occult school nor did she serve as guru to occult students. She >founded and fostered Theosophy and the Theosophical Society, which >is *not* an occult school. Her insistence on ethics and morals was >directed to her TS students to keep them out of trouble. Her teachings >on Chelaship reflect the one-on-one type of training found in India, and >is not reflective of Western schools. Western occult students, depending >on their experience and understanding, would either be >heedless of such warning or would no longer need it. Granted that HPB did not establish an occult school. And if ethics and morals were directed to her TS students to keep them out of trouble, would this also not apply to the occultists? That they would be heedless is their problem and is not an excuse for not providing the insistence or warning that high ethics and morals should be followed. I think HPB would giggle at the statement that Western students (or any for that matter) would no longer need it (them--ethics and morals) I am enjoying my last cigarette right now for I am about to face the firing squad by offering the following: "Theosophy has to inculcate ethics. . . . . . .It is not by studying Occultism for selfish ends, for the gratification of one's personal ambition, pride, or vanity, that one can ever reach the true goal: that of helping suffering mankind. . . . . . . I have said already that a true Theosophist must put in practice the loftiest moral ideal, must strive to realize his unity with the whole of humanity, and work ceaselessly for others. Now, IF AN OCCULTIST DOES NOT DO ALL THIS, he must act selfishly for his own personal benefit. . . . . . .he becomse forthwith a far more dangerous enemy to the world and those around him than the average mortal." (caps mine) (Key pp. 24 & 25, facsimile ed.) There is not much in this which would exclude anyone, Indian or Western. Now it seems to me that our understanding of your phrase "bend over backwards to be morally upright" differs. You seem to mean those who perceive themselves as morally upright, whereas I read it to mean, "try to hold to the highest moral ideal". I completely agree that those who try to be (appear) morally upright are exercising their vanity and tend to have an inflated ego. And your reference to the Christians couldn't be better, for I too was raised in an extremely strict Christian church and know the posture where one IS morally upright. Membership alone confers a moral superiority in their minds because their sins will be "washed away." This was not my point, for ethics and morality should be followed, especially by occultists, because it is the right thing to do. If anything, the making of the effort should lead one to a bit of humility, for with the effort comes the recognition of how often we fail, fail to always to the right thing with the right motive in mind. How many of us do the right thing and for the right reason all the time? The true Occultist knows what is right to do. So, no, I don't think HPB would giggle at the effort. At the SHOW of morality, yes she would, for those who put on this kind of show most assuredly are not what they seem. Greg H From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 10 21:44:22 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:44:22 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960410174421_466842897@mail06> Subject: Re: Pio Nino Alex, I don't think she intended to live out her days as a prisoner of the Vatican--er-- Adyar and have everything she said universally ridiculed, which is how she is going to end up, just like Pio Nino. (I wonder how many other people on this list know who we are talking about.) Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 10 21:44:28 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:44:28 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960410174428_466843014@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Giggling at the Morally Upright Rich, Does the occult meaning of the word "blind" have any meaning to you? How do you think the good Victorians would have reacted if Blavatsky had said, "Look, the universe is a value-free information system and nothing you do in the physical is going to have the slightest impact on your future incarnations. The only thing that matters is intelligence, how effeciently you process information, because that is what the Universe is really all about, but what you do with that information does not matter in the slightest." Blavatsky herself was anything but moral in the eyes of her contemporaries and Col. Olcott left his family to run off with her. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 10 21:44:39 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:44:39 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960410174438_466843159@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Nirmansomething Rich If you say so. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 10 21:44:46 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:44:46 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960410174445_466843240@emout04.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Giggling at the Morally Upright Giggle, giggle, giggle, giggle, giggle. :-) Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 10 21:44:53 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:44:53 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960410174450_466843276@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: instant enlightenment Jerry, Instant enlightenment is possible, but who in their right mind is going to fall off a ladder to attain it? :-) Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker "And Chuck said 'Let there be light!' and he turned on the switch. And lo, he looked at the clock and said 'It's too early to get up. Let there be darkness.' and he turned the lights off and went back to sleep and yea it was good." from the Gospel of St. Leonard the Very Weird From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Apr 10 20:49:23 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 21:49:23 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Up-tight is the word! In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >I would like to know on what grounds a person has the right >to make a probably baseless assumption that they are, in fact, a Chela of a >Guru, unless the Guru him or her self informs them of this. .. as I tell myself constantly :-) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 15:11:19 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: Re: the more efficient alternative Message-ID: Liesel: >To DSArthur, > >Very valid argument, and very difficult to give a cut & dried solution to. >Life isn't cut & dry. What I do with it, is I do the best I can. Since I >believe that, among other consequences, killing and torturing animals >creates negative karma, I'm in favor of keeping such events to a minimum in >my personal life. I have no qualms at all with medical students cutting up a >cadaver. That's not a living entity anymore, but a discarded body. As for >mice, they bother the hell out of me, so I get rid of them, preferably by >chasing them out of the house, and plugging up the hole that lets them in. >If that doesn't work, I study the method of killing them first and try to >choose the quickest least painful way. I'm not completely vegetarian anymore >either. I had to make a choice of eating vegetarian cuisine by myself, or >eating chicken & fish in the common dining room and being able to socialize. >I think I made this choice because not socializing was a more immediate >inconvenience, than eating the negative vibes still present in the dead >meat, the fear that the animal felt when it got killed. Besides, I'm rapidly >approaching that stage of life where cooking for myself will become very >cumbersome. Someone else might have chosen differently. > >Liesel I also think the same way. It's like an environmentalist not being able to avoid everything that contributes to pollution in the environment, even this computer. You just have to do as much as you can within your lifestyle and choices. I think you just have to show mindfulness in what you do-e.g. whatever you're eating, realize where it's coming from and be thankful. As far as the mouse problem, I have one black mouse that has been in and out of my studio for several months now. I always sensed that there was something else in the room and thought it was just imagination. One day, I was painting, when I looked down and saw mouse looking at me. I screamed and mouse scurried behind some boxes. It came to the studio for the finch seeds scattered around the cage. Since then, I've tried several humane methods of getting rid of it. I made a trap with a newspaper diving board full of seeds on it out of my silk steamer. My hope was that the mouse goes on the newspaper to feed and falls into the steamer. And then I could take it out to a far away field and release it. No luck. Tried bucket held up by glue container wrapped in string that I could pull once I see mouse under bucket going for seeds. Mouse went for seeds, I pulled, mouse ran away. Sigh...Now, I have an emptied tool box with seeds in it, open, with a string tied to the lid that I yank once mouse crawls in to grab seed. Unfortunately, haven't seen mouse in the last few days. Meanwhile, I'm going to have to put up with a tiny figure climbing behind my canvas, and mouse poops all over the place. I hate mouse poops. Where is that mouse hammer that Ann talked about? I don't mind the mouse, just as long as it doesn't make families. Thoa From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 9 Apr 97 15:25:18 -0700 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: Aleister Crowley Message-ID: <199704092226.PAA08544@scv1.apple.com> >I'm just starting to learn about the Kabbalah. From what I've heard of >Aleister Crowley, he seems like an unpleasant character. He was in some ways. Most of these are the same ways that Blavatsky was an unpleasant character: foul-tempered, mean-spirited, quick to judge. In either case, you'll find that even friends of these spiritual leaders would be the first to admit their personality failings. At the same time, both also had their points of brilliance and charm, and certainly of talent. >I heard of rumors >that he did all sorts of awful rituals, and started satanic cults. Oooooh, "cults". That sounds really scary. Does the TS qualify? Blavatsky would not have approved of Crowley's rituals, due to their sexual element, but they don't seem especially shocking to people living at the end of the twentieth century. His rituals are theurgical magick intended to unite the magician with higher powers, and to make progress toward mystical goals, and they are still regularly practiced today. As for Satanism, that's another point of contact between Blavatsky and Crowley -- not too surprising, since they both drew so heavily on Eliphas Levi, who did so much to justify "sympathy for the devil" among the nineteenth century occultists. Both denied the Christian Devil while advocating a positive, enlightened reinterpretation of the character as unfairly demonized. I'd be curious what you think of Blavatsky's teachings on the fallen angels, Satan/Lucifer, and Ialdabaoth from "Isis Unveiled" and "The Secret Doctrine". >Some >people are convinced that it is very true. Someone told me that there is >one in California near San Francisco, which is near where I live. There are a few hundred O.T.O. members, and several active bodies of the Order, in the San Francisco Bay Area. One of the international officers lives in the North Bay, as well as one of the national. Berkeley used to be the headquarters during the McMurtry revival in the late 1970's and early 1980's. >Then >again, I heard that all those ritual rumors were just symbolic. That he >used symbolic replacement instead of doing the actual deeds. Crowley definitely had sex as part of ritual work, if that's what you're alluding to. While the roots have been traced by some commentators to P.B. Randolph and the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light, I don't see a lot of commonality between their practices and Crowley's. >I don't know >and I don't care. He's dead and hopefully his cults will just stick among >themselves. I figure if a person is attracted to evil, he/she will find it >anywhere. If a person wants to be in an evil cult, that is his/her choice, >just as long as it does not involve hurting innocent people or children. Now we seem to have jumped abruptly from "I heard maybe he made some Satanic cults" to "he did make evil cults but I just hope they keep to themselves." I wonder if you could consider whether the sort of intolerance that you seem to be practicing "hurts innocent people"? Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 17:32:58 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: karma or what Message-ID: <199704092249.SAA25453@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Hi, Thoa, I really don't disagree with you saying that spiritual healing is important. It needs to be emphasized especially today, because our whole civilisation is so physically orientied, and denies Spirit. My MD is holistic, that is, before he went to medical school, he taught Yoga. It's comforting to have a physician who doesn't put his nose into the air when you mention the word "Shaman". You wanted to know what Serge asked us to try out. Well, for instance he was trying to show us that negative ideas weaken your unconscious & hence your body, and positive ones strengthen them, so he did an experiment with 2 different people, one person after the other. He told them to think of something untoward and say "I don't like that". Then they arm wrestled him. And it turns out, he won rather quickly. They were rather weak. Then he told them to think of something favorable and say out loud "I like that". After that, they were difficult to win against. They were stronger. Then he taught us something about doing "nalu". (He uses Hawaiian terms.) Acutally, it's just being with something or someone, and just relaxedly listening to it or them. (He does it when his computer is on the blink.) He starts off the nalu with a certain ritual meant to help you center. After he'd taught us, he sent us out of the building and asked us to do nalu on something we found outside the building, where there were plants and flowers and trees. We all did, and then we came back in and talked about our experiences. It was amazing what different people experienced from flowers and trees, and one from a spider. He taught us lots of techniques, but always with the idea that he was showing us how to, and that to really be good at it we needed to go home and practice. He always had us do one or 2 exercises to try to show us how it was to be done. When he was teaching nalu, he had us go to a place on the stage where he'd put 2 batteries into a cloth bag, and we had to sense what was in it. Nobody guessed batteries, but some people guessed shapes, or colors or an energy device. A number of people picked up something valid. About shamans traveling with the cosmos. I got the impression from listening to Serge that he knew Nature very well. He talked about grokking (empathzing a certain way) with a hurricane and a volcano, and trying to have an effect on what they do. You can, if the phenomenon has the possiblity to go the way you want it to, and if you do it lovingly. He taught us about power animals, like, in his sytem, a bear stands for self confidence, and every time you need self confidence, you take your imaginary bear along, like "Harvey". He said that you can also grok animals for their wisdom. Besides Milu , the underworld, he also had us travel (in imagination) to lanikeha , up in the clouds, where things are more heroic than here on earth. You talk about dying. I'm happy that someone your age has some thoughts on this subject. I took a course in Death & Dying about 3 years ago, in my old age. It was very helpful to me. I was brought up by a mother who swept all ideas of illness and dying under the rug, espcially for her darling little kids. I think it's much healthier if you have some concept of dying when you're still far away from it. I've talked to some people who work at our hospice, who find working with dying people very satisfying. Well, you can really help a family, and make a difference, if you know what you're doing. My idea of devachan, really comes from Leadbeater. His descriptions are quite graphic. I find that even the old ladies in my building sort of don't really want to face dying. I've been trying to get the management to give us some time to do some grieving, but they won't do it. Everyone in here, besides grieving for the loss of loved ones, grieves over loss of their house, and their car. Serge taught us to empathize with the healee, but not to take on the illness ourselves. That doesn't help. You're right. The better you know how it feels, the better you can help, but you also need to have a certain objectivity in order to think of the best way to heal. Re healers traveling. I don't really know how it's done. I know that Harry did it. Serge taught us serveral different ways of trying to travel. He again taught us a ritual to get into the situation, and then imagine the place where you want to go. That's the beginning of it. You try to make it as real as you can by trying to imagine with all your senses. I agree with you. People with secular experience are better grounded, and then are able to contribute more positively than people who are cloistered, even in a college. Boy I remember my university days. I learned a tremendous amount of knowledge that was valuable lateron. But I also majored in French, and that meant that I read most of the more important French novels that were ever printed. After that, my idea of what the world was like was rather skewed. Once I got out, and worked, I learned. Waltz me Mathilda! Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 18:06:09 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Crowley, bookstores etc. Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970409230609.006ba370@mail.eden.com> At 02:03 PM 4/9/97 -0400, you wrote: >On Tue, 8 Apr 1997 20:21:41 -0400 (EDT), Thoa wrote: > > > >>......................... From what I've heard of Aleister Crowley, >>he seems like an unpleasant character. I heard of rumors He was a racist too, as he referred to some of the well known Asian Indians as "niggers" -- he should have known better. MKR Well, none of this is theosophy (except that theosophy is sharing), so back >to our muttons. > > > Peace to all beings - > > Gregg Bartle, member Theosophy International > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:37:21 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: the more efficient alternative Message-ID: In message , Thoa Tran writes >I don't mind the mouse, just as long >as it doesn't make families. I had a friend many years ago who had a mouse in her only room. It came in through the cupboard under the wash basin. To stop it running round the room and frightening her, she gave it what it was looking for - food. Cheese left inside the cupboard was eaten regularly by the mouse, who thus had no need to explore further, and returned elsewhere to burp. Just a thought. Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:32:54 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Crowley, bookstores etc. Message-ID: In message , Thoa Tran writes >As far as that Crowley dude, I don't really have an opinion on him. I was >repeating what I was told. I have no hesitation reading any of his >writings, and I have read some of his writings. Some accounts of him was >that he's actually quite normal but hedonistic, and was reacting to >hypocrisy that he witnessed in his childhood. Thus, all those talk of >satanism may just be his way of just stirring up the prim and proper >bloods. I have no doubt that some of his followers took him literally and >may have done awful stuff. You about summed it up right. He certainly practiced sex-magic. It's a matter of debate whther he did it for the sex first or the magic first. He was also, in many people's opinion, a great literary practical joker. My own view on his writings is that his ~Book of Thoth~ (on the tarot) was his best work. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:26:48 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Kabbalah Message-ID: In message <199704090008.RAA26250@proxy2.ba.best.com>, Thoa Tran writes >>Fourth: >>About kabalah, i read in a book long time ago, that this person of the book >> >> >>divided the world-year (zodiac type division) that we all are ruled by 72 >>genies or angels that all their names are obtained from the sacred name of >> >>God (Jewish-Kabalah version) and that, like we have a certain personality >> >> >>depending the time hour and place of our birth,and the zodiac assign >us a >>certain zodiac sign/ascendant, we have a certain genie/angel that rules/ >> >> >>protect us since our birth. > >Uh, Alan, can you answer this question? I'm sure you can give a much better >answer than I can. I have read and heard this sort of thing. It is, IMO, nonsense. We are "ruled" by the laws within the universe and the world. How they got there is a matter for debate, but scoring debating points will not change the law. An example: At a theosophical lodge debate a couple of years ago, a majority vote was taken about 70/30 that reincarnation is a fact of being. That vote does not make the decision a fact, any more than it would had the decision been reversed. Alan :-| --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:53:37 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: The bible Message-ID: In message , Thoa Tran writes >Yep! I read everything with the knowledge that a person wrote it. Even if >the person did get divine inspiration, I would think that it has to go >through the person's ego. Oh, and that Bible! So sexist! Luckily I >didn't know that us women were condemned for starting that apple fiasco by >having to go through that painful birth process and having to serve men for >the rest of our lives. Talking about negativity of the birth process, and >negativity of women in general. Too true, alas! Scholars of course are aware that the story (and many other bible tales) is a reworking of earlier Babylonian material, and not specifically "Jewish" in origin, although the denigration of women recurs all too frequently in certain periods. However, some biblical material is probably re-working of earlier Great Mother goddess stuff. In the same way the later Christians superimposed Christian "saints" - sometimes fictional - on earlier pagan deities of personages (often female ones - there are a few in this part of the world, including my own local church of St. Buryan, otherwise unknown but generally believed to be a woman of antiquity, who may or may not have originally been a Christian). There is a passage in the bible (can't recall chapter and verse) where the women are to be found outside (King Solomon's) Temple in Jerusalem "weeping for Tammuz." This activity was part of the worship of the ancient Mother Goddess of antiquity from pre-Israelite times, and casts some doubt (as do other passages) about the genuineness of the supposition that Solomon was a patriarchal Israelite. If he allowed this sort of thing, he may have kept his options open (at the very least) by keeping the worship of Ashtoreth or Astarte on the go ... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 22:53:15 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Crowley, bookstores etc. Message-ID: <334C561B.6EE9@sprynet.com> Thoa Tran wrote: > As far as that Crowley dude, I don't really have an opinion on him. I was > repeating what I was told. I have no hesitation reading any of his > writings, and I have read some of his writings. Some accounts of him was > that he's actually quite normal but hedonistic, and was reacting to > hypocrisy that he witnessed in his childhood. Thus, all those talk of > satanism may just be his way of just stirring up the prim and proper > bloods. I have no doubt that some of his followers took him literally and > may have done awful stuff. Another problem with Crowley was that he was openly bisexual in a country where it was a scandal to be openly heterosexual. However, there are two main problems with Crowley. Like Blavatsky, he believed that certain knowledge, without understanding, was extremely dangerous. Like Blavatsky, he had a playful sense of humor, and hid the knowledge in extremely dense prose to require that one read it very carefully to understand it. Unlike Blavatsky, he specifically worded things so that a reader just browsing through his books would come to the conclusion that they were horribly evil (and thus not try anything out; he did not realize that some people would be ATTRACTED by the apparent evil). The other problem was that he was a very skilled writer with a bad temper. Whenever he got angry with an acquaintance, he would write an article which would tear the person apart, carefully hitting all the person's sensitive spots. He did this with Dion Fortune when she was still President of the London Astrological Lodge of the Theosophical Society; that is the origin of the bad feelings between the TS and the Thelemites (who, actually, have quite a bit in common). The major difference between Theosophy and Thelema is that Theosophy believes in spiritual development leading to sidhis as a side effect as a means of evolution, while Thelema believes that development of sidhis will lead to spiritual development as a side effect, as a means of evolution. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 01:18:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Crowley, bookstores etc. Message-ID: <970410011821_-66836098@emout04.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-04-09 22:04:22 EDT, you write: >Just a brief little side note here. First off, ol' Uncle Al is often badly >misunderstood, or sometimes understood all *too* well; in any event, his >writings, while demanding, can be quite rewarding to the student. > > Hmm, well, let's see. I've done a lot of Crowleyite ritual work in my life and it is been interesting if not always rewarding and one of the local OTO camps uses my basement for their rituals. As of last looking, I have not joined any cults, aquired horns or grown hair in unusual places. I must be doing something wrong. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 01:22:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: the more efficient alternative Message-ID: <970410012205_-1502822526@emout18.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-04-09 22:58:55 EDT, you write: >I had a friend many years ago who had a mouse in her only room. It came >in through the cupboard under the wash basin. To stop it running round >the room and frightening her, she gave it what it was looking for - >food. Cheese left inside the cupboard was eaten regularly by the mouse, >who thus had no need to explore further, and returned elsewhere to burp. > >Just a thought. > >Alan :-) Every fall I go out in the back yard and tell the mice that they can eat all the birdseed they want and live in the crawlspace under the back room to keep warm, but if they come in the house there are two cats who, like me, are not vegetarians and have very sharp claws. The mice stay out of the house but frequent the bird seed a lot. Chuck the Heretic From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Apr 10 21:18:02 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:18:02 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: TI membership list In-Reply-To: <199604100236.WAA14650@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604100236.WAA14650@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. deutsch" writes >Dear John Vorstermans, > >I don't know how much of an illusion you think it is, if I live in a country >where, if I open my mouth to voice an opinion which doesn't conform with the >Party Line, they'll right away give me a ride to the nearest concentration >camp, or to a Gulag, have your pick. I don't know how free it is, if my >German friend's grandfather was made to join the Nazi Party because if he >hadn't, he would have lost his job at the German Postoffice; nor how free it >was that she herself joined the Hitler Youth, because the other kids in her >class threatened to beat her up, if she wouldn't. Incidentally, my cusin >Eric, who was brought up Unitarian, but had Jewish ancestors, was beaten up >so badly in 4th grade by his classmates that they broke his nose. I hope you >don't call that freedom. I don't. > >Liesel NOR DO I Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Apr 10 21:21:04 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:21:04 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: TI membership list In-Reply-To: <960410010410_268160920@emout04.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960410010410_268160920@emout04.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >We don't want to come off as creating something purely for the purpose of >putting down our fellow theosophists, no matter how much they deserve it. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker I don't think it does that, except insofar as "if the cap fits ..." Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu Apr 11 00:24:03 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:24:03 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604110128.VAA08660@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: hostile? Cheez, Chuck, You don't talk like you wanted a pat on the back. You sound more like you want people to shoot you. Liesel Member Ti, TSA, TS in Canada, HR ........................................................................... ...l >Alan, >Not always. Sometimes people get very mad at me (I have a file drawer of >nothing but death threats) but an occasional pat on the back is welcome. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu Apr 11 00:27:28 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:27:28 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604110131.VAA13480@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI membership list Alan, that's ok with me.LFD >In message <199604101834.OAA08179@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. >deutsch" writes >>Chuck, >> >>Nobody's answering you, but I think you have a point there. We don't want to >>stand there "we're free & you aren't, nja, nja, njaaa!" >> >>Liesel >>Member TI, TSA, TS in Canadam HR >>........................................................................ > >I have answered Chuck ... and we're not saying that. The importance of >the "free" part of the statement is as much a declaration of ethos, of >setting a standard for the future. We *are* free and we want to *stay* >free. Nowhere in the TI statement do we denigrate *any* other >theosophical setups - on the contrary, we hope to be of service *in >amity* with them. > >If they seek to denigrate us, or deprive their members of any freedoms, >the problems arising, if any, are theirs, not ours. I hope that TI is >something that will be looking forward, not backwards. Let us learn >from the mistakes of the past without parading them triumphantly as our >raison d'etre. Our raison d'etre is to promote the three objects in the >best way we know how - and to seek and find even better ways by working >together freely and honestly. Yep. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > > From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Apr 10 22:40:41 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:40:41 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: Newtie In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >I've never known a Brit who seemed to feel deprived. > >alexis the anglophile, MYI, FTSA >> >> Remind me to introduce you to some of my friends .... all that will change. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 11 04:36:50 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:36:50 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960411003649_510873844@emout06.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Whoa! Liesel, People may not see it the same, but the instruments and math that measure the orbit do. Chuck the Barbarian MTI,FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 11 06:25:00 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 23:25 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: others At 03:04 PM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >Boy, Alexis, > >You know all the details about everybody's sex life. I knew Leonard >Bernstein was gay, or bisexual, he had a wife, but I didn't know it about >Aaron Copland. What kind of revolutionary sex life did Wagner have? I >wouldn't put it past him to have done it standing on his head. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR >............................................................................ > >Liesel: I knew both Leonard and his wife Felicia (Warburg). Like so many Gay Men of Jewish antecedants Lenny, who was always a Gay man, had to marry to meet his family's expectations of him. Also when he was a young man, even a hint of his real nature could have destroyed his career. It's amazing how many major American composers of the 20th Century were Gay men. Virgil Thompson, Benjamin Britten, Lou Harrison. John Cage and many more. The Gay community tends to keep up with these things not becuase they are at all interested in people's sex life but because these men, and so many other men and women like them are our validation of usefulness to society. They are our virtual banners to fly proudly. Being a member of the Gay and Lesbian Minority is not like being Jewish or Black, while people may be racists or anti-semites, they do not call either blacks or jews perverted for what they are, nor are other minorities so discriminated against in basic human rights. It's difficult to get over the pariah status and "famous Gays" are a big help in so doing. As to Wagner, it's extremely common knowledge that he stole Hans von Bulow's wife Cosima Liszt von Bulow. It's also common knowledge that he was the kind of man whose ego was gratified by afffairs with forbidden objects. He, like his Father-in-Law Franz Liszt was clearly a heterosexual. > alexis> > >> >> >> > > From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 11 06:33:00 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 23:33 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:serious At 05:00 PM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, >You and I have an obvious disagreement on this. I"m probably just a bit old >fashioned but I always thought an adept was one who had advanced in certain >mystical areas. Now as regards music, there is no question Beethoven was an >adept and he did make a lasting impact on humanity. But could he make a >teacup appear underground? And why would he (or anyone else) want to? >There you go, taking me seriously again. :-) > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: Aren't you glad somebody does? Actually though I have trouble with the term "mystical". I think it's mostly hokum, and my definition of adepthood doesn't really take the "mystical" into consideration. Francis Bacon was clearly an Adept, but he surely wasn't a "mystic". I think Adepts are really very concerned with humanity and the world that humans have to live in. As to the other version of Adepthood, the one advanced by CWL and Besant et al, I'm very sorry but I think that has a much closer relationship to Disney's "Le Sorcier Apprenti" than it does to the real thing. If KH actually wrote the words Daniel Caldwell posted yesterday, then I am sure of it. Alexis, MTI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 11 06:41:00 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 23:41 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Genius At 05:05 PM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, >It's actually quite easy to explain. Very often genius manifests itself in >extremes, a person may be an absolutly brilliant artist and a child molester >(Gauguin), or a great composer and a nut (Wagner). When there is that much >energy pent up in the soul it rushes to find an outlet and often, driven by >that force, the genius does not see where it is taking him. >The only exception to this seem to be physicists and most mathematicians, >possibly because their work is so all-absorbing that it leaves no time for >anything else. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Actually, Wagner wasn't a nut, he was a "son of a bitch" and that's different. He wasn't erratic, he was a thoroughly viscious man. Mozart wasn't much better. Verdi and Rossini were certainly musical geniuses, thought they were not seminal composers, they were definately major composers, and they were both apparently very lovely people. Verdi, in fact, was an aquaintance of HPB's. Now as to great Physicists and Mathematicians...Chuck I've known a number of people in that catagory, Norbert Weiner for one, and he was pretty wierd. Did you know he wrote really corny "space operas" under a vast series of comical pseudonyms? I've know a major astro-physicist who was a total socio-path, and others like Harold Uhrey and Bob Oppenheimer who were the most normal folks, and then there's "uncle Albert" who was a truly unique but lovely man. Any man of his atature who takes the kind of time he did, to play chess with a little boy (me) and talk seriously with him, is a really neat guy. Alexis, MTI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 11 06:51:00 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 23:51 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: monkeys! At 05:30 PM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, >There is a small but important difference is saying that your purpose is to >try to get along with other groups and actually doing it without saying it. > If we want to promote TI as an active alternative to the arrogance and >affrontery that is found in the other organizations, I am all for it. But if >we start by giving the impression in our preamble that we are in it for the >brawl, then we may very well turn off the very people we want to attract. I >don't see how that can benefit TI or anyone else. >It works like this. The ordinary theosophist on a jackass sees the word >FREE and immediately thinks "Hell, I'm already free, what do I need with >them?" Then another little part of his brain starts saying, "How dare they >say I'm not free?" Before you know it he is no longer thinking but saying >"Those TI nuts think that they have the only true Theosophy and I don't want >any part of them!" This is not what we want. >Never underestimate the capacity of people to feel insulted. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >You may be right! I always give people far too much credit, obviously you do not! If anyone want's proof that humanity descended from monkeys, it's sure easy to find! And they haven't descended all that far! I honestly had no idea that anyone would, or could, be so petty as to feel insulted by another group making a point of Freedom of Opinion. I remeber in my Old American theosophist Magazines (back when I first joined theTS) there was some sort of statement headed: "Freedom of the Society" which said, I believe and if memory serves, much the same thing. I have this question: Considering what both Radha and The TSA adminsitration seems to be up to, aren't "the kind of people we want to attract" gong to be feeling pretty damn restricted? As youknow better than most the regular T.S. Groups, all three of the poor dying things, are terribly restrictive in so many ways. As a Carnivore you're well aware of one of the ways. Where in the By-Laws does it say you have to be a vegetarian to be a theosophist? But many folks act as if it were true. As to the two ES sections (Adyar's and the ULT's) nuff said. Alexis, MTI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 11 07:06:00 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 00:06 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:still more At 06:22 PM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: > >You no doubt have a good idea of freedom from a humanistic point of view as >you explain above but I am approaching the subject from a different point of >view which I am trying to point out. > >Perhaps I should say "freedom" IMHO from a physical point of view is an >illusion for most people today. Until we reach enlightenment there is no >such thing and one we have reached it we might laugh at the concept. > >John > >-- >John Vorstermans >PO Box 11-410 >Wellington >Mobile (025) 432-987 > > >John: I think where we primarily differ is that I see "Freedom" as a term which has absolutely no meaning at all in any but a Humanistic viewpoint. "Freedom" is a thing which can be gained, preserved, lost, or "taken away" only in regard to physical human beings in the physical levels of the relative realities. At the instant the mind, or consciousness, or the spirit, leaves the physical levels of the relative realities, then Freedom is irrelevant.whether you call it "Pure Consciousness" or "spirit" it is entirely illimitable and it does not require the final touch of enlightenment to be so. One is as spritually "free" as one chooses to be, there is no spiritual experience that can be denied by any physical culture on this planet. For instance: Stephen Hawking says that "If I had not lived primarily in the mind rather than the body I would not have survived as I have". A Russian Lady (a Shamanka) of my aquaintance survived some years in a Japanese internment camp. she said: "if I had not been entirely free in spirit, I would have died!" "Spiritual" is free and "physical" is not, and never the twain can cross! But people can be more or less free in the context of the Society in which they live. I am a Shaman of much experience, there is nothing, nothing at all, in any way, shape, or form that can curtail my spiritual freedom by one iota. This is not something I "think", this is not something I "believe", this is something I know with every fibre of my being! Please forgive me but I cannot comprehend in any way how anyone could perceive themselves as "spritually unfree". alexis dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 11 07:07:00 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 00:07 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: hear! Hear! At 06:35 PM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >In message <199604101834.OAA08179@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. >deutsch" writes >>Chuck, >> >>Nobody's answering you, but I think you have a point there. We don't want to >>stand there "we're free & you aren't, nja, nja, njaaa!" >> >>Liesel >>Member TI, TSA, TS in Canadam HR >>........................................................................ > >I have answered Chuck ... and we're not saying that. The importance of >the "free" part of the statement is as much a declaration of ethos, of >setting a standard for the future. We *are* free and we want to *stay* >free. Nowhere in the TI statement do we denigrate *any* other >theosophical setups - on the contrary, we hope to be of service *in >amity* with them. > >If they seek to denigrate us, or deprive their members of any freedoms, >the problems arising, if any, are theirs, not ours. I hope that TI is >something that will be looking forward, not backwards. Let us learn >from the mistakes of the past without parading them triumphantly as our >raison d'etre. Our raison d'etre is to promote the three objects in the >best way we know how - and to seek and find even better ways by working >together freely and honestly. Yep. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > >Alan: Hear! Hear! Huzzah for you! Well put, and I agree with evey word. alexis From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Apr 10 23:16:04 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:16:04 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <06c3WHA0EEbxEwhr@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: hostile? In-Reply-To: <960410174434_466843125@emout04.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960410174434_466843125@emout04.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >Not always. Sometimes people get very mad at me (I have a file drawer of >nothing but death threats) but an occasional pat on the back is welcome. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker Pat, pat, pat (yawn), pat, pat, pat, pat ... had enough yet? Huh? Pat, pat, pat, pat .................... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 12 01:29:12 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:29:12 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604120233.WAA29654@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Whoa! Chuck, The instruments might possibly be of a slightly different temperature, or density, or any number of small variations. Liesel Member Ti, TSA, TS in Canada, HR ............................................................................. >Liesel, >People may not see it the same, but the instruments and math that measure the >orbit do. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI,FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 12 01:39:01 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:39:01 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604120243.WAA04959@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: hear! Hear! Alan, It's ok ewith me, the way you want it. Liesel >At 06:35 PM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >>In message <199604101834.OAA08179@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. >>deutsch" writes >>>Chuck, >>> >>>Nobody's answering you, but I think you have a point there. We don't want to >>>stand there "we're free & you aren't, nja, nja, njaaa!" >>> >>>Liesel >>>Member TI, TSA, TS in Canadam HR >>>........................................................................ >> >>I have answered Chuck ... and we're not saying that. The importance of >>the "free" part of the statement is as much a declaration of ethos, of >>setting a standard for the future. We *are* free and we want to *stay* >>free. Nowhere in the TI statement do we denigrate *any* other >>theosophical setups - on the contrary, we hope to be of service *in >>amity* with them. >> >>If they seek to denigrate us, or deprive their members of any freedoms, >>the problems arising, if any, are theirs, not ours. I hope that TI is >>something that will be looking forward, not backwards. Let us learn >>from the mistakes of the past without parading them triumphantly as our >>raison d'etre. Our raison d'etre is to promote the three objects in the >>best way we know how - and to seek and find even better ways by working >>together freely and honestly. Yep. >> >>Alan >>--------- >>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >> >>Alan: >Hear! Hear! Huzzah for you! Well put, and I agree with evey word. > >alexis > > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 12 01:44:45 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:44:45 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604120248.WAA05141@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: others Alexis, Stealing another man's wife, and fooling around is, unfortunately, not something very out of the ordinary. I really thought you'd come up with some thing more juicy. Liesel Member TI, TSA,TS in Canada, HR .............................................................................. >At 03:04 PM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >>Boy, Alexis, >> >>You know all the details about everybody's sex life. I knew Leonard >>Bernstein was gay, or bisexual, he had a wife, but I didn't know it about >>Aaron Copland. What kind of revolutionary sex life did Wagner have? I >>wouldn't put it past him to have done it standing on his head. >> >>Liesel >>Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR >>............................................................................ >> >>Liesel: > >I knew both Leonard and his wife Felicia (Warburg). Like so many Gay Men of >Jewish antecedants Lenny, who was always a Gay man, had to marry to meet his >family's expectations of him. Also when he was a young man, even a hint of >his real nature could have destroyed his career. It's amazing how many major >American composers of the 20th Century were Gay men. Virgil Thompson, >Benjamin Britten, Lou Harrison. John Cage and many more. The Gay community >tends to keep up with these things not becuase they are at all interested in >people's sex life but because these men, and so many other men and women >like them are our validation of usefulness to society. They are our virtual >banners to fly proudly. Being a member of the Gay and Lesbian Minority is >not like being Jewish or Black, while people may be racists or anti-semites, >they do not call either blacks or jews perverted for what they are, nor are >other minorities so discriminated against in basic human rights. It's >difficult to get over the pariah status and "famous Gays" are a big help in >so doing. > >As to Wagner, it's extremely common knowledge that he stole Hans von Bulow's >wife Cosima Liszt von Bulow. It's also common knowledge that he was the kind >of man whose ego was gratified by afffairs with forbidden objects. He, like >his Father-in-Law Franz Liszt was clearly a heterosexual. >> >alexis> From rdon@garlic.com Wed Apr 10 23:56:06 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 16:56:06 -0700 From: rdon@garlic.com (Rodolfo Don) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom >The question is can we be totally free pschologically. Once we are, then >what next? > >Something to consider. > > ....doss Have you ever heard: "Truth will make you free"? Well.....the reverse is also true. Rudy THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL Web: http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Apr 10 18:59:51 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 19:59:51 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <1cLzbCAnUAbxEwjt@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: random thoughts of a barbarian's chum In-Reply-To: <960410010418_268161009@emout08.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960410010418_268161009@emout08.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan is thinking again! Run for your lives! :-) > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI,FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......." Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Apr 10 20:57:45 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 21:57:45 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Oh No! In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >I can't begin to tell you how much I hate that "only for the few stuff". If >Blavatsky really believed that, then she was dead wrong! .. she wrote hundreds of pages of material for a couple of dozen people? Not very likely. If only a very few could benefit, then Isis and the SD would not have been worth a publisher's time and money. Just my 2 penn'orth. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Apr 10 22:23:07 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:23:07 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Misunderstandings re: K, ES (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:38:25 -0700 (PDT) > From: Arnie Post > Subject: Re: Misunderstandings re: K, ES (fwd) On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, Sitanshu Kumar wrote: > I dont know why such a big fuss is being raised over some masters > living in the himalayas. It is true that K never denied the existence of > the masters, he simple thought they are largely irrelevant as far as > freedom for mankind is concerned. He has stated that very clearly. > The theosophist seek the masters as spiritual authority, K said > all authority stifles the mind. I think most childish people seek > some kind of miracle, some unknown guiding hand, all that is result > of fear, and fear can not be solved by any authority(look at the > organized religions). It is quite malicious to say that K sought > a special position for himself. His presence was selfless. As far as > Radha Sloss is concerned, she is no more than a fiction writer like > the ones you see on bookstands.( she may have some factual truth, > but her mind seeks sensationalism, very much similar to what > is shown on popular TV shows likes Cops etc.) > > sitanshu kumar > Arnie. I thought you put that very well Sitanshu. I just wanted to add that we have no idea of what really went on in K's personal life and why should we even care. > > > > From listening-l-owner@zrz.tu-berlin.de Tue Apr 9 09:31:41 1996 > > Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 11:27:31 -0500 (CDT) > > From: M K Ramadoss > > To: listening-l > > Subject: Re: Misunderstandings re: K, ES (fwd) > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type> : > TEXT/PLAIN> ; > charset=US-ASCII> > > Content-Length: 2999 > > > > Here is a response from Paul Johnson, for anyone interested. > > .....doss > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 08:22:49 -0500 > > From: K. Paul Johnson > > To: Multiple recipients of list > > Subject: Re: Misunderstandings re: K, ES > > > > According to M K Ramadoss: > > > > > > This reply is cross-posted to listening-l, where K related matters are > > > discussed. Any respondent on listening-l may like to cross post the > > > message here at theos-l@vnet.net > > > > Dear Doss: > > > > I really wish you hadn't done that. With enough adversaries in > > Theosophical circles to last a manvantara, I don't need > > Krishnamurti-ites demanding that I prove everything I say too. > > > > > > so I think it more plausible to conclude that he encouraged her > > > > to maintain the ES and use it as a tool to turn the TS towards > > > > his own teaching. From what I hear this has been/is being done > > > > > > This is the first time I hear of this. > > > > If Radha is a disciple or admirer of K., who ran for the > > presidency on his instructions, wouldn't it be surprising if > > that *weren't* reflected in the direction she took the ES? My > > only source for this is a post someone made in which this was > > asserted as fact here on theos-l. Of course with people and > > organizations wrapped in secrecy, the chance of an outsider > > being able to prove anything is next to nil. > > > > > > After K's statement that Truth is a Pathless Land, I have not > > > seen either his claiming any *authority* for himself least of all any > > > *spiritual* authority, > > > > Sometimes actions speak louder than words. The best source I > > know of regarding this angle on K. is Sloss's Lives in the > > Shadow. He certainly allowed-- no, acted as if he expected as > > his proper due-- his followers to treat him with great > > deference due a World Teacher. While explicitly questioning > > such behavior. > > > > and I have also not seen his mentioning *Masters* > > > and least of all *his* intimacy with Masters. Since this is a fairly new > > > revelation to me, can you enlighten me about your source for the above. > > > > Actually, on the subject of the Masters, I cannot enlighten > > you on my source since it was made available to me on a > > confidential basis. However, perhaps I can find some things > > *in that source* which will confirm what I am saying. Again, > > back to Radha-- if she is really a Krishnamurti intimate and > > disciple, would she be pontificating about the Masters being > > something *beyond perfected men* about whom it is blasphemy to > > speak in human terms, unless she somehow thought such a view in > > harmony with his (secret) teachings? What I'm suggesting is > > that K. never really denied his intimacy with Masters as > > completely as it might seem from a superficial reading. > > Moreover, he acted as if he were precisely what/whom Leadbeater > > had proclaimed him to be-- the World Teacher. > > > > Will dig around for details. Feel free to cross post my > > response, since we've gotten started down this path, but I > > don't wish to engage in debates with an expanded group. > > > > Cheers > > P > > > > From eldon@theosophy.com Thu Apr 11 01:13:56 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:13:56 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960411011356.006bf7f8@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: individuality Paul: [writing to Coherence] >Perhaps these opposing views are best reconciled by looking at >them on different levels. Greg, you are right at a *spiritual* >level; to think of oneself as *spiritually* independent is >quite wrong, because at that level we are all one, or should >try to be. But Alexis is right at a *mental* level-- we should >all think independently and not allow group pressures to mould >our convictions. Or perhaps we have both individualism and unity *at all levels*. Physically we are individual beings, and would die if we don't care for ourselves. But we are interdependent; we depend upon others for our existence. We cannot eat without something to be our food, write without someone to make pens and paper, have a conversation without someone to talk to, watch a sunset without a sun to be setting. At higher levels, we have our thoughts, but where do they end and the thoughts of another begin? Our value as thinkers depends upon our original thought and not our ability to passively reflect the thoughts of others. Yet higher, we can have an experience of oneness, emersion, unity, nirvana, yet even here it is *our* experience of it, out of which we may later return to manifest existence. Essentially we are eternal, perfect, utterly individual, each a Monad with its own absolutely unique nature. But in manifestation, in existence, there is no ego, soul, or body to look to and say "this is me, this is my enduring self." The self that endures is *non-existing*, it transcends the finite nature and limitations of any evolutionary experience of life. Our inner nature is utterly individual, yet at its core, enshrouded in Mystery, is a form of unity out of which all the Monads arise. In the manifest worlds, the nature of the game is co-dependence. We exist because of being in interaction with others, with beings already in existence. Our nature is defined by a spider web of karma, a network of interconnections with others in life. We can assert our individualism, but who and what we are is defined in relationship with others. As finite, imperfect, mortal, living beings, we sometimes forget our interdependence, forgetting that we are nothing except in our relationships with the rest of living things. (This interdependence and direct relatedness is defined in the buddhic principle.) This forgetting is epitomized by the illusion that we are distinct, separate beings, the maya produced by the ego-creating action of the mind. When this action ceases, we see ourselves for what we are: a living hub of relationships, a nexus where others are tied together in and through us. (This ego-creating activity arises in the manasic principle, except when closely allied with Buddhi.) What are we, then, individuals or a unity? Both. Our individual nature is eternal, perfect, and cannot be taken away from us; it is our essential nature as Monads. In life, we exist because we choose to, and exert our will to manifest ourselves. Yet at the same time, our perfect nature as Monads is rooted in the same identical Unknowable Root, a form of unity. And in life, our existence not only depends upon others, but it defined in terms of the relationships that we've made. We only allow ourselves the illusion of a separate, independent self in the world until Manas is sufficiently allied with Buddhi to be permeated with a continual awareness of the *essential relatedness* of things. I don't think we need to say that everything is independent, or everything is independent, or that all is independent on the lower planes and dependent on the higher. I'd rather put it thus: everything is interdependent for its existence and defined by that dependence, yet uniquely individual and responsible for creative self-expression based upon that individuality. -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Thu Apr 11 01:13:59 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:13:59 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960411011359.006943d0@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: regarding TI (note to JRC) JRC: I have no objection to a theosophical group that would act like John Mead's theos-l and allow a free forum for the participation by anyone with a shared interest in Theosophy. It's fine to have a place where beliefs are not imposed, where the ugly side of politics does not arise and power and control games take over, killing any possibility of spiritual activities. Within this organization, people can take their individual approaches. Some can believe, for instance, in the psychic, and talk about their experiences and theories about it. Others can hold different views and also be heard. It would be contrary to the openness of this organization, though, if the organization would take either side on this issue, saying, for instance, only positive things about the psychic and calling contrary views as coming from paranoid, fear-drenched, condescending people who come screaming out of the woodwork. If you were to say that T.I. has perfect freedom and openness of inquiry, but with an unstated "but only if you agree with me", it would be the same attitude that you personally deplore in the leadership of theosophical organizations. While the overall organization would be an umbrella for any belief and approach to self-genesis, it would not therefore identify what is Theosophy nor have a stated understanding of the theosophical doctrines. These doctrines would continue to be passed on in their hopefully pristine form by other theosophical groups, seeking to serve that purpose, as well as by specialized projects within the T.I. These ideas do need to be passed on as a living tradition, from students with some understanding and background in them, and not merely as the dead-letter of the books. I don't think it would be fair to call those of us with an interest in these core ideas, nor with their study, to be characterized as puffed up, passive-aggressive, condescending Mahatma wannabees spouting hints of connections with the Masters. Some of the theosophical groups' leadership may appear that way at times, but do we really know them as people and understand their motives? They may be working within the framework of a difficult political situation, and their hands may be tied against acting as their hearts might dictate at times. There are two ways of being inclusive. One is with a lowest common denominator and an uneasy, perhaps unspoken negotiation of what is ok to talk about. A series of compromises is made as to what can be talked about, and the rest of the materials remain undiscussed. This is what we have on 'theos-l'. On 'theos-l', psychics feel uncomfortable writing about their experiences, for fear of being blasted as sinners. Others like Bee may fee uncomfortable discussing the basic theosophical ideas, feeling unsafe in quoting anything and getting put down for not using her own words. Coherence may feel uncomfortable quoting HPB to demonstrate a certain idea is in accord with the theosophical Teachings nor not; someone else may feel uncomfortable expressing an idea because they don't particularly agree with Theosophy and don't want to be silenced with the words "that's not theosophical!" The other way of being inclusive is to allow multiple lists, groups, lodges, projects to specialize in different ways, where everyone finds a forum for their particular interests. This would be like having a house where rock music is played in one room, new age in another, country and western in a third room. The music may not go well together in the same room, and may not suit the tastes of everyone, but everyone tolerates the tastes of others and coexist in the same house of music. One last idea which you mention with regard to T.I., which I disagree with as a universal principle, but would accord to your "music room", is that having definite doctrines to Theosophy leads to ideas crystallizing (in the negative sense of this word), forming a group into another spiritual/religious organization with its own hierarchy of power, inner circle, required reading, etc. First, I would not use "crystalize" in a negative sense, although it most often a put-down term. A positive aspect of it is to give concrete expression, beautiful and perfect in its own way, to something. This is like the act of writing a poem, which crystallizes one's feelings of the moment, allowing them to be recaptured to an extent, but not a permanent enclosure for them. I would find with Theosophy as a living body of mystery teachings, which are "crystalized" when expressed beautifully in words, both spoken and written. The expressions need to be redone, again and again, but there are, I think, a definite body of ideas being preserved and passed down, from one generation to the next, that are as real as the law of gravity, although they are also something that can be a matter of belief or disbelief. From this, I would say that T.I. should *not* take a stand for or against there being a definite body of theosophical doctrines, of mystery teachings. To do so either way would be to make it just like all the other groups, with "these ideas" as the canon of belief, or "no such ideas" as the canon. -- Eldon From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu Apr 11 00:38:13 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:38:13 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604110142.VAA18621@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To:Doss Re: Random thoughts Dear Doss, What you say is ok if you want to fight for what you think is right within TS Adyar. As for myself, I've decided that nothing is accomplished by fighting, ie I've been on that path for 10 years to no avail, so I'm just doing my own thing, which means belonging to TI, & letting Adyar do its own thing., whatever that is, & if it is demise, well, then, I'm in a place where someone demises every month ... so, in a way, I'm getting used to it. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Apr 10 21:00:17 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:00:17 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: wow! In-Reply-To: <199604100859.UAA09332@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604100859.UAA09332@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz>, Bee Brown writes >The paint brush behaved quite nicely and the net curtains are up so roll on >Friday and the library will be open for business. >Buye for now. >Bee Brown >Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. >Theos Int & L May it live long and prosper! (And you too) Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu Apr 11 00:51:02 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:51:02 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604110155.VAA23901@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re Adyar successors Doss, First off, I would imagine that John Algeo isn't too interested in giving up the Presidency of the TS right away. He took early retirement from his job in order to become President. I think he's doing a good job, given the parameters he has to work within, & I really don't know of anyone else who would do a better one. I met Betty Bland about 10, 15 years ago at a convention. I liked her a lot, but I don't really know what philosophies she stands for. At the time, her husband, David, was modernizing the way convicts were being treated in their State, which I think was Tennesee, but I'm not sure anymore. It's a subject matter I happen to know something about, because we serviced parolees at work, & I also corresponded with convicts for a time. David Bland had some really innovative ideas, in the right direction. I was impressed, & hoped he'd be able to put his ideas into practice, because I thought what he tried to implement would decrease the recidivism rate. Liesel Member Ti, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu Apr 11 00:59:02 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:59:02 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604110203.WAA28989@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Russian e-mail Alexis, I know there are PC's in Russia, but so far I don't have any viable addresses. I once corresponded briefly with a man in Moscow from another list. I asked him whether he'd relay messages to my penpal, but never got an answer. We also briefly had a correspondent in the Ukraine. He had to give up writing, when his bosses found out how he spent his worktime. I think you wrote to someone for an adress. I wrote to someone as well, by snail mail a few days ago. One of us will get an address, soon I hope, then you can write. I told my correspondent what we wanted to do, & she might already pass it on from where she is in Western Europe. She phones Russia at times. We'll get there. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu Apr 11 02:09:14 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 19:09:14 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604110209.TAA16294@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Giggling at the Morally Upright Chuck, In one of your recent postings, you write: >Blavatsky herself was anything but moral in the eyes of her contemporaries >and Col. Olcott left his family to run off with her. What are your sources for this statement? Historical documents, etc.? Thanks. Daniel From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu Apr 11 02:12:59 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 19:12:59 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604110212.TAA17177@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Giggling at the Morally Upright Chuck, You write in part: . HPB wrote a good Victorian game to >keep her audience happy, but in her personal life she was anything but what >would have been considered moral in her time and she had great fun playing >little, and not so little pranks on those who thought they were. could you be a little bit more specific? Like define a few of HPB's behaviors that are referred to in what you write as above quoted. And the sources for these incidents? What are they? Thanking you in advance. Daniel From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu Apr 11 02:14:46 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 19:14:46 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604110214.TAA17548@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Chains and rounds Paul, What list are you referring to? >Someone on another list has asked me a stumper. Where, prior >to HPB, does one find the doctrine of chains and rounds? I >know that the Kabbalah has something similar, and the Hopis >their doctrine that this is the fourth world. But in its >full-blown form, the chains/rounds material does not seem to >appear in print earlier than HPB. By full-blown, I mean the >combination of >1) The doctrine of invisible globes as companions to the >physical planets, on other planes and >2) The passage of life-waves through these chains in repeated >"rounds." > >Thanks if you can help. > > From eldon@theosophy.com Thu Apr 11 02:15:19 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 19:15:19 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960411021519.006cb798@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: morality (comments to Alexis) Alexis: [writing to Chuck] >Actually "morality" is a religion based conception used to oppress humans! >You will notice that the morally up-tight usually try to weasel their way >out of it by conjoining "ethics" and "morality" but it doesn't really work >because ethics is a valid conception and morality isn't. The morally >up-tight are, just like their imaginary deities, busybodies! It really depends upon what you mean by the term "moral". If it brings to mind the narrow "do this" and "don't do that" rules that are given to us by modern religions, I can see your distaste for the term. I give the term a higher meaning, because I look at it apart from its abuse by religious zealots. I would consider "moral" to be doing what is right. As sentient beings, we learn to distinguish right from wrong, and to act with consciousness and deliberation rather than unconsciously and by habit. It the better sense, "moral" refers to those actions that are for the better good, and "immoral" are those that are harmful to everyone involved, even if the harm is not apparent on the surface. I'd agree that we throw off the arbitrary rules of conduct imposed upon us by society under the term "moral". But I don't see it as leading to being amoral. In my view, the throwing off of unconscious, rigid, unthinking morality is done by becoming self-consciously moral. That is, one sees with penetrating insight (buddhi) into the true nature of the situation in life before one, and chooses what is right with skillful means. The rigid rules given us by society no longer shackle us, but we're even more tightly bound to the right because we see, know, and cannot help but want to follow it. -- Eldon From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu Apr 11 02:25:23 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 19:25:23 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604110225.TAA23345@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Up-tight is the word! > Sexuality and diet have absolutely nothing to do with being >a good person. Would the writer of this sentence be so kind as to explain what this means? Absolutely nothing?? Daniel From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu Apr 11 02:12:12 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:12:12 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604110316.XAA03452@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Sitanshu Kumar, Re: Kirshnamurti Sintash, you quote KrishnaJ as saying that spiritual authorities stifle the mind. I would say that the ones that stifle aren't very spiritual, but rather out for themselves, or for their own ends. An effective spirtual authority, I think, is a person who has a point of view from which others can learn, without being stifled, but rather a point of view which fires the imagination to soar to new heights, or clears up a point the seeker has been puzzling about ... helps the person find HIM/HERSELF in some way, not what the spiritual authority wants them to find, but what the seeker needs to find. That's what I call a genuine spirtual authority. Matter of fact, I think sometimes Krishnamurti qualifies as being such a spiritual authority. I also think that sometimes he says nonesense. But that's because I look to spiritual authorities to tell me things I myself can use. If I can't use what they say or write, it's not of interest to me. It may, however, be of use to the next guy. If the point of view tries to make me afraid, I say "You bananas, man!" & I go some place else for answers. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu Apr 11 02:12:18 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:12:18 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604110316.XAA03500@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Mark whom Doss put on Dear Mark, I do not like to be preached at or scolded. Who do you think you are? Krishnaj/ god, or someone in a church I don't go to anymore for just that reason? Liesel Member Ti, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu Apr 11 02:12:22 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:12:22 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604110316.XAA03534@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re misunderstanding I agree with Alan. Getting messages of other lists on theos-l is too cumbersome. We have too many messages as it is. If our home page has links to the others, then whoever wants to can read them via the links. Alexis, you said something a while back, that I'm thinking about. Did you say that the theosophical home pages have been removed? who, what?!? Liesel Member TSa, TI, TS in Canada, HR From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 11 03:55:39 1996 Date: 10 Apr 96 23:55:39 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Giggling at the Morally Upright Message-Id: <960411035539_76400.1474_HHL86-1@CompuServe.COM> Greg: > And if ethics and >morals were directed to her TS students to keep them out of trouble, would >this also not apply to the occultists? That they would be heedless is their >problem and is not an excuse for not providing the insistence or warning that >high ethics and morals should be followed. I think HPB would giggle at the >statement that Western students (or any for that matter) would no longer need >it (them--ethics and morals) It probably should be, but it generally is not. Most occult, magic, New Age, and so on, schools in the West discuss the need for ethics and morals in a quick lesson or lecture, and then move on to other things. If you believe in karma, then you will be as ethical as you can, just to reduce your own karma burden a bit. The idea in occultism is to do the "right" thing spontaneously as if you had no other choice, rather than because someone else said it was the right thing to do or because you gain merit by it or because you gain a better future life for it, and so on. It all boils down to whether it inflates your ego (then it is wrong, no matter how right it may be) or deflates or ignores your ego (then it is right, no matter how wrong it may be). For this reason, history shows us some very high initiates and Adepts whose morals were very questionable by their local standards. However, they were obeying a "higher law" as Jerry HE and others would have it. It is not up to us to question whether HPB was morally upright when she trucked through the countryside with a bunch of men. Nor about her smoking or cussing or anything else. Now, as it turns out, we also should extend this courtesy to others, outside the theosophical community, whose actions may seem black and degraded to us, but whose heart and whose conscious motivations we cannot ever know. In short, it seems to me that unless we can read the thoughts and emotions of others, we should not judge them insofar as their morality is concerned. I never meant to suggest that Western students, high or low, don't need ethics or morals, but rather that they no longer need such warnings or morality lectures. I, for one. rightly or wrongly, feel that I am aware of the consequences (the "price" as Alan would say) of most of my actions and no longer need reminding. I like your quote from HPB and have no quarrel with it. But when you say "There is not much in this which would exclude anyone, Indian or Western" you are wrong. The quote *only* applies to those who follow the Bodhisattvic Path, by that or any other name. It applies to no one else. Actually, there are damn precious few who follow that particular path. >Now it seems to me that our understanding of your phrase "bend over backwards >to be morally upright" differs. You seem to mean those who perceive >themselves as morally upright, whereas I read it to mean, "try to hold to the >highest moral ideal". If you constantly strive hard to "hold to the highest moral ideal" you will trip over your own shoestrings at some point. This is something that beginners, those who just start on the Path, may have to do, and have to worry over for a time. I would hope, Greg, that you are past this point. I have already written volumes on theos-l concerning ethics, and do not care to repeat myself. Suffice it to say that it is my opinion that those who worry about maintaining themselves in a morally upright position holding steadfastly to the highest moral ideal may make very nice theosophists, but lousy occultist or magicians or shamans for that matter. These type of folks are on the very first stage of Kohlberg's moral stages, and will never do well with occultism. I am not saying that they are wrong, or that they should avoid ethics and morals-- that is not my point (I have already been fried flame-dry for that mistaken idea). I mean only to say that they need to make the very best of their morals and ethics, and then move on, letting ethics be spontaneous and not forced. One has to move to the very highest of Kohlberg's moral stages in order to get anywhere in occultism. One interesting peculiarity with Kohlberg's stages is that from the perspective of those on the lower levels, those on the highest levels appear to have no morals at all. This is because those who are on the lower levels are overly concerned with appearances. Its something to think about. >This was not my point, for ethics and morality should be followed, especially >by occultists, because it is the right thing to do. Ah, but whose ethics would you have them follow? Let me give you one of Kohlberg's cases: A man has a wife who is dying of a sickness. The medicine that she needs is at the pharmacy, but the man is poor and has not got the large sum of money asked for the medicine. Does he (1) let the wife die? or (2) steal the medicine? Those on the lower end of the scale always chose 1 because it is the legal thing to do. Those at the high end of the scale always choose 2 because their wife is more important to them than the law. So sometimes, Greg, ethics comes down to doing what you inwardly feel is the right thing to do at the time, and choices are seldom easy. Laws and local customs sometimes must be broken. Ethics sometimes requires the breaking of ethics. Who are we to judge another person? Jerry S. Member, TI From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 11 04:36:31 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:36:31 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960411003631_510873600@emout04.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Up-tight is the word! Alex, A buffoon is not necessarily harmless but is certainly funny in his hypocrisy. The real serious ES types certainly qualify in that regard. Remember what HPB said as she was dying. "How I leave my idiot Theosophists!" Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 11 04:36:46 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:36:46 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960411003645_510873805@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: morality and gods Alex, Now don't tell us you don't believe in yourself. As for me, I deified myself when in college and had great fun tossing lightning bolts at people. One of the nice things about being amoral is that you never have to worry about living down to other people's standards. And once they find out that you are not going to they tend to stop bothering you and next thing, mirabile dictu, you actually find that you can get along. And you get to giggle a lot. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 11 06:08:00 1996 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 23:08 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: why? At 12:18 PM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis: >> Pretending it >>cannot be explained to many people, is, I think, a total ego trip. > Whoa! I never said it couldn't be explained. It can, and >it is, and will continue to be. But after hearing the message, most >folks leave the TS and go elsewhere. Most folks want instant >enlightenment. Publishers know this. My own publisher, for >example, puts things on the covers of my books that say "easy" >and "anyone can do it" and "fast results" and so on, which >makes me squirm. This is exactly what people want to hear. >It sells books. But, alas, it is not the truth. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > >Perhaps, after hearing the message as it is given by the "orthodoxy" and finding it deals primarily with details in which they are totally disinterested, and by which they are totally confused (i.e. the totally technical discussions you and Jerry E.H. are having) and finding nothing in those technicalities that anwers their personal questions, they do, in fact, go elsewhere and who can blame them? I personally believe theosophy to be an attitudinal approach to a brioad spectrum of investigation that can, but never even implies that it does, lead to "enlightenment". I really have never contemplated the theosophical movement, or as it seems more to me, the Philalethian Movement to be in the business of purveying "enlightenment". I,at least prefer to leave that to folks like Elisabeth Clear Profit, Now as to book covers, does not an author have any in put at all re: content? Perhaps I am in an enviable position, but I will never permit anything on the cover of a book I write that is not what I want it to be. It's sort of like producing a biography of Diocletian and finding naked women on the cover. Doesn't LLewellyn give their authors any rights of at least stylistic censorship? They should. I know all authors (and their publishers) want to sell books, but where does integrity enter the picture? Perhaps you could "clue me in" on authordom, as an about to be published author, I totally trust my publisher. I should hate to be "shuffled off into inconsequentiality" after the contracts were signed. alexis dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA a voice crying in the wilderness From Richtay@aol.com Thu Apr 11 06:14:34 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 02:14:34 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960411021433_373304662@emout06.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Giggling at the Morally Upright Dear Greg, You will indeed face the firing squad, sir. How DARE you quote the founder of the modern Theosophical movement to a bunch of Theosophists? The following is, I must say, over-stepping your bounds: > "Theosophy has to inculcate ethics. . . . . . .It is not by studying Occultism for selfish ends, for the gratification of one's personal ambition, > pride, or vanity, that one can ever reach the true goal: that of helping suffering mankind. . . . . . . I have said already that a true Theosophist > must put in practice the loftiest moral ideal, must strive to realize his unity with the whole of humanity, and work ceaselessly for others. Now, IF > AN OCCULTIST DOES NOT DO ALL THIS, he must act selfishly for his own personal benefit. . . . . . .he becomes forthwith a far more dangerous enemy to the > world and those around him than the average mortal." (caps mine) (Key pp. 24 & 25, facsimile ed.) What were you thinking, Greg? Regardless of the fact that HPB's private life was in fact the paragon of virtue; regardless of the fact that her Masters time and time again attempted to inculcate ethics (and yes MORALS) to their Eastern and Western students; regardless of the fact that Theosophy has called to itself some of the wisest and purest people on the planet -- what's that to us? We who are free of all such silly constraints? We who are gods beyond all compare? We who have already attained the goal and have no need of guidance? We who bray like donkeys at the mere mention of RULES and VOWS and MORALITY? Get thee to a nunnery, Greg. What WERE you thinking? From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 11 04:35:31 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:35:31 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960411003529_510872798@mail06> Subject: Re: up-tightagain Alex, He might, then again,. he might not. But I hope Rich remembers that blasphemy is both good for the soul and a great way to follow in the footsteps of HPB, who was a great blasphemer in her day. Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Richtay@aol.com Thu Apr 11 07:05:06 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 03:05:06 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960411030505_188947590@mail02.mail.aol.com> Subject: The poor blind --er, ethical--mice Chuck writes, > Does the occult meaning of the word "blind" have any meaning to you? This is a test, this is only a test, of your emergency vocabulary system. Please wait while our station conducts this test. Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep ... -- Um, okay. I can do this. Perhaps this guy, whom I've never met, assumes I am an idiot. Perhaps he assumes correctly. But even an idiot has heard of the word "blind" if s/he has picked up a book on occultism. Blind in this sense has three primary definitions. (1) Secrecy. Veil, cipher, glyph, cover, privileged information, "double entendre," cryptographic communication, Tibetan "twilight language," code, anagram, undertone. (2) Puzzle to be solved. Mystery, riddle, quandary, enigma, allusion, implication, allegory, hint, innuendo. (3) Deception. Misinformation, hoax, guile, myth, cunning, pettifoggery, fraud, trick, artifice, device, sham, chicanery, skulduggery, connivery, deceit, guile, falsity, misguidance, dupery, bamboozlement, hoodwinking, flimflammery, fooling, subterfuge, fallacy, illusion, willful misconception. Now, perhaps it is not clear even to you, let alone me, exactly what the connotations of your remark were. But let us proceed, skippingly, carefree of my idiocy which is hereby manifested for all to see. How do > you think the good Victorians would have reacted if Blavatsky had said, > "Look, the universe is a value-free information system and nothing you do in > the physical is going to have the slightest impact on your future > incarnations. Well. That's tough. I'm going to have to ask my imaginary friend Victorian who sometimes helps me type up little posts to the board. She says, "I think most Victorians would say, "Oh really? Well, being the hypocritical Christian that I am, here at the 'fin de siecle,' I can protest loudly in public, but tell you in secret I actually believe the same thing, little materialist that I am. I don't even believe in heaven, let alone future incarnations" "The clergy would of course had far fewer problems with her, given that HPB's ethical system was a direct affront and insult to the (pitiful) Christian one being offered, which rested on blind faith and eternal reward or punishment, dependent upon the whim of an anthropomorphic God who couldn't give a damn about theodicy (let alone *The Odyssey*) based upon an average of 65 years on the planet." "The scientists would have said "Yeah, whatever, we knew you were a crackpot to start with." "And the Orientalists would have said, "Poor HPB, she doesn't even understand the very Buddhist and Hindu and Sikh and Jain and Taoist systems she purports to explain, one and all of which rest upon an entirely serious system of ethics, whose foundation is ahimsa (non-violence) while in the physical body and devotion to the good of all." But then, the Orientalists were so confused last century that they couldn't make heads or tails of their own fields, let alone an Occultist like HPB." Thank you Ms. Woolf, couldn't've done it without you. So in context of the last question, I must assume that you, Chuck, meant "blind" with the connotation of list number (3) deception. I.e., HPB was playing with her students, coaxing them constantly to brotherhood and altruism, and purity in word thought and deed, and drumming up Mahatmas to mindlessly spew forth the same drivel, when actually physical life, and all the intentions, senstations and cognitions which go along with it were perfectly outside the system of cause and effect. Which is exactly what you write: > The only thing that matters is intelligence, how effeciently > you process information, because that is what the Universe is really all > about, but what you do with that information does not matter in the slightest. And if HPB would have taught such a doctrine, which I now hear for the first time in my short life, from Acharya Chuck, there would be no Theosophical movement today. Because HPB never would have passed her own probationary chelaship, let alone be unleashed by her Buddhist Teachers to the Western continents. As Greg's post from the *Key to Theosophy* clearly shows, time and time again, ethics (and yes, MORALITY) are absolutely essential, the "sine qua non" (for those who only speak Latin and no English) for Theosophical study, let alone for the Occult study which was predicated upon strenuous Theosophical work. HPB accepted no chelas who were not thorough-going workers for the Cause, who were not willing to sacrifice themselves for their brothers and sisters in the movement -- yea, behold -- in PHYSICAL bodies. If one were to cull the "verboten" *Mahatma Letters,* all of HPB's writings, including books, letters, articles, editorials, notes, MSS, short stories, newspaper bits, or oral communications, and throw in Mr. Judge's works to boot, (not to be confused with *Das Boot*) one would find NOT ONCE, NOT ANY PLACE a single scrap of evidence to indicate that the teaching of ethics in a physical body were a blind in "true" occult study. And so Chuckie-Cheese, this is YOUR teaching, and you are welcome to it, and remain you may the highest and most respected Theosophist in all the world. But you speak for yourself and those who think like you, and not for those whose gift to the world was the modern Theosophical Movement. There ARE, of course, OTHER meanings of the word "blind," but we need not go into THAT. Gee what's on t.v. tonight? From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 11 07:10:00 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 00:10 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Sometimes At 04:50 PM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, >I don't think she intended to live out her days as a prisoner of the >Vatican--er-- Adyar and have everything she said universally ridiculed, which >is how she is going to end up, just like Pio Nino. (I wonder how many other >people on this list know who we are talking about.) > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: Sometimes I wonder if anyone knows what we're talking about (exception being Alan and perhaps Jerry Schuler). alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 11 07:18:00 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 00:18 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Wonderrful statement At 04:52 PM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >"Look, the universe is a value-free information system and nothing you do in >the physical is going to have the slightest impact on your future >incarnations. The only thing that matters is intelligence, how effeciently >you process information, because that is what the Universe is really all >about, but what you do with that information does not matter in the >slightest." > >Chuck: What a wonderful statement of what theosophy really has to teach! Now that statement, almost word for word, should be somewhere in the TI statement of purpose. In fact,if a person was to ask: "What does theosophy teach?" That's the best answer I've ever seen! Let's put it on the cover of my book (attributed to you of course). Alexis, MTI, FTSA (But for how long..I wonder?) From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Thu Apr 11 10:58:48 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 03:58:48 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9604111058.AA28272@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: re: bodies and principles (yet again!) Jerry S. writes: >Jerry H-E: >I have read your recent post, and I have heard you say that CWL >is in conflict with HPB either deliberately or in ignorance >several times in the past. I agree that there seem to be at >least some conflicts, but not as many as you suggest. > As I understand it, the CWL model talks about bodies >and planes, which basically are made of the same "stuff" which >is to say, out of the tattvas or cosmic elements. JHE Yes. My understanding too. And according to CWL, these "bodies" and "planes" are made of increasingly finer atomic material. By analogy, if the astral plane were made up of marbles, then the mental plane would be made up of sand. The next higher plane is made of even finer material. Jinarajadasa uses an analogy of this sort in his ~First Principles of Theosophy.~ JS >HPB, on the other hand talks about planes and principles, and >only mentions bodies once that I know of, where she specifically >mentions three subtle bodies. Other than semantical >word-smiths, where is there any conflict? I find myself >agreeing with both CWL and HPB here, and have never been able to >grasp what you are talking about. I have always viewed >"bodies" as objective vehicles of consciousness, and >"principles" as subjective states of consciousness. So, I tend >to see them as going together rather than conflicting. JHE The way you are using terms may be part of the confusion, but I suspect that it runs much deeper. It is not a matter of "word-smiths." I believe the confusion created by combining HPB and CWL is very real and is not resolvable through the appealing to semantics. IMO the confusion concerns an attempt to make two incompatible systems of thought work together as an integrated set of concepts. So, let's start by taking the terms you mentioned above and compare them in the two systems: BODIES: Your definition of "bodies" as "objective vehicles of consciousness" is fine for CWL's purposes, but HPB means much more than that. For HPB, bodies are independent entities that come into existance either at the death of the physical body, or through an extraordinary act of will. That is why HPB never uses terms like "buddhic body," or "atmic body." "Mental body" would also be an incorrect equivalent of "manas," because the they do not have independent existences as entities. Further, HPB's bodies each have their own cycle of existance. They never exist beyond a single cycle of incarnation and disincarnation (with the exception of the Causal Body, which exists for a manvantara). PRINCIPLE: I'm not sure what CWL means by "principle." It may be just as you say, a "subjective state of consciousness." For HPB, a principle is not a state of consciousness, but is an expression of one of the seven basic differentiations of the Elements or original essences which make up all things. Therefore every entity, existing on the physical or any other plane, global, solar or cosmic are made up of principles. HPB's seven principles are the seven aspects of the One Universal Reality, whether the term is applied to the Kosmos or to the human constitution. This is why I think CWL's bodies is sort of a misconstrued take-off on HPB's principles, but I don't know if this was CWL's intention. As you say, CWL's bodies are formed from the Tattwas of the Indian system (which HPB warns is full of blinds), or from the Greek system of Elements. As you say, there is an identity between CWL's tattwas and his bodies. HPB's principles are not identities, but rather *aspects* of the elements. They are not the elements themselves, though there are correspondences between the elements (tattwas) and the principles. Therefore, I find two striking differences between HPB's principles and CWL's bodies. The first is that the CWL's bodies are found on the seven solar planes while HPB's are on the seven sub-planes of the solar physical plane. The second difference is that CWL's bodies are formed from the Elements, while HPB's are *aspects* of the Elements. VEHICLE: Though you use the word "vehicle," you have left it undefined. For "vehicle" HPB also uses the word "Upadhi" as a synonym. A vehicle or upadhi is that through which a force acts. A vehicle is not necessarily a principle, but works within a principle. That is why HPB says that the physical body is not really a principle. Rather, it is a vehicle (upadhi) though which consciousness acts. Therefore, a principle is really the vehicle of the principle next superior to it. For instance, Buddhi is the vehicle of Atma; Manas is the vehicle of Buddhi etc. To address the issue you raised concerning the difference between bodies and principles; they are two very different things to HPB. Whether they are different to CWL is not clear to me. But it is clear that what HPB calls bodies, are entirely different from what CWL calls bodies, with the possible exceptions of "physical body" and "Causal body." I'm sure that CWL and HPB agree on what they mean by "physical body," but I'm less sure of the extent of agreement concerning "causal body." For HPB, the Causal body is really synomous with the human monad. To call a "monad" a "body" is something that I have never seen HPB do. The causal body, according to HPB, is a combination of Atma, Buddhi and manas, and normally does not come into existence until after the death of the physical body. As I mentioned, she also calls it "the human monad." So how CWL construes this to be a "body" that comes from the tattwas is a mystery to me. Which tattwa makes up the Causal body in CWL's system? Do you know? Considering the above, I'm forced to come to the conclusion that when HPB discusses "bodies," she is not discussing what CWL means by the term: i.e. they are not tattwas, and they do not make up the seven-fold human constitution. Further, HPB's bodies are a combination of two or more principles that make up the human constitution. HPB has five such "bodies" if you include the physical, and calls them by various names: 1. rupa: Also called the "physical body," "sthula sarira", and "body." This is not a principle, according to HPB. Here, I think both HPB and CWL would agree that the physical body is formed from the elements on the physical plane. 2. protean double: Also called the vital double. This body has an independent existence when projected by a medium. It is also, according to HPB, sometimes seen near fresh graves. This sounds something like CWL's "etheric body," in that it is molecular. But I think CWL had something else in mind. 3. Kama rupa: This body forms only after the death of the physical body, and is the vehicle for one's experiences in kama loka. It is formed from the combination of kama and manas after the death of the physical body. CWL uses the term "astral Body" in this position of the schema. His astral body is the seat of the emotions, and sometimes he calls it the "emotional body." For HPB, the principle she uses in this position is "kama" (it is different from kama rupa) which has to do with desires, not emotions. Emotions in HPB's scheme are seated in the linga sarira. 4. Mayavi rupa: Also called an "ilusionary body." This body is used for astral projection. According to HPB, certain adepts are able to project this body and materialize it in another location. It is formed from kamic substance and shaped by focused thought. I don't think CWL has anything like this in his schema of bodies, unless this is also his astral body. 5. Causal body: Also called the "karmic body." This is the body that experiences devachan between incarnations. CWL also has a causal body that also experiences devachan. The difference is that HPB's causal body does not exist until after the death of the physical body. CWL's causal body exists during the lifetime of the person as well as afterwards. The important thing I want to get across here is that HPB's bodies are not the principles, nor do they make up the human constitution. These bodies do not have an existence until they are formed via a trance state in the case of the protean double, or through astral projection in the case of the Mayavi rupa, or they come into being after the death of the physical body in the case of the kama rupa, and the causal body, as well as the two aformentioned (protean double and mayavi rupa). The physical body is also not a principle, as I explained above. CWL's "bodies" on the other hand, seem to be structures that make up the human constitution. JHE > Actually my criticism concerns CWL's enumeration of the >solar planes as described in ~Man Visible and Invisible,~ and >his confounding them with the "seven bodies of man," which is >further confounded with HPB's "seven principles of man." JS Here is exactly my problem--I just don't see the "confounding" that you seem to see. To me CWL says that we have a physical body on the physical plane, an astral body on the astral plane, and so on. I don't see this as confounding anything. Nor does it conflict with HPB in any way that I have ever found. JHE Hopefully what I have written above will clarify this. Yes I also understand that CWL says "we have a physical body on the physical plane, an astral body on the astral plane" etc. But which physical plane? The physical plane of the planet? The physical plane of the Solar system? The physical plane of the Cosmic planes? They are not all the same in HPB's schema. A planet or star that is visible to us is on our physical plane, but that chain may have globes that are subphysical and not visible to us. This may seem picky, but the blurring together of these planes in CWL's system has caused a lot of problems. In the human constitution on the solar planes. See diagram II. JHE > HPB, on the other hand, does not confound the solar >planes and the principles, because the principles in her system >do not occupy any but the lowest solar plane. JS > Here I disagree with your interpretation. I believe that >she teaches that the seven cosmic planes each have seven >principles, that the seven principles of the physical plane (the >lowest) are a reflection of "wheels-within-wheels" wherein the >seven cosmic principles are each expressed on each cosmic plane. >Just like each plane has seven suplanes, so each has seven >principles. You seem to be implying that there are no >principles expressed on any of the other cosmic planes. > >Am I missing something? > > Jerry S. > Member, TI Yes, I agree that the seven cosmic planes have seven principles, and the cosmic subplanes also have principles. Just by the definition I offered above, it cannot be any other way. Every plane and subplane has its principles, but the principles belonging to the human constitution are on the subplanes of the solar physical plane. I also agree that the principles of the physical plane are a "reflection" of the other planes. "wheels within wheels" as you say. But your qualifying term "reflection" is an important one. There are correspondences between planes, but they are not necessarily identities. You ask if you are missing something. It is hard for me to know what you are missing, because I'm not familiar with all of the assumptions that you operate from (we all operate from assumptions). I'm guessing that what you might be missing is that principles (as I defined them above) are found on all planes. But the human principles are only on the subplanes of the solar physical. If they were on all of the solar planes, we would have the consciousness of the solar system. With CWL's system, he was able to have a conversation with the Solar Logos. In HPB's system, such an accomplishment is even beyond the Dhyani Chohans' abilities. Of course, just because the human principles are not on the solar planes does not mean that there are no correspondences between them. For instance our manasic principle corresponds to Mahat, the divine ideation of our solar system. But manas is not Mahat. I hope this helps. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 11 14:01:41 1996 Date: 11 Apr 96 10:01:41 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re:Up-tight is the word! Message-Id: <960411140141_76400.1474_HHL70-2@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: > Being altruistic is one thing, being "good" is a meaningless >term except when used to children and dogs. Alexis, thanks for this one. I love it! Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 11 14:01:46 1996 Date: 11 Apr 96 10:01:46 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: More on Reality Models Message-Id: <960411140146_76400.1474_HHL70-4@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: > I do think the use of >the "owrd "model" in the context we're discussing precedes Wilson's use of >it, but I'd have to do some research to prove it. I do, however, remember >one Albert Eisntein using it when explainging his work to me when I was a >kid. (No kidding Maybe we should ask, who don't you know? I agree that the use of "model" is pre-Wilson. I first learned this at the University of Maryland in the early 60s while getting my engineering degree. The idea of models comes from the scientific community, and yes, Einstein and some others started it, because until Einstein came alone everyone thought Newton was "reality." After Einstein, Newton became a "model." Modern science always speaks in terms of models of reality. But this idea is relatively new to the occult and magical communities. Wilson may have picked it up from someone else. I was just mentioning that his use of the idea was the first that I had come across in the occult or magical worlds. G de P, for example, warns against taking his charts for the real thing, and points out that the astral is not over our heads, for example. But for him, and all the other early theosophists, HPB's model was *the* model, rather than *a* model. As far as I know, I was the first theosophist to dare call it *a* reality model (i.e., one of many). Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 11 14:01:45 1996 Date: 11 Apr 96 10:01:45 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Psychogenesis Message-Id: <960411140144_76400.1474_HHL70-3@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: >>>. I also aprehend there is a great danger in using a so-called >>>"psychological" approach to theosophy as it tends to either avoid or >>>euphemise reality into psychological states of physical human consciousness, >>>and they, as I see it, are the least important aspects of consciousness. Jerry S: >> Agreed. But psychogenesis will not replace cosmogenesis or >>homogenesis but rather supplement them. This should help avoid this >>pitfall. > Alexis: >I'll definitely go along with that just so long as it's not based on Freud >or Jung. They are both far too Judeo-Christian in their value judgements. > I give Freud credit for "discovering" the unconscious and for emphasizing the importance of dreams, but little else. However, I rather like Jung. Jung realized that value-judgements are psychological, and that we place them on things according to our perception of meaning. In short, he realized their relativity. But I agree that if psychogenesis is to work, it must be based on the "core teachings" of Theosophy as an expansion of the 2 vols of the SD. But just as HPB compares her Gupta Vidya with modern science, so we must compare psychogenesis with modern psychology. I have already tried to do this in several areas, probably the most "stimulating" on theos-l has been ethics where I compared Kohlberg's moral stages to the traditional stages of occult development. This kind of thing simply has to be done if Theosophy is to survive (I have no doubt that theosophy will survive just fine with or without us). Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 11 14:01:40 1996 Date: 11 Apr 96 10:01:40 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Chains and rounds Message-Id: <960411140140_76400.1474_HHL70-1@CompuServe.COM> Paul: >Someone on another list has asked me a stumper. Where, prior >to HPB, does one find the doctrine of chains and rounds? I >know that the Kabbalah has something similar, and the Hopis >their doctrine that this is the fourth world. But in its >full-blown form, the chains/rounds material does not seem to >appear in print earlier than HPB. This idea came up awhile back on theos-l, and I said at that time that this material was original to HPB, at least in the detailed form that she gave it to us. She compares the Globes of our planetary chain to the Sephiroth of the Qabala, but if you ask a Qabalist if the Sephiroth are globes of one single planetary chain, they would look at you as if you had lost your mind (am I right, Alan?). Besides, the Rounds *have* to be unique to HPB's model, which is entirely circular. The Tree of Life is not circular, and Rounds would be pretty hard to come by there. However, she does give lots of "hints" for her model throughout the SD. She either (1) made the model up all by herself as a synthesis of her knowledge and experience, or (2) she was given the model by her Teachers who had themselves done such a synthesis. Either way, it is unique to HPB insofaras it can only be found in her SD. Now, in fairness to her, the idea of invisible worlds or "sheaths" is well-known in India in terms of the Lokas and Talas, and she (and G de P as well) borrow heavily from that source. But there is nothing in the Lokas and Talas to suggest lifewaves or a set number of Rounds. (maybe it was kept verbal?). The idea of invisible worlds and reincarnation can also be found in Gnosticism and in ancient Egyptian texts and pictures (I view the ancient Egyptian as the "fountain source" of all Western occultism) but again, nothing of lifewaves or of a set number of Rounds has ever been discovered that I know of. One of the amazing (to me) things about her model, is that it provides the necessary foundation or structure to her three occult axioms in the proem to the SD. And furthermore, it requires only a little tweaking of the Tree of Life to arrive at it. Either HPB was a genius, or else her Teachers were, because her model is every bit as robust as the Tree of Life. Jerry S. Member, TI From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Apr 10 23:10:46 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:10:46 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: instant enlightenment In-Reply-To: <960410174450_466843276@emout09.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960410174450_466843276@emout09.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >"And Chuck said 'Let there be light!' and he turned on the switch. And lo, >he looked at the clock and said 'It's too early to get up. Let there be >darkness.' and he turned the lights off and went back to sleep and yea it was >good." from the Gospel of St. Leonard the Very Weird .. and lo! he remaineth asleep even to this very day :-) The Blessed Alan of Bedlam --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From nlporreco@bpa.gov Thu Apr 11 17:05:00 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 10:05:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: Occultism - HPB Message-Id: <316D3BEB@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 11 TEXT "Occultism in not magic, though magic is one of its tools. Occultism is not the acquirement of powers, whether psychic or intellectual, though both are its servants. Neither is occultism the pursuit of happiness, as men understand the word: for the first step is sacrifice, the second, renunciation. Occultism is the science of life, the art of living. HPB --- Lucifer, Vol. I, p. 7." From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Thu Apr 11 19:31:27 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 15:31:27 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604111931.PAA28426@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Kingdom Come This morning I discovered a practice that may be old news to some of you, but which was "a real blast" for me, and which might be of some use to someone. This is especially relevant to anyone who, like me, lives in a rural environment and does a lot of driving on blue highways. The Capitol Beltway might not be the place to try this, but... Edgar Cayce gives an esoteric interpretation of the Lord's Prayer in which the portion "Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed by thy name; Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" accompanies a successive awareness of the crown, brow, throat and heart chakras-- or the pituitary, pineal, thyroid and thymus glands at the physical level. Inspired by this, I have used Nam (name) as a mantram and recited it silently while staying focused at the eye center. This is do-it-yourself shabd yoga Simran. But Cayce, unlike the Radhasoami tradition, also emphasizes the heart center. So this morning, after going through the whole Lord's Prayer, while driving in the country I repeated "thy kingdom come" and "thy will be done on earth" while feeling centered in the heart. Alternating sometimes with "hallowed be thy name" at the eye center. What happened is that the material environment took on a divine glow, I felt a connection between spirit and matter that was new to me, and I intuited new meaning in "thy kingdom come." It didn't feel like asking for something to happen in the future, near or distant, but rather stating my will to perceive something in the now. Seeing in the farms and woods and streams God's kingdom and will manifest on earth was-- well, memorable. This was quite different from the rather abstracted state that results from staying at the eye center. In reference to an ongoing debate on theos-l, I must add that this practice underscored the relevance or utility of visual clairvoyance as an aid to mindfulness and devotion. Seeing an irridiscent radiance around the cows, horses etc. while riding around may well be a result of "forcing kundalini" with these Third Eye practices. But being aware of the heart-dimension of reality made that experience one of profound compassionate oneness with animal life. In metaphorical terms, it is as if a flame is lit in the eye center that causes one to see creatures in this way (humans included of course)-- and then that awareness causes a flame to be lit in the heart center which causes one to *feel* the life in those beings and our oneness with it. When I bounced out of the altered state and was thinking about it, the conclusion I reached was that when we are consciously present up there in the neocortex, we are experiencing ourselves in connection to possible higher-than-human beings, in whatever form, or at least with our evolutionary future as present in the lotus seed of our present hardware. This causes a kind of upward floating sensation. But when we move our attention to the heart, we are experiencing ourselves at the level where we are one with all other beings with hearts-- mammalia, birds, reptiles-- which produces a downward, grounding sensation. Combining or alternating the two feels more like a proper, integrative awareness than just staying focused on top. At one level, it's an integration of past and future; at another, an integration of mind and will. If this is all obvious and silly, please ignore. From Coherence@aol.com Thu Apr 11 19:50:04 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:50:04 -0400 From: Coherence@aol.com Message-Id: <960411155004_189231082@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: No Mail today Help. I did not receive my mail today. Could someone please post the "get theos-l" function instructions again? And how do you know if you've been dropped from the list, as was discussed a short time ago? Many thanks Greg H From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Thu Apr 11 21:29:29 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 17:29:29 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604112129.RAA26060@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Third Refuge While reflecting on Daniel's post to/from/about Mike Mueckler's scientism, and what I really believe, or rather believe I *know* about the paranormal/mystical/esoteric-- there are two bottom lines. 1) Every single time I have done and interpreted a natal astrological chart for someone, he or she has been blown away by its accuracy and depth. And the dozens of people for whom I have done them have *not* been particularly predisposed to believe-- anyone *really* sympathetic to astrology would have done their chart or had it done while they were still in their teens, like me. Anyone who waits until age 30 or older to have it done cannot be very biased in favor of astrology. So, I don't know *how* it works and I don't know *why* it works, but all the skeptics in the world cannot shake my knowledge *that* it works. 2) In almost 20 years of very sporadic practice, I have confirmed this much: application of the Edgar Cayce guidelines on meditation, diet, exercise, and attitudes/emotions has consistently proved its worth in terms of an increased sense of physical, psychological, and spiritual well-being. To go further, the degree of psychic integration and well-being experienced at different times has been *directly proportional* to the degree to which I have applied these guidelines. (Which has varied a lot). Don't know how, don't know why, just know it works. For someone like Mike, none of this may mean anything scientifically, and I can't argue. But I wish the scientists would at least *look into* subjects like Cayce and astrology, instead of looking down their noses. On realizing that these were the two things in life about which I felt most confident/secure, I realized that they entered my life the same time-- 1978-79-- as did Theosophy. But while astrology and Cayce kept the implicit promises I perceived in them, I can't say the same so unreservedly for Theosophy. It seems to parallel the refuges in the Buddha, the dharma and the sangha. The three promises I felt or registered in that one year period were: 1. You can rely on the Christ Consciousness or the Divine Forces to provide spiritual guidance, to the extent that you open yourself to same. This equates to refuge in the Buddha-- although I would universalize that to the buddhi. Cayce made this promise, and it has never failed. 2. You can rely on astrology to provide practical guidance on understanding what you need to do and when, and how to relate to others. This is like the refuge in the dharma-- a particular systematic discipline that harmonizes us with the universe. But behind door number 3 was a perceived promise that didn't work out quite as planned: 3. You can count on the Theosophical movement to provide a network of supportive, mutually respectful fellow-seekers whose shared values and interests will be a source of, well social security. That one never failed at the local level, neither in the Tidewater branch of the Pasadena TS, nor in any other local group with which I have interacted. But at the national and international levels, Theosophy became not something *in which I could find refuge* but rather something *from which I would need refuge*. This is the level of finding refuge in the sangha, a group of like-minded spiritual pilgrims. Now, does this mean that Theosophy is inherently less reliable than astrology or Cayce? No, I don't think so. If I had relied on astrological organizations or the A.R.E. to provide an ever-supportive network, they would probably have been just as disappointing as Theosophy. What it *does* mean, however, is that whatever group you're in, you had better put most of your eggs in the baskets of buddha and dharma, because no sangha can be guaranteed to keep its promises (implicit or otherwise). More later. From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Thu Apr 11 21:51:12 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 17:51:12 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604112151.RAA29769@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Re: Third Refuge In-Reply-To: <199604112129.RAA26060@leo.vsla.edu>; from "K. Paul Johnson" at Apr 11, 96 5:29 pm continuing with that thought-- Despite the fact that at some level I knew as early as 1978 that astrology and Cayce would never let me down, and Theosophy could break my heart, I still "picked door number three." Nobody made me devote the lion's share of my time, energy and money to pursuing Theosophy for years and years. This reminds me of the way some people gravitate to the romantic partners who are guaranteed to hurt them, ignoring the sweet, sane, reliable alternatives and heading straight for disaster. These reflections are somewhat influenced by reading The White Buddhist, and feeling the truth of its last chapter, "Things Fall Apart." People from Olcott and HPB down to Krishnamurti and Emmett Small have been placing their hopes in Theosophical organizations and finally concluding that their faith and hope were misplaced. Whatever organization it may be, putting any hope in it seems to be building your house on sand. Some people are lucky that way. They have harmonious relations with the powers that be; they get their books published by Theosophical publishers; they get only positive results from the time and energy and money they invest in the Theosophical movement. But if I had to advise someone just starting out, the message would have to be: beware. There is some strange force field here that will suck you into a vortex of group karma so intense and weird that you may take the rest of your life figuring out what happened. From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu Apr 11 23:29:05 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 16:29:05 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604112329.QAA25067@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Wonderrful statement This is what Theosophy teaches???? See below. Maybe all these words mean something other than what I am reading on the surface. Could all of this be clarified? If this statement [as I "read" it] was incorporated in TI, I certainly would not want to join the group. Daniel >At 04:52 PM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: > >>"Look, the universe is a value-free information system and nothing you do in >>the physical is going to have the slightest impact on your future >>incarnations. The only thing that matters is intelligence, how effeciently >>you process information, because that is what the Universe is really all >>about, but what you do with that information does not matter in the >>slightest." >> >>Chuck: > >What a wonderful statement of what theosophy really has to teach! Now that >statement, almost word for word, should be somewhere in the TI statement of >purpose. In fact,if a person was to ask: "What does theosophy teach?" That's >the best answer I've ever seen! > >Let's put it on the cover of my book (attributed to you of course). > >Alexis, MTI, FTSA (But for how long..I wonder?) > > > From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Thu Apr 11 23:55:20 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 19:55:20 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604112355.TAA18737@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Medit-l I mentioned another list, and was asked to identify it. The list is Medit-l, a combination of three parts: 1) the old Cayce-l, which had plenty of subscribers but little traffic 2) a meditation list that was losing its listserv home and needed somewhere to go 3) people who had been on Mystic-l, a list for academic discussion of mysticism, where the listowner got mad at the people posting personal experiences and told them to go away I'm the list manager, Mark Foster is the listowner, and the listserv is at Johnson County Community College in Kansas. So far the energy is very nice and I encourage any of you to look in. You will automatically get a welcome statement explaining the list if you write to major@johnco.cc.ks.us and send the message subscribe medit-l or subscribe medit-l-digest Hope to see you there Paul From eldon@theosophy.com Fri Apr 12 00:07:00 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 17:07:00 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960412000700.00698e7c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Reply to the Barbarian that Smells Rot Chuck: >I think what is going on in the TS is a generational struggle that >is the sign of a spiritual organization going through its first >aging pain. I'd see it as generational too -- between one generation of Theosophists and the next, in passing on the theosophical work and ensuring that it continues to do good in the world. >Consider this. A hundred some odd years ago Blavatsky and Judge >were dead and Olcott heading for the final roundup. The first >split had already occurred and it was inevitable that the immediate >successors, who, whether we like them or not, were giants, would >put their own often very peculiar stamp on the thought of the society. A century ago the original leaders were dead or soon to die, and their successors, like Annie Besant and Katherine Tingley, were taking over. (The "split" was the first of many expulsions done by the Adyar T.S., where Olcott expelled the American Section for declaring itself autonomous.) >Then about a generation (33+) years later, they all kick over and >in their place a succession of relative non-entities holds >leadership positions in all the groups with the intention of >following in the footsteps of their idols simply because they >lacked the ability to do anything else. What happened here depends upon one's view of what Theosophy and the Theosophical Movement consists of. If it's all a matter of personalities and hero worship, then the first generation of charismatic leaders have departed. After them came Crosbie in the ULT, Kristnamurti (outside of) the Adyar T.S., and Purucker in the Point Loma Societies. All three could be considered significant in their own way. The appearance of people being "non-entities" is not necessarily a bad thing. For those of us that consider there being a significant message and a treasury of occult knowledge in the *content* of Theosophy, the personalities aren't that important. A good exponent of the philosophy would impart it without drawing attention to themselves, they would try to be non-charismatic, and from surface appearances they might seem insignificant. >Now that group has almost all died off and their replacements >are continuing the deterioration. Deterioration? From my personal experience of studying Theosophy, I find significant advances being made in the 1920's and 1930's and Purucker presented it in a much more organized manner than earlier writers. I think you're thinking more of the general nature of organizations, where once the initial impulse of the founding members is lost, the organizations become fossils, losing their actual life, and run by people with no idea about what things were originally about. This is possible of any organization, including the theosophical ones, but only *when the initial impulse is lost*. I would say that the initial impulse is not the charisma of the founding members, but the living knowledge of the Mysteries that might be carried in the hearts and minds of some of the members. That knowledge is not rote memorization of passages from some holy book, but is a combination of trained thought and inner awakening. In a sense, it is an enhanced awakening of the fire of mind. >Combine this with the fact that the TS has been relatively safe >from outside persecution (at least in most of Europe, the US, >India and the antipodes) and you have no reason for people of >great ability to need to take over. People of "great ability" may or may not take political office in the theosophical groups. But can you say they are not there? What has politics to do with keeping the flame alive? >A rot has set in. And when things rot, other things start >eating at it from the inside, in this case, us, at least in >the minds of those whose only goal for the society is to >keep the outworn husk intact. Rot sets in when the life has departed and there is decomposition. I'm not sure that this has happened in theosophical groups. Even if all knowledge of the philosophy departs the society, and there are no members left with a living understanding of it, it can still exist as a book club and a fraternal organization. There is no harm in this; it is not evil or amoral. >Consider if you will the very real possibility that John Algeo's >successor may be Betty Bland and you see what I mean. I don't know her. How is she an example of spiritual rot? If she's devoted a good portion of her energies to working for Theosophy, and is willing to get involved in something as distasteful as politics, shouldn't we wish her well? Granted, you may have a profound knowledge of Theosophy, and wish to train her, to improve her meager grasp of the philosophy. Or perhaps you are far more advanced than her in moral and spiritual qualities? If so, you might want to share with her and the T.S. what you have to offer. For myself, I'd be reluctant to pass judgement on others, especially if they are willing to do a certain work that I don't particularly care to do myself. >And the gods alone know what will come after Radha! As I >see it, the only way to save the TS is to eat out the rotten >center fast enough that it can be replaced with some new >growth before all is lost. As a person, I don't see Radha as part of the rotten core. What I may be concerned about is her grasp of Theosophy. The policy of expelling members, lodges, and national sections may be objectionable. But what was it trying to accomplish and what other methods may be less harmful? I see the theosophical groups existing to promote the original philosophy, to keep it adapted to our ever-changing society, and to allow it to benefit as many people as possible. The problem is a balance between honoring this trust and allowing the widest freedom of belief in members. Consider the following. Say a group of neo-nazi racist skinheads from Montana wanted to form a theosophical lodge. They wanted to teach the "superiority" of the Aryan race (e.g. themselves). They were involved in violent protests at local universities, and may be involved in bomb-making. In this case, were I in a position of power, I would be reluctant but I would expel them. Why? Because I would have to weigh and balance the individuals' rights of free belief with the importance of preserving and promoting the philosophy, and in this case the damage to that effort far outweighs the individuals' rights to "do what thou wilt". Because of this, I can understand where Radha may be coming from. On the other hand, if she does not have a firm grounding in *original* Theosophy, she may sense as threatening certain expressions of bona fide Theosophy. >At the risk of shocking Alex, I might point to Buddhism >after the death of the immediate followers and their successors >and Christianity after it was pretty obvious that Jesus (whether >or not he existed) was not likely to return in the foreseeable >future. These were different than Theosophy and HPB. In one case you have an Avatara working to give a spiritual impulse to a particular society. That impulse takes the shape of a religion in order to sustain itself for a period of time. Eventually it loses energy and becomes fossilized, unless additional spiritual giants participate in it and give it additional pushes. With the Theosophical Movement, though, there was a dual intent. One was a similar spiritual impulse, to stem the tide of rising materialism in the west. The second was the imparting of specific occult doctrines, to, I think, allow for the eventual founding of a western Mystery School, if it takes root. The first, the spiritual impulse, may result in one or more religions. The second, the occult impulse, may or may not result in a school being founded. The theosophical doctrines are not needed for the spiritual impulse to work; they are very important for another doorway to the Path to be set ajar in our western world. >Both systems were able to adapt and survive in spite of our >opinion of those systems. Adaptation is necessary, as you say, for survival. But what is it that it to survive, and what is its purpose? >What is needed is a new vision of what Theosophy is and is to >be, one that can build on the past but not be controlled by it, This is the *important* problem, which we're all thinking about in our own, different ways. A new vision is needed, not of Theosophy itself, but of how it can apply itself in concrete and useful ways in our current-day world. It is not "controlled by" the past, but it is rooted in the same eternal truths that are as valid 100 years ago as they will be long past the time when our galaxy dies of old age. >recognizing that the founders and their successors did some >great things and some incredibly stupid things and maybe even >a few vile things. If you lump all the people in the history of the theosophical groups together, you can include "vile", but I'm not sure if this applies to the acts of the principle players. I'm not sure about "stupid". There's a difference between stupid and mistaken. Everyone is human, mortal, finite, and subject to making mistakes as times. Stupid, though, is the opposite of intelligent, and I don't consider the key players in the theosophical past as lacking in that regard. >Just how we are going to do that is anyone's guess, but it is >going to take a lot of thinking and arguing and even some >--gasp!--work. There's going to be some of this. Along with sudden inspirations and insights. Sometimes things will seem to fall into place as though by magic, as though they were orchestrated from afar. >But the first thing is to get some younger minds in the TS. >We have a few, but not nearly as many as we need. People can benefit from Theosophy at any age, even in their 70's, 80's, and 90's. It has been fairly consistent that people in their teens and 20's have not been drawn to theosophical groups. It may be partly a manner of approach, where Theosophy is presented in a way that does not appeal to this age group. It may also be partly a matter of phase of life, where younger people are not in a phase of life where they find a study of Theosophy appealing; the need for years of study may conflict with the desire for instant gratification and immediate results, a desire than hopefully declines with age in wisdom as people get older and mature. >None of us are getting any younger and we can easily become >old people with old ideas and not realize what is happening. This is something that we need to watch out for: the crystallization of our thoughts. We need to continually rethink things and keep our ideas fresh, lest they become so inflexible and rigid that they die and entomb our thinking. >Also, it is a fact that theosophists are not noted for >breeding. It depends upon their age. If someone joins in their 40's, they may not be planning to have any more children. >If we do not attract younger people theosophy will go the >way of the Shakers, without even nice furniture to remember >it by. But even though people join in their 30's and 40's, and then grow old, there is a continual stream of new members joining from the same age group. In the 1960's, there were people in their 30's and 40's joining; they are now in their 60's and 70's. In the 1970's, there were people in their 30's and 40's joining; they are now in their 50's and 60's. And so on ... There's a high turnover of members, but a steady flow of new members. But I don't think that the average age of membership is increasing. >The second thing, in my nonhumble opinion, is to stop >genuflecting before science and academia. Forget them and >get out to where the people are. Here I'd agree. Although we can study and benefit from science and academia, our philosophy does not stand or fall based upon its public acceptance by the scientific community. We need to use what we have to help others, not to win esteem. >Meet their spiritual needs and abandon the attempt to >try to get respectability. Gaining respectability is fine, but a secondary goal, not something of primary importance. >This isn't the nineteenth century. Soon it will no longer >be the twentieth and respectability is not worth it's >weight in mad cow manure. And sometimes the attempt to gain respectability and tie in with modern scientific thought backfires, and when that science is later disproved, we're left with "guilt by association", and ourselves appear discredited. This may be what happened, for instance, with Leadbeater. At the turn of the century, science thought that waves could not be carried except if there were some medium to transmit them, and it was postulated that light was carried via a material called "ether". This idea, I think, was subsequently rejected by science, but Leadbeater picked up on it and gave us an "etheric body" and "etheric plane", both of which aren't in the original theosophical doctrines. (HPB speaks of the astral double as the "model body", and the astral and physical being really the same plane.) >Third, realize that ideas change. They come and go in >fashions and what made very good sense 150 years ago >is nonsense now. And this is the danger of using too many scientific metaphors and analogies in our philosophical works, as when the science is later discredited, we have to rework the books to purge the no-long-workable comparisons. -- Eldon From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 11 22:35:35 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 23:35:35 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: regarding TI (note to JRC) In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960411011359.006943d0@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960411011359.006943d0@mail.deltanet.com>, "Eldon B. Tucker" writes >I would say that T.I. should *not* take a >stand for or against there being a definite body of >theosophical doctrines, of mystery teachings. To do so >either way would be to make it just like all the other >groups, with "these ideas" as the canon of belief, or >"no such ideas" as the canon. > >-- Eldon And I would say the same. There *is* an "Ancient Wisdom" but we have to go find it for ourselves. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Fri Apr 12 00:26:29 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 20:26:29 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604120026.UAA23421@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Passing for native This is off-topic, but does relate to an occult mystery. I'm about to get my plane tickets for this year's vacation, which will be my first trip to the Dominican Republic. As I brush up on Spanish, am wondering if the same weird phenomenon will occur as has popped up in France, England, India and Mexico. First, for the great majority of you who've never seen me, I'm an ordinary looking middle-aged white guy, with dark hair and eyes but not black-- and rather pale sking. Never, in over 40 years of living in the southern US, has anyone ever taken me for anything but a local yokel. And yet-- there is something weird and unnerving about the way I pass for a local when I go somewhere else. In France, it was definitely the rule rather than the exception for people to take me for a Frenchman. In Paris, little old ladies would ask for directions; in Pondicherry a young Frenchman hailed me from across the road, speaking in French and asking directions; etc. etc. The accent was a dead giveaway, but otherwise on looks alone, I "passed" continually. Indeed, felt that I blended in on the street more than in the US. That's not so strange, given the similarity of coloring. But more strange is that I'm apparently just dark enough to confuse even Mexicans and Indians. Remember an experience in Guadalajara of being taken for local and having a kid ask me directions. Even in Bombay, when I was out with a group of obvious foreigners (one black, one tall and fair, one very English-complected) an Indian came over to our table and asked me "You're not Indian, are you?" The range of Indians' looks is wider than most Americans would think, but this was still a shock. Anyway, same thing in London-- a fairly steady stream of people taking me for a local and asking directions. As I head off to Santo Domingo, I'll be wondering whether or not I can "pass" there. Here are some theories about why this happens so consistently: 1) It happens to everyone, and I just notice it cause it's me. 2) There's something peculiarly protean about my appearance, so that wherever I go people think I'm one of them. (Well, not in Ecuador, or Italy, or Germany.) 3) It's more an inner thing. People pick up vibes from the way one walks down the street, and I apparently look like I know where I'm going and feel like I belong there. Maybe there's some unconscious mimicry involved. Has anyone else had this kind of experience, or known anyone who does? One thing that's particularly odd is that the places this happens most are also the places where I have the strongest sense of deja vu. From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 11 22:00:18 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 23:00:18 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <6R+2JDAyDYbxEwDR@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: The Russians In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >Alan: > >I'm writing because I am wondering something. O.K. I am going to write a >letter to the people in Moscow who were rejected so cruelly by Radha. But, >other than commiserate with them, what am I to say? Is THEOSOPHY >INTERNATIONAL ready to replace Adyar in the eyes of those poor rejected >Russians? Reply: Only if we can offer a structure - perhaps along the lines of my recent suggestions. > I think I need some really detailed "Introduction to Theosophy >International" to send them along with my letter. Reply: JRC was working on something at one time, but depending on response concerning my reply above, I could possibly put something together ... > Also, we need to know, if >we're inviting them to join us, just what it is we are inviting them to >join. I mean these are Russians not Anglo-Saxons. How do you think they'll >react if we tell them that "We're an amorphous, very loosly organized group >af anarchically inclined extreme individualists, who support the "Three >Objects" (as re-defined), and on occasion morally support one another". Do >you think that will be enough for them? Reply: No. > We don't really know anything at all >about the Russian Theosophists other than that they've suffered. For >instance; how many of them are there? For instance; what is their exact >relationship with MMe Vigneron? For instance how did they actually become >Theosophists? Have they been so all along in secret? Or, conversely, is this >something they've jst found? Or, is it some combination of the two? > >The thing I don't want to do is send these pooor folks a nice, polite, >friendly, but meaningless letter. I have to offer them "something"..but >what? Reply: See above! As some members, especially Alexis, JRC and myself hope to see TI grow into something larger and more pueposeful than a purely inward-looking internet chat-line, a structured but non- hierarchical "family" could welcome them. It will be little use saying to them, "Welcome, we'd love to talk to you if you have computers and can write intelligently in English via the Internet, assuming you have modems, software, etc., etc., etc." > Most of the people who are presently members of Theosophy >International, havn't the vaguest idea what life may have been like inRussia >during 78 years of grinding, mindless oppression, and deadly foreign >invasion. I think a Russian who is a Theosophist is a heroic person. After >all in the West (and other places)Theosophists are viewed with some >amusement, but in the Soviet Union, being a Theosophist could eartn one, at >least, beatings, or The Gulag, or a Bullet to the back of the >head. Being a "secret" theosophist was, like being a "secret Jew" in the >Spain of the inquisition, an act of considerable bravery, and these folks >deserve something better than they've gotten. > >I'm sending this to you becuase you'rr the "chief instigator of >Theosophy International and I want your feedback. I also wouldn't mind >if you put this on the board so that other TI people can react to it.I >know this, in the letter I'm not going to say anything about being >Blavatsky's cousin. Most Russians learn about the Dolgorukii in school >(even under the Communists) as without the Rurickovitchii there is no >Russia. And so the only thing I think my name will do is show them a >welcoming Russian presence in the West. > >I await more input, the translating is in place. Reply: The input I would like to see is a positive response to my suggestions for a proposed structure. TI members: will you go along with this without hair-splitting at this stage? Can we set up the basics, even if a little imperfect at this early stage, and develop the refinements as they are seen to be needed when we start to *practice* what we are preaching (so to speak)? .. can Alexis say to the Russians - *or anyone else* - "I belong to TI in San Francisco (or wherever); Alan belongs to TI in Bristol, England, Rudy belongs to TI in Gilroy," and so on? .. can we set up or co-operate with existing publishing or book- providing organisations to offer them something more than just a friendly word? .. can we ask *them* to help *us* in spreading the TI ethos around the world? > >alexis , MTI, FTSA I have posted this to theos-l as the quickest way of replying to Alexis' questions, as it arrived in my theos-l mailbox. The TI members agreed that I should co-ordinate our work, even (to quote one post) facilitate it. Will you, If you are a TI member, agree to the revised statement *as is* for the time being, together with a structure along the lines suggested.? I propose, as there is a real need and a real opportunity to respond to it, to ask you all for a simple vote: YES or NO? Please reply ASAP to ti@nellie2.demon.co.uk with a simple reply: Revised statement and structure for TI: YES or Revised statement and structure for TI: NO Okay, we may need to sort out some bugs as we go along, but the Russians - and maybe others we don't realise - need us *now.* Whatever our discussions about the nature of freedom might be, their experience of one form of it is pretty d... immediate and deserving of a "brotherly" and "family" response - and soon. We have some fine words on a fine Web page - can we put them into *action.*? You tell me. > Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From eldon@theosophy.com Fri Apr 12 00:27:25 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 17:27:25 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960412002725.006d0f68@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Up-tight is the word! Chuck: (writing to Alex) >A buffoon is not necessarily harmless but is certainly funny in his >hypocrisy. Since "Buffoon" is being used a lot on theos-l, I looked it up in my American Heritage Dictionary: AHD> 1. A clown, a jester. 2. A person given to clowing and joking. AHD> 3. A ludicrous or bumbling person, a fool. Well, we seem to see examples matching all these definitions in theosophical groups. Of all the definitions, I'd prefer #3, if you consider someone as the divine fool, like "The Fool" in the tarot, someone with an innocence to life that makes of him a saint. (Of course, worldly-wise saints are also useful role models...) -- Eldon From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Apr 12 02:43:29 1996 Date: 11 Apr 96 22:43:29 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Wonderrful statement Message-Id: <960412024329_76400.1474_HHL61-1@CompuServe.COM> Chuck: >>The only thing that matters is intelligence, how effeciently >>you process information, because that is what the Universe is really all >>about, but what you do with that information does not matter in the >>slightest." >> Daniel commenting on Chuck's post: >This is what Theosophy teaches???? See below. Maybe all these words mean >something other than what I am reading on the surface. Could all of this be >clarified? Well, for one thing, Chuck's words echo the Anthropic principle, and are very close to what I would call mystical. I can't say how theosophical the above thought is, but I happen to agree with it. The purpose of life is to be, not to do. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Apr 12 02:43:31 1996 Date: 11 Apr 96 22:43:31 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Occultism - HPB Message-Id: <960412024331_76400.1474_HHL61-2@CompuServe.COM> Nick quoting HPB: >"Occultism in not magic, though magic is one of its tools. > >Occultism is not the acquirement of powers, whether psychic or intellectual, >though both are its servants. Neither is occultism the pursuit of >happiness, as men understand the word: for the first step is sacrifice, the >second, renunciation. > >Occultism is the science of life, the art of living. > > HPB --- Lucifer, Vol. I, p. 7." > Nick, nice quotes but whats your point? Jerry S. Memer, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Apr 12 02:43:36 1996 Date: 11 Apr 96 22:43:36 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re:Up-tight is the word! Message-Id: <960412024336_76400.1474_HHL61-4@CompuServe.COM> >> Sexuality and diet have absolutely nothing to do with being >>a good person. > >Would the writer of this sentence be so kind as to explain what this means? >Absolutely nothing?? > >Daniel Although I am not the writer of the sentence, I do recall someone (Jesus, I think) saying that its not what goes into a person's mouth that defiles them, but what comes out of their mouth. And it is my own opinion that people who think that by abtaining from sex they are good people, are buffoons. My parents were good people, and they had sex (I am here today as witness). Jerry S. Member, TI From rdon@garlic.com Fri Apr 12 03:01:30 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:01:30 -0700 From: rdon@garlic.com (Rodolfo Don) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: The Russians >In message , alexis dolgorukii > writes >>Alan: >> >>I'm writing because I am wondering something. O.K. I am going to write a >>letter to the people in Moscow who were rejected so cruelly by Radha. But, >>other than commiserate with them, what am I to say? Is THEOSOPHY >>INTERNATIONAL ready to replace Adyar in the eyes of those poor rejected >>Russians? > >Reply: Only if we can offer a structure - perhaps along the lines of my >recent suggestions. We have to be very careful about *any* structure. We already have a very efficient structure: the internet, that brings us all together and in almost instant communication. I don't mind saying that I am a member of TI in Gilroy, but I'm also more than that. I believe that we're lucky that we don't have elections, power-structure, etc. TI is a giant lodge that is in session all the time. We are free to say what we please, and I think that we should all exercise that freedom responsibly. Particularly if more and more people start watching what we do. I just wrote to Tran-Thi-Kim-Dieu, Chairperson of the European Federation of the TS, she is in Krotona now, and told her what we are doing at TI. Copied her the opening statement with the Three Objects, with the rest of the document. I pointed out to her the differences between us and the traditional TS. And invited her to see what we do. We at TI, are members of several theosophical groups. I see that as very positive. Like John said in one of his postings, 'we are the city, and the city contains many houses'. We shouldn't burn any of our houses, since some of its occupants may be our brothers. > >> I think I need some really detailed "Introduction to Theosophy >>International" to send them along with my letter. > >Reply: JRC was working on something at one time, but depending on >response concerning my reply above, I could possibly put something >together ... If you can get something else that is better...great, but the statement that we have is very theosophical...very inclusive rather exclusivist. > >> Also, we need to know, if >>we're inviting them to join us, just what it is we are inviting them to >>join. I mean these are Russians not Anglo-Saxons. How do you think they'll >>react if we tell them that "We're an amorphous, very loosly organized group >>af anarchically inclined extreme individualists, who support the "Three >>Objects" (as re-defined), and on occasion morally support one another". Do >>you think that will be enough for them? > >Reply: No. > >> We don't really know anything at all >>about the Russian Theosophists other than that they've suffered. For >>instance; how many of them are there? For instance; what is their exact >>relationship with MMe Vigneron? For instance how did they actually become >>Theosophists? Have they been so all along in secret? Or, conversely, is this >>something they've jst found? Or, is it some combination of the two? >> >>The thing I don't want to do is send these pooor folks a nice, polite, >>friendly, but meaningless letter. I have to offer them "something"..but >>what? > >Reply: See above! As some members, especially Alexis, JRC and myself >hope to see TI grow into something larger and more pueposeful than a >purely inward-looking internet chat-line, a structured but non- >hierarchical "family" could welcome them. It will be little use saying >to them, "Welcome, we'd love to talk to you if you have computers and >can write intelligently in English via the Internet, assuming you have >modems, software, etc., etc., etc." Hopefully there will be somebody with a PC in that group. > >> Most of the people who are presently members of Theosophy >>International, havn't the vaguest idea what life may have been like inRussia >>during 78 years of grinding, mindless oppression, and deadly foreign >>invasion. I think a Russian who is a Theosophist is a heroic person. After >>all in the West (and other places)Theosophists are viewed with some >>amusement, but in the Soviet Union, being a Theosophist could eartn one, at >>least, beatings, or The Gulag, or a Bullet to the back of the >>head. Being a "secret" theosophist was, like being a "secret Jew" in the >>Spain of the inquisition, an act of considerable bravery, and these folks >>deserve something better than they've gotten. >> >>I'm sending this to you becuase you'rr the "chief instigator of >>Theosophy International and I want your feedback. I also wouldn't mind >>if you put this on the board so that other TI people can react to it.I >>know this, in the letter I'm not going to say anything about being >>Blavatsky's cousin. Most Russians learn about the Dolgorukii in school >>(even under the Communists) as without the Rurickovitchii there is no >>Russia. And so the only thing I think my name will do is show them a >>welcoming Russian presence in the West. >> >>I await more input, the translating is in place. > >Reply: The input I would like to see is a positive response to my >suggestions for a proposed structure. TI members: will you go along >with this without hair-splitting at this stage? Can we set up the >basics, even if a little imperfect at this early stage, and develop the >refinements as they are seen to be needed when we start to *practice* >what we are preaching (so to speak)? > >.. can Alexis say to the Russians - *or anyone else* - "I belong to TI >in San Francisco (or wherever); Alan belongs to TI in Bristol, England, >Rudy belongs to TI in Gilroy," and so on? > >.. can we set up or co-operate with existing publishing or book- >providing organisations to offer them something more than just a >friendly word? > >.. can we ask *them* to help *us* in spreading the TI ethos around the >world? >> >>alexis , MTI, FTSA > >I have posted this to theos-l as the quickest way of replying to Alexis' >questions, as it arrived in my theos-l mailbox. The TI members agreed >that I should co-ordinate our work, even (to quote one post) facilitate >it. Will you, If you are a TI member, agree to the revised statement >*as is* for the time being, together with a structure along the lines >suggested.? > >I propose, as there is a real need and a real opportunity to respond to >it, to ask you all for a simple vote: YES or NO? > >Please reply ASAP to ti@nellie2.demon.co.uk with a simple reply: > >Revised statement and structure for TI: YES > >or > >Revised statement and structure for TI: NO I need to know what type of structure we're proposing. To me this is very critical. > >Okay, we may need to sort out some bugs as we go along, but the Russians >- and maybe others we don't realise - need us *now.* Whatever our >discussions about the nature of freedom might be, their experience of >one form of it is pretty d... immediate and deserving of a "brotherly" >and "family" response - and soon. > >We have some fine words on a fine Web page - can we put them into >*action.*? > >You tell me. >> >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL Web: http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From RIhle@aol.com Fri Apr 12 03:35:12 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 23:35:12 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960411233512_467980964@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Psychogenesis--to Jerry S. >Alexis writes> > I also aprehend there is a great danger in using a so-called >"psychological" approach to theosophy as it tends to either avoid or >euphemise reality into psychological states of physical human >consciousness, and they, as I see it, are the least important aspects of consciousness. >Jerry S.> >Agreed. But psychogenesis will not replace cosmogenesis or homogenesis but rather supplement them. Richard Ihle writes> Jerry, one reason I like you so much is that I can always trust you to overlook my more off-the-mark ideas or at least disagree with them in a way which still gives me credit for some minimal thing--having spelled *euphemize* in the conventional way or something. . . . Anyway, when I first read Alexis' sentence above, I sort of passed over it, believing it to be one of those "from-the-hip" responses we all fire from time to time--i.e., something which a person with more leisure might like to call back and work on a little before others started arguing against it etc. Thus, I was surprised when you said you "agreed" with his statement. I went back and tried to find what it was you could have been agreeing with. Here, as I see it, is what it contends: 1) [either] That there is a great danger in the "psychological approach" because it possibly avoids reality. Does Alexis really intend to convey something about a definite "reality" he has in mind or is he just throwing a word out there hoping that others will supply their own objective correlatives? 2) [or] That there is a great danger in the psychological approach because it possibly "euphemizes" reality into psychological states of physical human consciousness. Does this have any meaning all? Perhaps it suggests something like this: "The vague and undefined *psychological approach* substitutes the agreeable for the less agreeable vague and undefined *reality* by turning it into vague and undefined *psychological conditions*." I can give this section my nod of approval only if its purpose is to force, but unfortunately not to assist, a reader to become a creative philosopher in his or her own stead. . . . 3) "Psychological states of physical human consciousness": Now, I suppose one *could* come up with some possible understanding of this phrase with a little "logical manipulation" work--e.g. (substitution of a negative to suggest a meaning for the positive), 1) ~psychological states of NON-physical human consciousness~, or 2) ~psychological states of physical NON-human consciousness~. However, it seems all-too-tedious, especially when there is such a good chance that Alexis might not want this particular wording to stand as his final idea at all. So . . . were you just being a good guy again, Jerry, or have you really figured out a meaning that you can agree with? Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:49:43 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: I believe there is some misunderstanding/errors here Message-ID: <334D98B7.1F04@sprynet.com> Romero Cortez D.Ma. wrote: > your soul, for practice it. Crowley, of course, he couldn't ,by any mode, > practice that kind of magic. because his policy was "do whatever you like" Can you give a reference to that being his policy? > !I knew it! Dion Fortune was member/partner of Crowley, that explains it (forme) Not for me. Dion Fortune was an active and notable Theosophist. > Fifth: > Just remember what Jesus tell: "by their work, you will recognize them" Sounds good to me. How many of Aleister Crowley's books have you read? Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 20:41:58 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: karma or what Message-ID: <199704110158.VAA28176@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >tasty fried chicken, she might say (although Liesel is quite capable of >speaking for herself >on such issues): "well, if that is what you choose to do ...". On the other >hand, if I were >to tell her: "I ate our family dog for dinner" I suspect I might get an >entirely different response. Ditto for Thoa and Alan and "Doss" and ...? Hate to tell ya, but my answer would still be "well, if that's what you choose to do...." I might tell you that I dont' agree with it, but I wouldn't interfere with what you wanted to do. lfd From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 20:49:39 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: Jung Message-ID: <199704110206.WAA02179@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Tim, Your source wasn't the first one to accuse Jung of being a Nazi collaborator. I read Jung's biography a few months back, & it was mentioned in there. I forget what it was Jung did that made people say that, but he did *not* collaborate with the Nazis. If he did, I'd disown him. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 01:23:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: the more efficient alternative Message-ID: <970411012328_1553828584@emout06.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-04-11 00:00:41 EDT, you write: >Just shows that mice are not stupid, huh? > >Alan I was amazed that it worked the first year I tried it. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 01:41:57 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: I believe there is some misunderstanding/errors here Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970411064157.006b4ef4@mail.eden.com> At 09:54 PM 4/10/97 -0400, you wrote: >Romero Cortez D.Ma. wrote: >> your soul, for practice it. Crowley, of course, he couldn't ,by any mode, >> practice that kind of magic. because his policy was "do whatever you like" > > Can you give a reference to that being his policy? > >> !I knew it! Dion Fortune was member/partner of Crowley, that explains it (forme) So are each one of us .. that is at least what I think. MKR > > Not for me. Dion Fortune was an active and notable Theosophist. > >> Fifth: >> Just remember what Jesus tell: "by their work, you will recognize them" > > Sounds good to me. How many of Aleister Crowley's books have you read? > > Bart Lidofsky > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 01:47:25 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: I believe there is some misunderstanding/errors here Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970411064725.006cd704@mail.eden.com> At 09:10 PM 4/10/97 -0400, you wrote: >Hello to all here >First, i'll say that for me,continuing reading in the Crowley theme >is sick. We cannot deny that this person was, trully, a person that well >know of occultism/magic, and of course, intelligent.because of this last >one, he obviosly knew/read of occultism,magic, and of course he had to >meet theosophist and pepole versed in magic like Eliphas Levi. >But of that, that the guy practiced "Theurgical magic" boy,bah.... >that's wrong! >Consider the root of the word "Theurgia" is from greek ,and it meens: God, >god like, is a term used in the white magic used by the neoplatonics. >This kind of magic, you have to be, of a real state of purity, of your self, >your soul, for practice it. Crowley, of course, he couldn't ,by any mode, >practice that kind of magic. because his policy was "do whatever you like" >he was falling in the worse kind of hedonism, the selfish one, and remember, >than for entering the "narrow path" the way you can, beside of growing >spiritualy, you obtain the "siddis" you have to left, the first thing, ambition, >and, of course, ambicion for ourselves, that is , selfishness. >It is clear that Crowley, a racist person (because he was considering the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ He was very specific in that he had called Krishnamurti as "nigger". I saw this on one of the web pages some months ago. That is when I got an inkling of his attitude to Indians. He should have known Indians are not "niggers". MKR >race subjectively:still i think that the origin of races=theosophy dogma i think, something is wrong here, we have to consider this with lot of caution) >a SELFISH person, what kind of magic he could do? and to remember the stuff >someone say here (in the order of Crowley, was first the development of magic, >then the spiritual stuff will come) i think this is wrong. >I am noone to tell i am the one who is in posesion of the thruth, but , by my >way of view, i believe that any form of knowledge (including intelectual one) >that subjects other pepole to their selfish beings (to other persons or to >theirselves) is , definetly,wrong. >We are not of course, to consider a minor thing the terrible ascense of the >black magic orders or/and satanism, i should suggest reading the Paul C.Jagot >book of "occult science and practical magic" where this person makes an analisis of the diffrent kinds of magic and what they involucre.is curious the name it >calls the black magic distintive pentagram "Pentagram of the subversion" in >the fact that in occultism, subversion means: the left way, black magic. >Secound: >!I knew it! Dion Fortune was member/partner of Crowley, that explains it (forme) >Third: >The problem with pepole studying Theosophy is not to confund the work done >by H.P.B and colleages, with subvertive magic (if you want to call it this way) >done by Crowley. if is true the fact that maybe he did call himself "black >magician" as the pepole today that call themselves members of some sect, hearers >of "black metal" piercing their noses and tongues, and stuff like that. >We can easy compare the true Theosophists at heart (believeing the awful fact >someone says "Krishnamurti wasn't the world leader,Crowley was:i think is sick; >i do not believe Krishnamurti was the spiritual leader of the world Bessant >taught, but i do believe he was really spiritual high, and ,especcialy, he was >pure, generous, and especcialy not selfish as Crowley was) >-using some alegory- as a pure beautiful nude scene of man/woman, a painting >of a museum, or some beautiful cartoons of art, and Crowley, well, the most >near similitude, just like the world viewed by Robert Crumb the cartoonist of >Zap comix and the underground, rude, crude , obscene and agrresive. well, is the >most simmilar comparison i could made. i hope u understand it. >Fourth: >The problem of satanism /black magic is commonly depreciated,and ridiculizied like a sport" of some nuts, but i think is more serious than we taught. maybe >Crowley did his work for laughing himself and from the world, but the pepole >behind him take it more seriously. In a mexican semanary (the best of Mexico) >of politics called: "Proceso" when they commonly tell of the obscure subjects >of the crude world of politics, appear a good article about the terrible problem >of the satanism in Mexico, and the sects. also it contained info on Crowley. >i believed it was very good, and also, that a semanary where the best minds >of Mexico do the reporting , and the analysis of the facts in Mexico, tell the >real importance of the problem >Fifth: >Just remember what Jesus tell: "by their work, you will recognize them" >Estrella >P.S. salute to everyone here. > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:24:54 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: I believe there is some misunderstanding/errors here Message-ID: <334E3BA6.7D9C@sprynet.com> M K Ramadoss wrote: > >and, of course, ambicion for ourselves, that is , selfishness. > >It is clear that Crowley, a racist person (because he was considering the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > He was very specific in that he had called Krishnamurti as "nigger". > I saw this on one of the web pages some months ago. That is when I got an > inkling of his attitude to Indians. He should have known Indians are not > "niggers". My uncle used to live in an Indian section of London, and people called it "the nigger area". In Victorian England, it was a commonly used term, certainly racist, but not always derisive (for example, those who had a "white man's burden" form of racism used it, as well). And note that "white man's burden" racism also existed in a number of prominent Theosophists, including Alice Bailey and Clara Codd. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 07:34:09 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: Re: karma or what Message-ID: Liesel: >Dennis: >>tasty fried chicken, she might say (although Liesel is quite capable of >>speaking for herself >>on such issues): "well, if that is what you choose to do ...". On the other >>hand, if I were >>to tell her: "I ate our family dog for dinner" I suspect I might get an >>entirely different response. Ditto for Thoa and Alan and "Doss" and ...? > > >Hate to tell ya, but my answer would still be "well, if that's what you >choose to do...." I might tell you that I dont' agree with it, but I >wouldn't interfere with what you wanted to do. lfd And what if the tradition is to eat a person named Dennis on a Sunday? We could make it painless by making it an honor to sacrifice oneself for the holy eating. Like a Shmoo in L'il Abner, you just croak over and die when it's your time to be eaten. Thoa the gourmet From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 07:33:26 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: Sexism in religion Message-ID: Hi Alan, I'm not referencing you because I left your e-mail message on the other computer and don't feel like turning it on. Yes, sexism is definitely in all the religions. Even in Buddhism, traditionally the monks would not allow women into their fold because it causes distractions for the men. There was this story of a woman who wanted to become a Buddhist monk but no one would accept her because of her beauty. In desperation, she mutilated her face by branding it. Afterwards, she was accepted. Now, I think that if a person can have a family, finances to deal with, and a job, and still be a holy person, then that is true holiness. It's very easy to follow all the rules when everything adverse is taken away from you. If I don't have chocolate pudding in the house, I can't eat it. I find it amusing that the military now has to deal with increasing enrollment of women. I'm reading accounts of all sorts of sex and sexism scandals in the military. Thoa From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 07:33:37 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: The Web Message-ID: Sir Lidofsky: > My own delving into magick was with egotistical purposes in mind; I >first was able to get to a point where I proved to myself that it >worked, and then got to a level where I proved to myself that it would >not further my egotistical purposes, and then I stopped. There are a >number of things I touched upon during that period, at least one of >which has increased my understanding of certain aspects of the Primary >Literature. During scrying sessions, I would see the world as covered >with webs (this was 20 years ago, and the naming of the WWW Internet >service is coincidental) connecting things together. I am currently >using that image as a visualization technique for the interconnectedness >of everything. If one assumed that the Mahatmas were able to see those >webs, a lot of their behavior (their isolation, dislike of cities, etc.) >makes a lot more sense. > > Bart Lidofsky They now have getting the web through your TV and making it better. Right now, they are working on getting it even better. You access the web the moment you flip on the T.V. You can switch from internet to T.V. or have both on at the same time, using little box inserts. You can also access electronic mail. The person you're communicating with would have his/her picture on screen, and you can connect with several people at once. Thus, you can have several people's picture on screen while you're talking to them. Eerily like Star Trek. Theosophists can have meetings that way. Some will show up with horns and goatee, and we can rebuke them by saying, "You're practicing black magic, again." You can interact on the web. No longer will you just sit there and watch game shows, you can join in. Actually, they already have that with certain service providers. Features on the web could be more advanced, such as easy accessibility to certain sites. You can use it as an organization tool. The TV and the computer are already powerful forces in the household. They have combined it, and are working at giving it even more features. Communication, financing and organization through the TV will be the wave of the near future. The service is already available in California and Connecticut. The information coming in through such things will be faster than the traditional method of going through the computer. This is because data will be going through your cable instead of the telephone line. This is faster than even the ISDN line. With faster incoming communication, the more likelihood of Star Trek-like communication draws closer. Gee, does that mean I have to look good? Thoa From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 07:35:27 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: Re: I believe there is some misunderstanding/errors here Message-ID: Bart: > My uncle used to live in an Indian section of London, and people called >it "the nigger area". In Victorian England, it was a commonly used term, >certainly racist, but not always derisive (for example, those who had a >"white man's burden" form of racism used it, as well). And note that >"white man's burden" racism also existed in a number of prominent >Theosophists, including Alice Bailey and Clara Codd. > > Bart Lidofsky My stepfather said that his dad used to call bad-mannered African-Americans "nigger", while the nice ones he does not. I used to get mad at him when he uses the word "nigger" and that was his explanation. Lame explanation, I think, especially for a man married to an Asian woman. Right now the word "black" is bringing in mixed response. It's still too commonly used for everybody to be offended by it. However, if I was African-American, I would be looking at my skin and wonder why I'm being called "black" when that is not actually the color of my skin tone. It's like somebody calling me yellow. Now, I know my colors, and I'm not yellow. If they're going to call me by the color of my skin, they should be more accurate, and that's going to involve several descriptive color words. I'm perfectly sure that "white" people are not white. They would all look ghastly. At any rate, sometimes it's the malice behind the word that matters most. I used to be made fun off by being called, "Chinese, Chinese." I'm not Chinese but even if I was Chinese, I would have been offended. Thoa From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:33:24 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: I believe there is some misunderstanding/errors here Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970411213324.006bfe68@mail.eden.com> At 09:26 AM 4/11/97 -0400, you wrote: >M K Ramadoss wrote: > >> >and, of course, ambicion for ourselves, that is , selfishness. >> >It is clear that Crowley, a racist person (because he was considering the >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> He was very specific in that he had called Krishnamurti as "nigger". >> I saw this on one of the web pages some months ago. That is when I got an >> inkling of his attitude to Indians. He should have known Indians are not >> "niggers". > > My uncle used to live in an Indian section of London, and people called >it "the nigger area". In Victorian England, it was a commonly used term, >certainly racist, but not always derisive (for example, those who had a >"white man's burden" form of racism used it, as well). And note that >"white man's burden" racism also existed in a number of prominent >Theosophists, including Alice Bailey and Clara Codd. > > Bart Lidofsky > When a specific person is called a nigger, especially someone well known like Krishnamurti, I cannot but conclude that it exibits racism, pure and simple. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 00:28:11 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Sexism in religion Message-ID: In message , Thoa Tran writes >Hi Alan, > >I'm not referencing you because I left your e-mail message on the other >computer and don't feel like turning it on. > >Yes, sexism is definitely in all the religions. Even in Buddhism, >traditionally the monks would not allow women into their fold because it >causes distractions for the men. There was this story of a woman who >wanted to become a Buddhist monk but no one would accept her because of her >beauty. In desperation, she mutilated her face by branding it. >Afterwards, she was accepted. These sorts of stories can make me very angry. > Now, I think that if a person can have a >family, finances to deal with, and a job, and still be a holy person, then >that is true holiness. It's very easy to follow all the rules when >everything adverse is taken away from you. If I don't have chocolate >pudding in the house, I can't eat it. Agreed 100%! I have known very few people of such stature, but they are occasionally to be found. > I find it amusing that the military >now has to deal with increasing enrollment of women. I'm reading accounts >of all sorts of sex and sexism scandals in the military. Me too, as it happens here as well. Right now the problem for the military has been extended to inlude gays of both kinds ... > Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 06:49:00 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 23:49 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: OOOps! At 05:36 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >In message , alexis dolgorukii > writes >>I've never known a Brit who seemed to feel deprived. >> >>alexis the anglophile, MYI, FTSA >>> >>> >Remind me to introduce you to some of my friends .... all that will >change. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Alan: Sometimes I forget that most of the people I know, are of my own "set"so, of course, why would they feel deprived? Sorry for that! People tend to judge the world, by the world in which they live! But, what else can one do? alexis, MTI,FTSA > > From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 07:36:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 00:36 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: others At 09:59 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis, > >Stealing another man's wife, and fooling around is, unfortunately, not >something very out of the ordinary. I really thought you'd come up with some >thing more juicy. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA,TS in Canada, HR Well Leisel: When I lived in Germany, my music teacher (who as you may remember was Mendelsohns great granddaughter, siad there had always been rumours that Richard Wagner mau have indulged some of Ludwig of Bavarians appetites to gain his financial support, especially for the Beiruth project which was very expensive indeed. It's also odd that Hans von Bulow remained Wagner's friend and chief musical supporter for the rest of their lives. Maybe he was glad to get rid of Cosima...Wagner married her becuase she was Listz's daughter and Wagner was absolutely certain (he shared Nietsche's racial theories) that he and Cosima would produce a bunch of musical geniuses. But as you know, he only produced a bunch of Nazis. Actually people like Wagner seldom are original sexually> In my list of Gay composers I forgot Franz Schubert, Frederick Chopin, Maurice Ravel, Eric Satie, Gian Carlo Menotti, Lucas Foss, Francis Poulanc, and Olivier Messian if you took the Gays and the Jews out of the world of art and music there's be hardly anyone else. alexis From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 11:45:31 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:45:31 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412074531_189695566@mail02.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Whoa! Liesel, A good researcher learns very quickly to take such things into account. I remember one time when I was talking to a local ghost hunter about a haunting and he was going on about doors opening on their own and the first thing I asked him was if they had set a recording barometer in the room because differences in air pressure between two rooms can cause the same thing. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 11:45:38 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:45:38 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412074537_189695591@emout04.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: hostile? Alan, Keep it up my friend. Right now I need all I can get. Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 11:46:06 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:46:06 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412074605_189695716@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: monkeys! Alex, All too true. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 11:46:10 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:46:10 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412074609_189695727@mail04> Subject: Re: Genius Alex, I've read a few of Norbert Weiner's space operas. My point is that for some reason people in the arts are more likely to live out their eccentricities, don't ask me why. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 11:46:15 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:46:15 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <199604121146.HAA18794@emout06.mail.aol.com> Apparently-To: theos-buds@vnet.net ple of the Sorcerer's Apprentice phenoman last summer at Nutmeg when a young woman got possessed during the spider ritual and for a time did not look like she was going to come out of it. Fortunately she did, because I hate doing exorcisms, especially of spiders. Yeech! Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 12 13:34:59 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 09:34:59 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604121439.KAA24674@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: others Alexis, If I were you, I wouldn't say so loud that gays & Jews make up the bulk of composers. It's statements like that which start antisemitic & anti gay movements. You're asking for it. Why? Not that I know the solution to the problem. I've been watching presentations on C-span, & watching with astonishment how many Jews there are in responsible positions. But I can tell you that. I'm not going to say it publicly, because that's what anti-semites said long before the Nazis. So, actually, what I note on C-span makes me feel a bit uneasy. Also, if you don't mind my saying so, I don't think it's very brother/sisterly of you to remind Alan that he's poor & that you belong to a "superior" set of people. Alan excels in other things like Kabalah & Christian history. Liesel .............................................................................. >At 09:59 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >>Alexis, >> >>Stealing another man's wife, and fooling around is, unfortunately, not >>something very out of the ordinary. I really thought you'd come up with some >>thing more juicy. >> >>Liesel >>Member TI, TSA,TS in Canada, HR > > >Well Leisel: When I lived in Germany, my music teacher (who as you may >remember was Mendelsohns great granddaughter, siad there had always been >rumours that Richard Wagner mau have indulged some of Ludwig of Bavarians >appetites to gain his financial support, especially for the Beiruth project >which was very expensive indeed. It's also odd that Hans von Bulow remained >Wagner's friend and chief musical supporter for the rest of their lives. >Maybe he was glad to get rid of Cosima...Wagner married her becuase she was >Listz's daughter and Wagner was absolutely certain (he shared Nietsche's >racial theories) that he and Cosima would produce a bunch of musical >geniuses. But as you know, he only produced a bunch of Nazis. > >Actually people like Wagner seldom are original sexually> In my list of Gay >composers I forgot Franz Schubert, Frederick Chopin, Maurice Ravel, Eric >Satie, Gian Carlo Menotti, Lucas Foss, Francis Poulanc, and Olivier Messian >if you took the Gays and the Jews out of the world of art and music there's >be hardly anyone else. > >alexis > > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 12 13:37:56 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 09:37:56 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604121442.KAA29473@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: others PS DaVinci & Michaelangelo are left. lfd >At 09:59 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >>Alexis, >> >>Stealing another man's wife, and fooling around is, unfortunately, not >>something very out of the ordinary. I really thought you'd come up with some >>thing more juicy. >> >>Liesel >>Member TI, TSA,TS in Canada, HR > > >Well Leisel: When I lived in Germany, my music teacher (who as you may >remember was Mendelsohns great granddaughter, siad there had always been >rumours that Richard Wagner mau have indulged some of Ludwig of Bavarians >appetites to gain his financial support, especially for the Beiruth project >which was very expensive indeed. It's also odd that Hans von Bulow remained >Wagner's friend and chief musical supporter for the rest of their lives. >Maybe he was glad to get rid of Cosima...Wagner married her becuase she was >Listz's daughter and Wagner was absolutely certain (he shared Nietsche's >racial theories) that he and Cosima would produce a bunch of musical >geniuses. But as you know, he only produced a bunch of Nazis. > >Actually people like Wagner seldom are original sexually> In my list of Gay >composers I forgot Franz Schubert, Frederick Chopin, Maurice Ravel, Eric >Satie, Gian Carlo Menotti, Lucas Foss, Francis Poulanc, and Olivier Messian >if you took the Gays and the Jews out of the world of art and music there's >be hardly anyone else. > >alexis > > > From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 17:12:29 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:12:29 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412131227_374126162@mail04> Subject: Re: OOOps! Alex, Don't feel too bad, it happens to the worst of us. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 17:12:51 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:12:51 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412131251_374126413@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: others Alex, If we took out Gian Carlo Menotti, who would miss him? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 12 14:47:59 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 15:47:59 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: hostile? In-Reply-To: <960412074537_189695591@emout04.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960412074537_189695591@emout04.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >Keep it up my friend. Right now I need all I can get. > >Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker ..pat, pat, pat, pat, pat, ..... pat, pat, pat, .... --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 19:05:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 12:05 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: truth At 09:42 AM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis, > >If I were you, I wouldn't say so loud that gays & Jews make up the bulk of >composers. It's statements like that which start antisemitic & anti gay >movements. You're asking for it. Why? Not that I know the solution to the >problem. I've been watching presentations on C-span, & watching with >astonishment how many Jews there are in responsible positions. But I can >tell you that. I'm not going to say it publicly, because that's what >anti-semites said long before the Nazis. So, actually, what I note on C-span >makes me feel a bit uneasy. Liesel: You know it's true and I know it's true. People who don't like Jews and don't like Gays aren't going to like them no matter what either the Jews or the Gays do or say, so screw em! If you were to take the Jews out of the worlds of Art, Entertainment, and letters, or out of medicine, or literature, or raw science, what would you have left? For heaven's sake Liesel...subtract the Jews from a list of Nobel Laureates and you'd have almost nothing left. Look at Broadway, take the Jews out of the list of famous composers and writers of musicals and/or operettas and Who'd be left? Cole Porter and Victor Herbert! I don't think it's becuase the Jewish people are intrinsically superior, I think it's because they are willing to work hard, and becuase they have an innate love of music and culture and knowledge for its own sake that places them in humanity's vanguard. It's probably silly to say "Don't mention it" because everyone knows this. I think the answer is to remind folks how very much humanity owes the Jewish people, how in debt we all are to them for their vast contributions. I really don't think Christianity was a great contribution, but the other really amakes up for it. What is true about Jews is also true about Gays. Hiding in the woodwork won't help, it never did in the past! In fact most Gays have learned that since we came bbblazing out of our closets, and began shoving people's noses in their own prejudice, things have improved greatly for us. > >Also, if you don't mind my saying so, I don't think it's very >brother/sisterly of you to remind Alan that he's poor & that you belong to a >"superior" set of people. Alan excels in other things like Kabalah & >Christian history. I beg your pardon? Liesel, when did I do any such thing? I am tremendously fond of Alan and I also admire him for his knowledge and efforts. I would never say or do anything that would hurt him. I certainly have "flamed" Richard Ihle, and in a lesser way Jerry schuler for certain comments they have made. But I cannot recall anything I said to Alan that could be constured as you just construed it. Please give day and date and quote! alexis > >Liesel >.............................................................................. > >>At 09:59 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >>>Alexis, >>> >>>Stealing another man's wife, and fooling around is, unfortunately, not >>>something very out of the ordinary. I really thought you'd come up with some >>>thing more juicy. >>> >>>Liesel >>>Member TI, TSA,TS in Canada, HR >> >> >>Well Leisel: When I lived in Germany, my music teacher (who as you may >>remember was Mendelsohns great granddaughter, siad there had always been >>rumours that Richard Wagner mau have indulged some of Ludwig of Bavarians >>appetites to gain his financial support, especially for the Beiruth project >>which was very expensive indeed. It's also odd that Hans von Bulow remained >>Wagner's friend and chief musical supporter for the rest of their lives. >>Maybe he was glad to get rid of Cosima...Wagner married her becuase she was >>Listz's daughter and Wagner was absolutely certain (he shared Nietsche's >>racial theories) that he and Cosima would produce a bunch of musical >>geniuses. But as you know, he only produced a bunch of Nazis. >> >>Actually people like Wagner seldom are original sexually> In my list of Gay >>composers I forgot Franz Schubert, Frederick Chopin, Maurice Ravel, Eric >>Satie, Gian Carlo Menotti, Lucas Foss, Francis Poulanc, and Olivier Messian >>if you took the Gays and the Jews out of the world of art and music there's >>be hardly anyone else. >> >>alexis >> >> >> > > From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 19:39:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 12:39 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Genius At 06:52 AM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, >I've read a few of Norbert Weiner's space operas. My point is that for some >reason people in the arts are more likely to live out their eccentricities, >don't ask me why. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: What exactly IS an "eccentricity"? One of the most eccentric people I have ever known or heard about was Bertrand Russell and I can't recall his having been in the arts. Now an almost equal was Frank LLoyd Wright, but is archtecture a "science" or an "art" or both at once? alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 20:01:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 13:01 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Menotti At 12:23 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, >If we took out Gian Carlo Menotti, who would miss him? > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >I would. You know he did write many things other than "Ahmal and the Night Visitors" which I have always viewed as "Opera by Hallmark"..his Ballet "Sebastian" is one of the most beautiful pieces of 20th Century music. In addition to his composing The Spoleto festival and other music festivals for which he is at least partially responsible is/are a major contribution to music in our times. alexis From rholmstrom@voyageur.ca Fri Apr 12 15:19:29 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 15:19:29 GMT From: Robert Holmstrom Message-Id: <9604121519.AA19891@netra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: TI is a Container???? Hi, Alex! At 17:45 1996/04/11 -0500, you wrote: >I have this question: Considering what both Radha and The TSA adminsitration >seems to be up to, aren't "the kind of people we want to attract" gong to be >feeling pretty damn restricted? As youknow better than most the regular T.S. >Groups, all three of the poor dying things, are terribly restrictive in so >many ways. As a Carnivore you're well aware of one of the ways. Where in the >By-Laws does it say you have to be a vegetarian to be a theosophist? But >many folks act as if it were true. As to the two ES sections (Adyar's and >the ULT's) nuff said. Everyone seems to be talking about TI as a "container", something that a member fits "inside of" or excludes the offended. I don't see it that way at all. Should not the TI be a source of Theosophical information, possibly Theosophical values, and maybe a provider of signposts on the way? In that way, it frees its members to search and to grow but does not "contain" them. Membership means only that one has accepted the requirements for membership but should not restrict anyone in any way. One should always be free to make one's own errors and to learn from them. One should be free to search any path one wishes, even CWL's if one has a hankering for mythopoeia. It seems to me the point of the three objects is that one must become free to search and actually search. Beyond that there is no dogma to wrap oneself in. Why should a prospective member then want to be wrapped in the TI? The grand argument about what "freedom" is meant by the word "freedom" seems pointless to me. Let each member take whatever meaning s/he walks in with and fly with it. If it is "restrictive", said member will either drop out or break through the limits. That is up to the individual, not the TI, imho. Take care, ==<>== From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 12 22:18:37 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 23:18:37 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: truth In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >>Also, if you don't mind my saying so, I don't think it's very >>brother/sisterly of you to remind Alan that he's poor & that you belong to a >>"superior" set of people. Alan excels in other things like Kabalah & >>Christian history. So I am poor - mention it as much as you like - maybe someone will send me money! :-) > >I beg your pardon? Liesel, when did I do any such thing? I am tremendously >fond of Alan and I also admire him for his knowledge and efforts. I would >never say or do anything that would hurt him. And you never have. > >alexis >> >>Liesel Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 12 22:22:40 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 23:22:40 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: TI is not a Container, it's a network In-Reply-To: <9604121519.AA19891@netra> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <9604121519.AA19891@netra>, Robert Holmstrom writes >Everyone seems to be talking about TI as a "container", something that a >member fits "inside of" or excludes the offended. Everyone? Not me. > I don't see it that way >at all. Should not the TI be a source of Theosophical information, possibly >Theosophical values, and maybe a provider of signposts on the way? In that >way, it frees its members to search and to grow but does not "contain" them. >Membership means only that one has accepted the requirements for membership >but should not restrict anyone in any way. One should always be free to >make one's own errors and to learn from them. One should be free to search >any path one wishes, even CWL's if one has a hankering for mythopoeia. That's right! > >It seems to me the point of the three objects is that one must become free >to search and actually search. Beyond that there is no dogma to wrap >oneself in. Why should a prospective member then want to be wrapped in the >TI? The grand argument about what "freedom" is meant by the word "freedom" >seems pointless to me. Let each member take whatever meaning s/he walks in >with and fly with it. If it is "restrictive", said member will either drop >out or break through the limits. That is up to the individual, not the TI, >imho. > >Take care, > >==<>== > Oh the joy of reading sense! Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 12 22:08:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 18:08:00 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604122312.TAA21146@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI is not a Container, it's a network Bob, I think TI is also a thing with which each one is able to fulfill their own dharma, whatever that dharma may be, ie do your own theosophical thing, with the support of others. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR ............................................................................ >In message <9604121519.AA19891@netra>, Robert Holmstrom > writes >>Everyone seems to be talking about TI as a "container", something that a >>member fits "inside of" or excludes the offended. > >Everyone? Not me. > >> I don't see it that way >>at all. Should not the TI be a source of Theosophical information, possibly >>Theosophical values, and maybe a provider of signposts on the way? In that >>way, it frees its members to search and to grow but does not "contain" them. >>Membership means only that one has accepted the requirements for membership >>but should not restrict anyone in any way. One should always be free to >>make one's own errors and to learn from them. One should be free to search >>any path one wishes, even CWL's if one has a hankering for mythopoeia. > >That's right! >> >>It seems to me the point of the three objects is that one must become free >>to search and actually search. Beyond that there is no dogma to wrap >>oneself in. Why should a prospective member then want to be wrapped in the >>TI? The grand argument about what "freedom" is meant by the word "freedom" >>seems pointless to me. Let each member take whatever meaning s/he walks in >>with and fly with it. If it is "restrictive", said member will either drop >>out or break through the limits. That is up to the individual, not the TI, >>imho. >> >>Take care, >> >>==<>== >> >Oh the joy of reading sense! > >Alan :-) >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 12 23:32:44 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 19:32:44 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604130036.UAA02608@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: the Russians I agree with what Rodolfo writes. I think we'll already help the Russians, if they can join in in our talking back & forth, & can ask us questions if they want to. I think our cosmopolitan format is something they'll appreciate. They may also have other needs, as I outlined to Alan, but it can really be for all TI'ers to read. I think we can address any other needs as they come up. Let's find out first what they want & need, before we organize something they don't need. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 13 01:15:06 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 21:15:06 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604130219.WAA26764@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: truth Hi, Alexis, I forget what you said to Alan, & I've since deleted it. so just forget it. As for your statement re Jews & Gays, you may be right, but I stick to mine. Other people aren't as generous as you are, but rather tend to be jealous. So I'd just as soon just think that Jews are in the arts & etc, & not say it too loud, unless someone else says it first. Liesel >At 09:42 AM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >>Alexis, >> >>If I were you, I wouldn't say so loud that gays & Jews make up the bulk of >>composers. It's statements like that which start antisemitic & anti gay >>movements. You're asking for it. Why? Not that I know the solution to the >>problem. I've been watching presentations on C-span, & watching with >>astonishment how many Jews there are in responsible positions. But I can >>tell you that. I'm not going to say it publicly, because that's what >>anti-semites said long before the Nazis. So, actually, what I note on C-span >>makes me feel a bit uneasy. > >Liesel: > >You know it's true and I know it's true. People who don't like Jews and >don't like Gays aren't going to like them no matter what either the Jews or >the Gays do or say, so screw em! If you were to take the Jews out of the >worlds of Art, Entertainment, and letters, or out of medicine, or >literature, or raw science, what would you have left? For heaven's sake >Liesel...subtract the Jews from a list of Nobel Laureates and you'd have >almost nothing left. Look at Broadway, take the Jews out of the list of >famous composers and writers of musicals and/or operettas and Who'd be left? >Cole Porter and Victor Herbert! I don't think it's becuase the Jewish people >are intrinsically superior, I think it's because they are willing to work >hard, and becuase they have an innate love of music and culture and >knowledge for its own sake that places them in humanity's vanguard. It's >probably silly to say "Don't mention it" because everyone knows this. I >think the answer is to remind folks how very much humanity owes the Jewish >people, how in debt we all are to them for their vast contributions. I >really don't think Christianity was a great contribution, but the other >really amakes up for it. What is true about Jews is also true about Gays. >Hiding in the woodwork won't help, it never did in the past! In fact most >Gays have learned that since we came bbblazing out of our closets, and began >shoving people's noses in their own prejudice, things have improved greatly >for us. >> >>Also, if you don't mind my saying so, I don't think it's very >>brother/sisterly of you to remind Alan that he's poor & that you belong to a >>"superior" set of people. Alan excels in other things like Kabalah & >>Christian history. > >I beg your pardon? Liesel, when did I do any such thing? I am tremendously >fond of Alan and I also admire him for his knowledge and efforts. I would >never say or do anything that would hurt him. I certainly have "flamed" >Richard Ihle, and in a lesser way Jerry schuler for certain comments they >have made. But I cannot recall anything I said to Alan that could be >constured as you just construed it. Please give day and date and quote! > >alexis >> >>Liesel >>.............................................................................. >> >>>At 09:59 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >>>>Alexis, >>>> >>>>Stealing another man's wife, and fooling around is, unfortunately, not >>>>something very out of the ordinary. I really thought you'd come up with some >>>>thing more juicy. >>>> >>>>Liesel >>>>Member TI, TSA,TS in Canada, HR >>> >>> >>>Well Leisel: When I lived in Germany, my music teacher (who as you may >>>remember was Mendelsohns great granddaughter, siad there had always been >>>rumours that Richard Wagner mau have indulged some of Ludwig of Bavarians >>>appetites to gain his financial support, especially for the Beiruth project >>>which was very expensive indeed. It's also odd that Hans von Bulow remained >>>Wagner's friend and chief musical supporter for the rest of their lives. >>>Maybe he was glad to get rid of Cosima...Wagner married her becuase she was >>>Listz's daughter and Wagner was absolutely certain (he shared Nietsche's >>>racial theories) that he and Cosima would produce a bunch of musical >>>geniuses. But as you know, he only produced a bunch of Nazis. >>> >>>Actually people like Wagner seldom are original sexually> In my list of Gay >>>composers I forgot Franz Schubert, Frederick Chopin, Maurice Ravel, Eric >>>Satie, Gian Carlo Menotti, Lucas Foss, Francis Poulanc, and Olivier Messian >>>if you took the Gays and the Jews out of the world of art and music there's >>>be hardly anyone else. >>> >>>alexis From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Apr 12 05:00:43 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 00:00:43 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Third Refuge In-Reply-To: <199604112151.RAA29769@leo.vsla.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, K. Paul Johnson wrote: > Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 18:37:03 -0500 > From: K. Paul Johnson > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Third Refuge > >>>>>clip>>>>> > Some people are lucky that way. They have harmonious > relations with the powers that be; they get their books > published by Theosophical publishers; they get only positive > results from the time and energy and money they invest in the > Theosophical movement. But if I had to advise someone just > starting out, the message would have to be: beware. There is > some strange force field here that will suck you into a vortex > of group karma so intense and weird that you may take the rest > of your life figuring out what happened. > I think I am one of the many that are lucky. When I joined the TS, I never expected anything that I can get. (I have been around TS for several years before a friend of mine gave me an application and said sign here and Join!!!). I have always had very good relations with powers be. I never wanted to get anything published by TS. At every level of my interaction with the TS, I have always had goodwill and brotherly feeling and honest helpfulness. My exposure to TS has made me a better man (though I may not be quite knowledgeable on Secret Doctrine and other matter relating to globes, chains, planes etc). I have always tried to see how I can help TS and my fellow human beings and put into practice some principles discussed in the various publications so that the world may be little better and not worse because of me. It is quite possible that when someone joins the TS with the expectation of getting something out of TS, there could be a unexpected things which makes one wonder. Like my famous thinker/philosopher said "He expects nothing from Man or God." Such an attitude avoids a lot of problems. At least as far as I can see. .....doss From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 05:14:00 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 22:14 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: ReLucifer? At 04:19 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >In message , alexis dolgorukii > writes >>I can't begin to tell you how much I hate that "only for the few stuff". If >>Blavatsky really believed that, then she was dead wrong! > >.. she wrote hundreds of pages of material for a couple of dozen >people? Not very likely. If only a very few could benefit, then Isis >and the SD would not have been worth a publisher's time and money. > >Just my 2 penn'orth. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > >Iknow that HPB did'nt believe that "Only for the few" nonsense. Not only do her two enormous books give it thelie but what about all the reams and reams and reams of stuff she wrote for lucifer, and the Russian Press, and her other books? Tht to me, is a clear sign that she was seeking the very widest possible audience and therefore that she wanted the theosophical movement to be as large as was possible. If it could have onky had a tiny audience it wouldn't have been worth her "time and money". alexis From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Fri Apr 12 05:33:16 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 23:33:16 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Giggling at the Morally Upright In-Reply-To: <960411021433_373304662@emout06.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >You will indeed face the firing squad, sir. How DARE you quote >the founder of the modern Theosophical movement to a bunch of >Theosophists? Ah!!!!! Decided to speak down from the heights to us poor little deluded children, eh? I'm sure the Masters themselves deeply appreciate your efforts ... since your morality, as evidenced by this post, has clearly elevated itself to something verging on their own exalted states - too bad, however, that you won't be around much longer, as I'm sure they're about to - as they did with Damodar - call you away from your profound (though undoubtedly terribly frustrating) role as light-bringer to the donkeys and into their arms in the Himalayas. A letter is probably materializing right now in your foyer. [Hey! Eldon! ... remember that line about "passive-aggressive condescension" that you found so unfair? This post is exactly the attitude I was talkin' about ... and if you look up the meaning of the words passive-aggressive, and condescending, I think you'll find they are the correct words to use, yes?] >Regardless of the fact that HPB's private life was in fact the >paragon of virtue; regardless of the fact that her Masters time >and time again attempted to inculcate ethics (and yes MORALS) to >their Eastern and Western students; regardless of the fact that >Theosophy has called to itself some of the wisest and purest >people on the planet -- what's that to us? HPB swore like a longshoreman, fought in war (that is, a place where one *kills* other people), and did all sorts of stuff that to *her contemporaries* were anything but the actions of a "paragon of virtue". I *do* personally believe she was deeply moral ... but it was not the morals of surface appearance, rather, the morals of *intent*. And she *never* lorded her morals over others. What a lot of Theosophists may be quite sick of - and may be behind the posts you have apparently decided to descend from your lofty perch to reprimand - comes about when we enter into discussions of what Theosophy *as an organization* is. And often those who speak most about being morally upright have terribly deep dark sides, while those who never mention the word may be - at the level of *intent* - the most deeply "moral" people around. Would *you* care to claim that *you* know who is "moral" on this list and who is not? >We who are free of all such silly constraints? We who claim the right to decide *for ourselves* what the nature and expression of the ethics discussed in Theosophical writings are composed of; and who consider the question to be between ourselves and our innermost natures, and not subject to the *opinions* of other Theosophists. >We who are gods beyond all compare? We who don't simply fall to our knees when someone cops an attitude of authority. >We who have already attained the goal and have no need of >guidance? We who don't just accept the preaching of anyone who believes they have achieved some sort of wisdom because they've read the same books we've read to be a source of the guidance we'd like. >We who bray like donkeys at the mere mention of RULES and VOWS >and MORALITY? We who laugh like children when one of the kids in the sandbox stands up, puts the bucket on his head as a crown, holds the plastic shovel as a scepter, and pretends to be king. Probably virtually everyone on this list, were they to *meet an Adept* and have a vow requested of them, would take it; were that Adept to speak to them about the glitches in their moral stature, would listen; were that Adept to agree to teach them something, but requires rules for the safety of the student ... would agree to the rules. But the TS *is not a mystery school*. To whom should vows be taken? The likes of Radha? Whose rules should we follow? John Algeo's? What code of morality should we attempt to strive for .. *the one demonstrated by the intentions in your post*? What *is* laughed at on this list, refreshingly enough, and what it would have been good for the TS to laugh at all along, is the mention of RULES and VOWS and MORALITY by pompous twits who mouth the words the Masters have spoken, but have nowhere near the spiritual stature to do so; who get some power in the organization, and believe that gives them the authority to behave as though they are Masters and the membership is composed of Chelas; who believe the height they've risen to is measured by the number of people they *look down upon* - and conclude they must be quite high, as they are able to dismiss almost the entire human race as being out for nothing but "cheap thrills", and clearly not "ready" for the hidden wisdom they are acquiring. Wonderfully enough, there are even those who not only consider humanity to be beneath them, but even most other Theosophists. This attitude may actually work in some places ... and with some people ... it may even get you a following of earnest "students" ... but on this list, putting on the plastic bucket and waving a shovel around will get you little other than a face full of sand ... if people can stop laughing long enough to throw it. eeee ahhhh eeee ahhhh eeee ahhh, -JRC From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 05:34:00 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 22:34 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: morality vs ethics At 04:45 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis: > >It really depends upon what you mean by the term "moral". If it brings >to mind the narrow "do this" and "don't do that" rules that are given >to us by modern religions, I can see your distaste for the term. > >I give the term a higher meaning, because I look at it apart from its >abuse by religious zealots. I would consider "moral" to be doing what >is right. As sentient beings, we learn to distinguish right from wrong, >and to act with consciousness and deliberation rather than unconsciously >and by habit. It the better sense, "moral" refers to those actions that >are for the better good, and "immoral" are those that are harmful to >everyone involved, even if the harm is not apparent on the surface. > >I'd agree that we throw off the arbitrary rules of conduct imposed >upon us by society under the term "moral". But I don't see it as leading >to being amoral. In my view, the throwing off of unconscious, rigid, >unthinking morality is done by becoming self-consciously moral. That >is, one sees with penetrating insight (buddhi) into the true nature of >the situation in life before one, and chooses what is right with >skillful means. The rigid rules given us by society no longer shackle >us, but we're even more tightly bound to the right because we see, >know, and cannot help but want to follow it. > >-- Eldon > >The thing as I see it Eldon is this: We, that is you and I, as individuals, do not have the option to redefine "morality" to a "higher meaning" because on this planet, and especially in the aprt of it in which you and I live, "Morality" is always accompanied by a silent, but entirely understood and unavoidable "Judeo-Christian". Morality in the ssociety in which we live is Judeo-Christian Morality, and this fact is constantly underlined and reinforced by speakers inCongress etc. And so, as we are almost unavoidably "stuck" with this puritannical "morality" we are forced to judge it on it's own terms, which is exactly what it demands that we do. On the other hand "Ethics" deals with the way people ought to treat one another, the way people ought to repect one another, viewed that way then "Judeo-Christian Morality" is almost entirely unethical. Ethics is the methodology that makes amicable human inter action possible, while "morality" becuase it is rigid, and inflexible, and entirely inhumane, has precisley the opposite effect. "Morality" is, for the most part, an entirely "sin-based" conception. There is no such thing as "sin" in human inter-relationships. "Sin" is something Priests invent and claim is an "action that angers "God"", it's primary purpose is to give Priests power and control over the lives of others. "Ethics" on the other hand has no element of sin or religion attached to it and is entirely based on what people have learned as to "how to get on together". It is certainly clear to most people who have given the matter any thought at all that people who consider themselves as "morally upright" are not simply sumg, self-satisfied, and self-righteous,but for the most part entirely unethical and basically nasty people. The kind of person who considers himself "morally upright" is far too likely to be like Fra Ignacio de Torquemada, or Savanarola. The "morally upright" lynch people! To close, I think that my primary belief is that "morality" is entirely irrelevant to human daily life, and even more than that, it is utterly irrelevant to the life in spirit. alexis dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 05:39:00 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 22:39 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Up-tight is the word! At 04:47 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >> Sexuality and diet have absolutely nothing to do with being >>a good person. > >Would the writer of this sentence be so kind as to explain what this means? >Absolutely nothing?? > >Daniel > >Oh happily! Who one goes to bed with (i.e one's affectional choices) as long as they're adults capable of consensual relationship, and what you eat, have absolutely nothing to do with what kind of person you are. One doesn't have to be a vegtarian to be a "good person" after all Hitler was a perfectly heterosexual (almost asexual) man and a Vegetarian, did it make him a good person? No. As the mythical Jesus is made to say by the gospeler: "It is not that which goeth into a man which defileth him, but that which cometh out!" It seems to me that the kind of person who condemns others as less than good people, on the basis of the affectional preferrence or diet, doesn't have the vaguest idea what a "good person" is. alexis dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 05:47:00 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 22:47 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Occultism - HPB At 05:16 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: > >"Occultism in not magic, though magic is one of its tools. > >Occultism is not the acquirement of powers, whether psychic or intellectual, >though both are its servants. Neither is occultism the pursuit of >happiness, as men understand the word: for the first step is sacrifice, the >second, renunciation. > >Occultism is the science of life, the art of living. > > HPB --- Lucifer, Vol. I, p. 7." > >O.K. I'll accept that Mmme Blavatsky said that. Now in your own words Nick, tell me what it means! How DOES "The Art of Living" relate to something which means "hidden"? As you must know by now, I never accept quotations as a replacement for thoughtful personal opinion. alexis dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 05:54:00 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 22:54 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Survival At 05:13 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: > > I give Freud credit for "discovering" the unconscious and >for emphasizing the importance of dreams, but little else. However, >I rather like Jung. Jung realized that value-judgements are >psychological, and that we place them on things according to our >perception of meaning. In short, he realized their relativity. But >I agree that if psychogenesis is to work, it must be based on the >"core teachings" of Theosophy as an expansion of the 2 vols of the >SD. But just as HPB compares her Gupta Vidya with modern >science, so we must compare psychogenesis with modern >psychology. I have already tried to do this in several areas, >probably the most "stimulating" on theos-l has been ethics >where I compared Kohlberg's moral stages to the traditional >stages of occult development. This kind of thing simply has >to be done if Theosophy is to survive (I have no doubt that >theosophy will survive just fine with or without us). > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > >Well, I "like" neither Freud nor Jung though at least Jung meant well. I have to ask why is the SD considered the "core teaching" of Theosophy when it is entirely a Vedic and Mahayana Buddhist based work? What about "Isis Unveiled" why is it that most Theosophist's whom I've met tend to utterly ignore the work that started the theosophical movement on its way? As to Institutionalized Theosophy (all three of them), survive? They are all three totally moribund! I'll tell you this none of them will survive the century if they don't wake up. alexis dolgorukii, MTI,FTSA From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 06:07:00 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 23:07 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: More on Reality Models At 05:12 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >>>>>cut<<<<<<<< > > Maybe we should ask, who don't you know? Well Jerry, let's see: I don't know Cher, or Madonna, or Micheal Jackson, or Barry Bonds, or Tom Cruise, or JFK jr., or any current "celebrity models", Though I easily could. I am however, more of a recluse than I was, and I am about to become even more so. But, if you'll just stop to think a minute, I was born into a world that is quite different than the one most people are heir to. I was born into "special circumstances" and therefore have lived a life which most people don't even dream of. Whenever I talk about my life, I must perforce, if I am to be truthful, mention people that other people neither know, nor can know. For me to avoid mentioning well-known people, I'd have to never mention anyone. My life, is my experience, and I do believe it's an expereince I've a right to. I didn't seek it out, it found me in my cradle. For me to pretend to deny my life-expereince would be to deny my life. Is that not so? I agree that >the use of "model" is pre-Wilson. I first learned this at the University >of Maryland in the early 60s while getting my engineering degree. The >idea of models comes from the scientific community, and yes, Einstein >and some others started it, because until Einstein came alone everyone >thought Newton was "reality." After Einstein, Newton became a "model." >Modern science always speaks in terms of models of reality. But this >idea is relatively new to the occult and magical communities. Wilson may >have picked it up from someone else. I was just mentioning that his use >of the idea was the first that I had come across in the occult or magical >worlds. G de P, for example, warns against taking his charts for >the real thing, and points out that the astral is not over our heads, for >example. But for him, and all the other early theosophists, HPB's >model was *the* model, rather than *a* model. As far as I know, I >was the first theosophist to dare call it *a* reality model (i.e., one of >many). > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > And with Heisenberg, Einstein became a "model". For the rest you're ccompletely correct in my view. I really hope you aren't either the first or the only Theosophist to describe HPB's model as "a" model rather than "the" model. Becuase it doesn't say much about the thoughfulness of most theosophists, though it says a lot about both your thoughtfulness and your courage. alexis dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 06:09:00 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 23:09 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:welcome At 05:10 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis: >> Being altruistic is one thing, being "good" is a meaningless >>term except when used to children and dogs. > > Alexis, thanks for this one. I love it! > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > >Jerry: You're very welcome, and I thank you in turn! alexis From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Fri Apr 12 06:17:34 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 18:17:34 +1200 From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Message-Id: <199604120617.SAA17618@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Wonderrful statement >This is what Theosophy teaches???? See below. Maybe all these words mean >something other than what I am reading on the surface. Could all of this be >clarified? If this statement [as I "read" it] was incorporated in TI, I >certainly would not want to >join the group. > >Daniel Me neither Bee > > > > >>At 04:52 PM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >> >>>"Look, the universe is a value-free information system and nothing you do in >>>the physical is going to have the slightest impact on your future >>>incarnations. The only thing that matters is intelligence, how effeciently >>>you process information, because that is what the Universe is really all >>>about, but what you do with that information does not matter in the >>>slightest." >>> >>>Chuck: >> >>What a wonderful statement of what theosophy really has to teach! Now that >>statement, almost word for word, should be somewhere in the TI statement of >>purpose. In fact,if a person was to ask: "What does theosophy teach?" That's >>the best answer I've ever seen! >> >>Let's put it on the cover of my book (attributed to you of course). >> >>Alexis, MTI, FTSA (But for how long..I wonder?) >> >> >> > > > From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 06:16:00 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 23:16 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_829290092==_" Subject: Re: up-tightstill X-Attachments: C:\WPWIN\!PARADIG; --=====================_829290092==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:02 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, >He might, then again,. he might not. But I hope Rich remembers that >blasphemy is both good for the soul and a great way to follow in the >footsteps of HPB, who was a great blasphemer in her day. > >Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: I just read Rich Tay's long response on your comment re: BLIND. Oh my goodness, you sure pushed his buttons! I am amazed I din't think such sarcasm was found in the arsenal of the "morally upright"! If what Rich means by the "Modern Thesophical Movement" is Radha and the ES then I'n glad I can be lumped in with the bad fols on your side! I am now going to attach my amended version of what you said that got him so upset, so he can get upsetter! Oops, I forgot it's not in Ascii..so Ill attach it later. --=====================_829290092==_ Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="!PARADIG"; x-mac-type="42494E41"; x-mac-creator="6D646F73" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="!PARADIG" /1dQQy4DAAABCgIBAAAAAgUAAAAUCgAAAAIAAJB1hAhPC8kL/Nk8jXuC2E9M2bXZ2nA273WZ1d1R gtsVLhEpw79dAaUMxg18rjcF7nTNUIsE8uQ5ZBfdO60lQ6r1TUOQfCtwSKavGVy4AzM3OsmBNavl GUgolTEyxs1wZ3XxMdGG3+qJyTxEH/QRcnpf4vF7NBYFsFmUQ3ihXk/G9B8TYlkCQ3310nwhGph+ hklUvcV+jt4s7aFJOg7HXIUFyep5qBNZTAfZF3VtahHtHeItyNGQr1J3dT1CeeAbM/UoU2/iAcbC Y22BRLHgai7+Pf9VonaMFKXdpdQi/h42Pnw+c1xRb78jEu5JwOLKJVkJK+za4DLl5N7s5d/CB4Ih Kyua6MQghstJaKenwaxmFK6gTQh5gXQEawXu5JQ9LJ461eQR7CuJvn/PTPYyNl+qb0Pphkcs/EBS u2iZu3lIZFvsQpiuvAObDqkKnyxQDuaP9XnZ2c0QxME08Qpvgg1ZusToneNnvangLifIlkpng/sE ucY3y2RLCokU9rPO01p99Abmagxf4h8Y2AgtIlMYlDPeejL+re/9C7UEvDRoWfq6GBCLogB1hYQy 1ZEr/Ue0i2WpX+5/bmeAZiBK37DLiODkUbg3Y9UTxpHwFjykQjf8x5Rq+yoVqDY+ncFNwdhIOLoC AAcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgCAQAAABAAAABiAgAAAFUCAAAAOgAAAHICAAAJJQEAAAAGAAAArAIAAAsw AgAAACgAAACyAgAACHcBAAAAQAAAANoCAAAINAEAAAAUAAAAGgMAAAgzfAB4AAACAAAiAAAAAQAs AIYfchCJBwAAFkEAAABaAAcIAIsUIgBBAHIAaQBhAGwAIABSAGUAZwB1AGwAYQByAAAAAAAAAAAA AQACAFgCAQAAAAQAKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABEwIAJAChAAAAoQAAAAoAAAAZAAEARQAa AAEAAgAbAAEARQAcAAEAAgAdAAEAVQAeAAEARQAfAAEAAgAgAAEARQAhAAEAAgAiAAEAAgAcZ4Ig AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN0KEACDAQQAAwACACEQAN3dCwsAAwAABAsA3fECAQDx0wUMAAABAAEA DADT8QMBAPHxAgIA8dQbHwCAAQIACAAgA/5wAQAgAwAAWAICAFgCAAAfANTxAwIA8VRoZYBVbml2 ZXJzZYBpdHNlbGYsgGlzgGFugGVudGlyZWx5gHZhbHVlLWZyZWWAaW5mb3JtYXRpb26Ac3lzdGVt gGFuZNABFQAACwAJAAGwBAAAAAABIBUA0G5vdGhpbmeAYXSAYWxsgHdoaWNo8QADAPHM8QEDAPHx AgQA8YDxAwQA8WFugGluZGl2aWR1YWyAZG9lc4B3aGlsZYBpboB0aGWAcGh5c2ljYWyAaXOAZ29p bmfPdG+AaGF2ZYBtb3JlgHRoYW6AYW6AYXR0aXR1ZGluYWyAZWZmZWN08QAFAPHM8QEFAPFvboB0 aGVpcoBmdXR1cmUugPECBgDxzMzxAwYA8UGAcGVyc29uLIBiZWNhdXNlgG9mgHRoZYB0aGluZ3OA dGhleYBkbyyAYW5kgGJlY2F1c2WAb2aAdGhlgHdhec90aGV58QAHAPHM8QEHAPHxAggA8YDxAwgA 8XRoaW5rLIBhbmSAYmVjYXVzZYBvZoBXSEFUgHRoZXmAdGhpbmssgGNyZWF0ZYBhboBlbnZpcm9u bWVudM93aGljaIBjb2xvdXJzgGFuZPEACQDxzPEBCQDx8QIKAPGA8QMKAPFmbGF2b3Vyc4B0aGVp coBwZXJzb25hbIBmdXR1cmUugEJ1dIB0aGF0gGlzgHRoZYB3YXnPaW6Ad2hpY2iAYW6AaW5kaXZp ZHVhbIBpbmZsdWVuY2VzgHRoZWly8QALAPHM8QELAPHxAgwA8YDxAwwA8XBvc3QtbW9ydGVtgGZ1 dHVyZSyAaXSAaGFzz25vdGhpbmeAYXSAYWxsgHRvgGRvgHdpdGiAdGhlgFVuaXZlcnNhbIBJbnRl bGxnZW5jZYBmaWVsZC6A8QIOAPHMzPEDDgDxVGhl8QINAPFy8QMNAPFl8QAPAPHM8QEPAPHxAhAA 8YDxAxAA8WlzgG5vgGp1ZGdlbWVudCyAdGhlcmWAaXOAbm+AcmV0cmlidXRpb24sgHRoZXJlgGlz gG9ubHmAYYBtaWxpZXXPd2hpY2iAZXZlcnmAaW5kaXZpZHVhbPEAEQDxzPEBEQDx8QISAPGA8QMS APFjcmVhdGVzgGZvcoB0aGVtc2VsdmVzLszMVGhlgG9ubHmAdGhpbmeAdGhhdIBtYXR0ZXJzLIB0 aGWAb25seYB0aGluZ4BpboB0aGWAdW5pdmVyc2UsgHRoYXTPbWF0dHRlcnOAaXOAaW50ZWxsaWdl bmNlLszxAhMA8czxAxMA8Ul0gGlzgGhvd4B0aGF0gGludGVsbGlnZW5jZYBpc4B1dGlsaXplZIBh bmSAaG93gGl0gHByb2Nlc3Nlc4BhbmSAc3RvcmVzz2luZm9ybWF0aW9ugHRoYXSAaXPxABQA8czx ARQA8fECFQDxgPEDFQDxY3JpdGljYWwugPECFgDxzMzxAxYA8VRoYXQnc4B3aGF0gHRoZYBVbml2 ZXJzZYBpc4BhbGyAYWJvdXQsgHRoZYBpbmZpbml0aXphdGlvboBvZoBpbnRlbGlpZ2VuY2Usz2Fu ZIB0aGXxABcA8czxARcA8fECGADxgPEDGADxcHJvY2Vzc2luZ4BhbmSAc3RvcmFnZYBvZoBpbmZv cm1hdGlvboBmb3KAdGhlgHVzZYBvZoB0aGF0z2ludGVsbGlnZW5jZS6AQWxsgGluZm9ybWF0aW9u gGlz8QAZAPHM8QEZAPHxAhoA8YDxAxoA8XZhbGlkLIBhbGyAaW5mb3JtYXRpb24sgGFuZIBleHBl cmllbmNlz2lzgHRoZYBtYWpvcoBzb3VyY2WAb2aAaW5mb3JtYXRpb24sgGlzgG5lZWRmdWyAdG/x ABsA8czxARsA8fECHADxgPEDHADxdGhlgHVuaXZlcnNhbM9kYXRhLWJhbmsugPECHQDxzMzxAx0A 8VdoYXSAYW6AafECIgDxbvEDIgDxZGl2aWR1YWyAaHVtYW6AYmVpbmeAZG9lc4B3aXRogHRoZWly gHBlcnNvbmFs8QAeAPHM8QEeAPHxAh8A8YDxAx8A8WluZm9ybWF0aW9uz2RhdGEtYmFuayyAbWF0 dGVyc4Bvbmx5gHdpdGhpboB0aGVpcoBwZXJzb25hbIBwYXJhZGlnbS6ASXSAZG9lc4Bub3TPbWF0 dGVygGlu8QAgAPHM8QEgAPHxAiEA8YDxAyEA8XRoZYBzbGlnaHRlc3SAd2l0aGlugHRoZYB1bml2 ZXJzYWyAcGFyYWRpZ20u --=====================_829290092==_-- From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 06:21:00 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 23:21 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_829290389==_" Subject: Re:now I've got it X-Attachments: C:\WPWIN\!PARADIG; --=====================_829290389==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:57 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, >Now don't tell us you don't believe in yourself. As for me, I deified myself >when in college and had great fun tossing lightning bolts at people. >One of the nice things about being amoral is that you never have to worry >about living down to other people's standards. And once they find out that >you are not going to they tend to stop bothering you and next thing, mirabile >dictu, you actually find that you can get along. >And you get to giggle a lot. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >You are of course right, we bad folks have all the fun! Now I changed my "amemdment to Ascii and I'll atttach it, alexis --=====================_829290389==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="!PARADIG" The Universe itself, is an entirely value-free information system and nothing at all which an individual does while in the physical is going to have more than an attitudinal effecton their future. A person, because of the things they do, and because of the way they think, and because of WHAT they think, create an environment which colours and flavours their personal future. But that is the way in which an individual influences their post-mortem future, it has nothing at all to do with the Universal Intellgence field. There is no judgement, there is no retribution, there is only a milieu which every individual creates for themselves. The only thing that matters, the only thing in the universe, that mattters is intelligence. It is how that intelligence is utilized and how it processes and stores information that is critical. That's what the Universe is all about, the infinitization of inteliigence, and the processing and storage of information for the use of that intelligence. All information is valid, all information, and experience is the major source of information, is needful to the universal data-bank. What an individual human being does with their personal information data-bank, matters only within their personal paradigm. It does not matter in the slightest within the universal paradigm. --=====================_829290389==_-- From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 06:54:00 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 23:54 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: ReHome Pages At 04:54 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >I agree with Alan. Getting messages of other lists on theos-l is too >cumbersome. We have too many messages as it is. If our home page has links >to the others, then whoever wants to can read them via the links. > >Alexis, you said something a while back, that I'm thinking about. Did you >say that the theosophical home pages have been removed? who, what?!? > >Liesel >Member TSa, TI, TS in Canada, HR > >LIESEL: About a week ago, John demonstrated NET Pagees to me on his machine. There was a Home Page for the TS in America and several other "official" Adyar version T>S> pages and references listed. Yesterday John installed Netscape Gold on my computer and, as a teaching method, had me try to find those pages. All of them brought up a message that they'd been removed. They are no longer on the board. John was doing this and he's a professional. If it had been me, I'd have assumed I f----up, but it wasn't me, it was the telephone company's Lord High Computer Specialist! That's all I know..they were there...and now they're not! What itmeans I can only guess. alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 06:57:00 1996 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 23:57 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Russian e-mail At 04:40 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis, > >I know there are PC's in Russia, but so far I don't have any viable >addresses. I once corresponded briefly with a man in Moscow from another >list. I asked him whether he'd relay messages to my penpal, but never got an >answer. We also briefly had a correspondent in the Ukraine. He had to give >up writing, when his bosses found out how he spent his worktime. > >I think you wrote to someone for an adress. I wrote to someone as well, by >snail mail a few days ago. One of us will get an address, soon I hope, then >you can write. I told my correspondent what we wanted to do, & she might >already pass it on from where she is in Western Europe. She phones Russia at >times. > >We'll get there. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > >Oh we will, we will. I talked to #1 son today, and he said he'll take the letter over to UC Berkeley (his Alma Mater) and have his Professor look it over for correctness. Though why I don't know, he was born speaking Slovak and Czech and he did very well in his Russian Language Major. I guess he just wants to make sure it's perfect. alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 07:09:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 00:09 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: me too PauL; It has happened tome too, all the time. The only place I'm not taken for a native is in the USA, and I was born in South Carolina. Now I am a dark eyed, dark haired person, with very strong aquiline features, and Ilook my class. So I was not surprised to be taken for a "home boy" in Italy, Greece, and Spain. But in Sweden? I can understand Germany becuase Southern Germans are for the most part not blondes. But basically I look Russian. I look just like all my relations. So the best I can tell you is that I have absolutely no idea at all why some people get taken for native whereever they go. Go to Africa or the Far East and I'm sure it won't happen. alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 07:09:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 00:09 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Parzifal At 07:33 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >Chuck: > >(writing to Alex) > >>A buffoon is not necessarily harmless but is certainly funny in his >>hypocrisy. > >Since "Buffoon" is being used a lot on theos-l, I looked it up in >my American Heritage Dictionary: > >AHD> 1. A clown, a jester. 2. A person given to clowing and joking. >AHD> 3. A ludicrous or bumbling person, a fool. > >Well, we seem to see examples matching all these definitions in >theosophical groups. > >Of all the definitions, I'd prefer #3, if you consider someone as >the divine fool, like "The Fool" in the tarot, someone with an >innocence to life that makes of him a saint. (Of course, worldly-wise >saints are also useful role models...) > >-- Eldon > >Eldon: I have always felt that the "fool" as depicted in the Tarot deck, would have to be definition 4. Parzifal, who is the "perfect fool" is neither bumbling or ludicrous, but rather is naif, or so pure that the worldliness of others is invisible to him, so pure that no matter what, he remains pure. Now, of course, that purity has something to do, not with the Sangraal but with the Sang Real. alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 07:17:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 00:17 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_829293731==_" Subject: Re: Wonderrful statement X-Attachments: C:\WPWIN\!PARADIG; --=====================_829293731==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:55 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >This is what Theosophy teaches???? See below. Maybe all these words mean >something other than what I am reading on the surface. Could all of this be >clarified? If this statement [as I "read" it] was incorporated in TI, I >certainly would not want to >join the group. > >Daniel > > >Daniel: I have attached Chuck's "statement" as amended by me, and yes I think thats what phillethianism teaches and what is the basic premise in Isis Unveiled" alexis > > --=====================_829293731==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="!PARADIG" The Universe itself, is an entirely value-free information system and nothing at all which an individual does while in the physical is going to have more than an attitudinal effecton their future. A person, because of the things they do, and because of the way they think, and because of WHAT they think, create an environment which colours and flavours their personal future. But that is the way in which an individual influences their post-mortem future, it has nothing at all to do with the Universal Intellgence field. There is no judgement, there is no retribution, there is only a milieu which every individual creates for themselves. The only thing that matters, the only thing in the universe, that mattters is intelligence. It is how that intelligence is utilized and how it processes and stores information that is critical. That's what the Universe is all about, the infinitization of inteliigence, and the processing and storage of information for the use of that intelligence. All information is valid, all information, and experience is the major source of information, is needful to the universal data-bank. What an individual human being does with their personal information data-bank, matters only within their personal paradigm. It does not matter in the slightest within the universal paradigm. --=====================_829293731==_-- From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 07:27:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 00:27 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: The Russians Rudolfo: I agree with you that it is "structure" that has caused most of Theosophy's problems, sturcture and orthodocy and hagiography and theology. I agree with you that the Internet is a wonderful intrument, and I know there are plenty of PC's in Moscow. I know they kept the die-hards "Putsch" from succeeding. But I need to know what to tell those people, who certainly can't be too fond of too much structure considering their experiences over the last 78 years. I wrote that note to Alan becuase what I really want is for people who consider themselves part of TI to tell me what to say to those poor folks in Moscow. sure I can write them a nifty letter on my own, but no one's appointed me "corresponding secretary" and I wouldn't take the job if they did. If this is truly an semi anarchic totally consensual group effort, then the letter must be the result of significant group input. sure it'll be my words and my style, but it will be a group "baby". We can talk about this more when you and Gene come to visit. You did get my phone number and address? alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 07:44:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 00:44 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Psychogenesis At 10:38 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: > > >>Alexis writes> >> I also aprehend there is a great danger in using a so-called >>"psychological" approach to theosophy as it tends to either avoid or >>euphemise reality into psychological states of physical human >>consciousness, and they, as I see it, are the least important aspects of >consciousness. > >>Jerry S.> >>Agreed. But psychogenesis will not replace cosmogenesis or homogenesis but >rather supplement them. > >Richard Ihle writes> >Jerry, one reason I like you so much is that I can always trust you to >overlook my more off-the-mark ideas or at least disagree with them in a way >which still gives me credit for some minimal thing--having spelled >*euphemize* in the conventional way or something. . . . > >Anyway, when I first read Alexis' sentence above, I sort of passed over it, >believing it to be one of those "from-the-hip" responses we all fire from >time to time--i.e., something which a person with more leisure might like to >call back and work on a little before others started arguing against it etc. > >Thus, I was surprised when you said you "agreed" with his statement. I went >back and tried to find what it was you could have been agreeing with. Here, >as I see it, is what it contends: > > Richard: It might have been more helpful if you asked me what I meant. That'susually the best way to find out what soeone means. Is it not? What I see as the primary danger in "psychologizing" metaphysics, and I presume you do agree that "theosophy" and "metaphysics' have a relationship. Is that the Jungian "psychologization" of various states of consciousness that we all agree to call "metaphysical" is far too easily interpreted as pathology. When "enlightenment" for instace, is simply considered a "psychological state" then it can easily be equated with any other such state as utterly delusional or hallucinogenic. "Psycholgizing" maymake states of consciousness respectable, but it does, I fear, tend to detract from their reality. There now, that's not all that "far out" is it? alexis dolgorukii From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 07:53:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 00:53 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_829295898==_" Subject: Re:It is wonderful! X-Attachments: C:\WPWIN\!PARADIG; --=====================_829295898==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:20 AM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >>This is what Theosophy teaches???? See below. Maybe all these words mean >>something other than what I am reading on the surface. Could all of this be >>clarified? If this statement [as I "read" it] was incorporated in TI, I >>certainly would not want to >>join the group. >> >>Daniel > >Me neither >Bee >> >>Bee, I really wonder if either you or Daniel are doing anything but "shhot from the hip". Did either of you reallytake any time to analyze Chuck's statement from a philalethian/theosophical point of view to see what it means? I have taken the liberty to paraphrase it and i've attached it hereto. It absolutely matches the precepts in the Idyll of the White Lotus. alexis >> >> > >>> > >>> >>> >> >> >> > > --=====================_829295898==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="!PARADIG" The Universe itself, is an entirely value-free information system and nothing at all which an individual does while in the physical is going to have more than an attitudinal effecton their future. A person, because of the things they do, and because of the way they think, and because of WHAT they think, create an environment which colours and flavours their personal future. But that is the way in which an individual influences their post-mortem future, it has nothing at all to do with the Universal Intellgence field. There is no judgement, there is no retribution, there is only a milieu which every individual creates for themselves. The only thing that matters, the only thing in the universe, that mattters is intelligence. It is how that intelligence is utilized and how it processes and stores information that is critical. That's what the Universe is all about, the infinitization of inteliigence, and the processing and storage of information for the use of that intelligence. All information is valid, all information, and experience is the major source of information, is needful to the universal data-bank. What an individual human being does with their personal information data-bank, matters only within their personal paradigm. It does not matter in the slightest within the universal paradigm. --=====================_829295898==_-- From carlos%afisup@afina.es Fri Apr 12 14:41:33 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 09:41:33 -0500 From: "Carlos M. Perez" Message-Id: <9604120941.ZM9999@acuario> Subject: Greetings to the list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear all, During a month I was subscribed as a reader to the list. I'm a fellow of TS in Spain. As I can see, it's impossible for me to spend a lot of time participating in this list. By other hand, I do not agree with the sense of many postings, so I decide to resign to it. However, I'd like to make some little comments before it. 1) Does somebody really think that a list plenty of hard actitudes and fighting postings can be useful for the enlighment or for the truth searching of any person?. 2) Why you are not more honest and add as an object for TI "... to fight against Theosophical Society of Adyar and their representatives"?. It would be more "transparent". Finally, sorry by my english. Best regards. Carlos M. Perez, TS Spain -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos M. Perez Tel: +(341) 561.25.99 Technical Director Fax: +(341) 564.00.10 AFINA SISTEMAS, MADRID (SPAIN) carlosp@afina.es -------------------------------------------------------------------- From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 11:44:42 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:44:42 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412074441_189695346@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Up-tight is the word! Jerry, People who think that abstaining from sex makes them good people are not merely buffoons. They are SICK and need treatment, preferrably with electric shocks injudicioulsy applied to various parts of the anatomy in the hope it might get something working. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 11:45:46 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:45:46 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412074546_189695628@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The poor blind --er, ethical--mice Rich, I will admit to being an arch-revisionist, but my reasoning is based on the fact that HPB was a great admirer of the Gnostics who taught exactly what I am saying. That being the case, either she was terribly confused about what she was teaching, or she was tailoring her teachings to the people she had to deal. Now there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, if she had not, there would be no Theosophical Society today. But if you look at the totality of her life and work, to assume that she was intending that her words would be taken with absolute literality is not going to hold up. Admittedly, she was not above a bit of "do as I say, not as I do," but she was too public to get away with much of it if there were not something else there, something that would withstand the vaguaries of fashion and middle-class respectability. One idea I have heard which makes sense to me though I would like to see documentation on it is that by removing the fear of hell from people's minds, the early TSers were afraid that people would run out and do anything they wanted, so they came up with lists of rules to try to calm them down. This makes a certain sense if one understands the Victorian mind, which loved nothing more than to make social systems for other people to live under. But we are not Victorians. We know that the universe does not quite work the way the materialistic determinists who founded the TS (and if you look at the material that is exactly what they were even though they refused to admit it) thought it did. And that leaves us in a quandary. Assuming that HPB had some great, universal insight and obviously I do or I would not be engaging in this entertainment, how much of it was she actually willing to say knowing the audience she had to deal with? And if what she said was not the entire message, what was she really thinking? Sound familiar? It is merely taking the methods of textual criticism applied to the Bible and applying them to Theosophy. We have always been told, often by people for whom I will admit I have minimal respect, that the true teachings are hidden in the works. They are right. But they have no idea how well hidden they are. Now I will freely admit that this is my interpretation and I can be wrong. But given the evidence, it is the best interpretation I can come up with. There is just too much stuff that leads in this direction and if you will be patient I am working on a lengthy piece detailing how I have come to this conclusion, but it will take a few months more of research before it can be written. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 11:45:49 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:45:49 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412074548_189695635@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Up-tight is the word! Eldon, Sorry, you don't qualify as a fool. Foolish at times, perhaps, but a fool, unlikely. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 11:45:54 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:45:54 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412074552_189695653@emout04.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The Russians Alan, by all means go with the stuff as it is now. We can hair-split later. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 11:45:57 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:45:57 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <199604121145.HAA18699@emout06.mail.aol.com> Apparently-To: theos-l@vnet.net that you get along so well with them that they sort of unconsciously adopt you. I have had similar experiences in my life, though not with so many different types of people and it can be a bit unnerving. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 11:46:03 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:46:03 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412074601_189695701@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The Barbarian replys to Eldon Eldon, All of your points are excellent and well taken. They are a great example of the kind of thinking I was trying to produce. I know Betty and I actually like her (though I can live without the sufi dancing) and she knows more about technical Theosophy than I will ever learn, but she is not really leadership material and unfortunately the TS has a tendency to need leaders to give it some direction. John Algeo came in with some very interesting ideas and if they had been executed better might well have stopped some of the drift. I doubt that she will have that many but I can be wrong and I hope I am. I have just not seen it up to now. I fear for the future of Theosophy. We cannot stay wedded to the ideas of the past and yet to revise them puts us in danger of losing everything. It is a danger I am willing to risk, but I can see why others would not. But one thing is certain, we need more warm bodies and a society that is not afraid of the thoughts they might bring. Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 11:46:18 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:46:18 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412074617_189695752@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: instant enlightenment Dear Blessed Alan of Bedlam, When are they letting you out? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 11:46:21 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:46:21 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412074620_189695769@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Wonderrful statement Alex, It may end up as entire book. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 11:46:34 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:46:34 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412074633_189695803@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Up-tight is the word! Daniel, Jerry has already responded but forgive me for butting in here. I have never known anyone to be made a good person by being a vegetarian. If that were true Hitler would have been a saint. I have known many carnivores, who, unlike myself, were and are good people, like my grandfather who never looked at a vegetable in his long life (he lived into his nineties). As far as sex goes, one of the nicest people I know is a prostitute. And she is one because a group of so-called good people convinced her that because she bedded a catholic priest that that was all she could be. I have run into a lot of people in my life who claim goodness and try to force others into their mold of it. Knowing them I rejoice in my evil and may it ever be my good. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 11:46:34 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:46:34 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412074634_189695813@mail06> Subject: Re: Giggling at the Morally Upright Daniel, I'll be happy to give you the sources, but the research for the details is taking little bit of time as they are going to be part of a book I'm working on. Chuck the Barbarian MIT, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 11:46:40 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:46:40 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412074638_189695831@emout04.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Giggling at the Morally Upright Daniel, Any good biography of the Colonel tells that he left his wife and only saw her again once in 1892. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 11:46:43 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:46:43 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412074642_189695854@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Re Adyar successors Liesel, One of the local jokes has Betty and David running Olcott like a prison, complete with guard towers and barbed wire. Of course the food might improve...:-) Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Fri Apr 12 13:10:41 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 9:10:41 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604121310.JAA02489@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Instant results Well, here's a promise or warning that the heart chakra meditation I talked about yesterday can have instantaneous results. Did it again for a few minutes this morning, and later on the way to work, as I was barreling down a country road, out of the corner of my eye I saw some movement by the right front bumper. Then I saw a beautiful bird, some kind of special chicken I think-- gray and white-- walking on the other side of the road. Then, in the rear view mirror, the crushed remains of another of the same species in the road. Obviously, what had happened is that one of these birds had run in front of my car just as it reached the point where he was standing on the side of the road. I felt horrified, aghast, even grief-stricken. This would have been bad enough anyway, but to have deliberately opened my heart to oneness with life and then to become a destroyer of life was, well, ghastly. As I was sitting there in my grief, an accusing inner voice said (no, not really a voice, but I'll personify it) said, "At least *that* chicken ran in front of your car; what about all the chickens whose deaths you are indirectly responsible for, whose beautiful feathers you never see, who never did anything to cause their own demise? Why aren't you all grief-stricken about *them*?" And the vow to cease eating fowl was the only possible response to this morning's events. Moral: if you deliberately open yourself to perceiving reality at a new level, the universe will immediately send you a message to acknowledge your intention-- and test its sincerity. RIP, beautiful gray and white bird-- may you soon reincarnate among owners who won't let you play in the road. From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Apr 12 13:25:21 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:25:21 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Re Adyar successors In-Reply-To: <960412074642_189695854@emout08.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Chuck: You have made my day. ...doss On Fri, 12 Apr 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:05:53 -0500 > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Re Adyar successors > > Liesel, > One of the local jokes has Betty and David running Olcott like a prison, > complete with guard towers and barbed wire. Of course the food might > improve...:-) > > Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA > Heretic > Troublemaker > From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Apr 12 13:30:40 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:30:40 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Greetings to the list In-Reply-To: <9604120941.ZM9999@acuario> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Carlos: Glad that you took time to post the msg. I have been a formal member of TS Adyar close to four decades. I have learnt a lot here in the last six months here that I was unaware in the past. There is no substitute for Internet. If there are messages that one does not like, I hit the delete key. This is normal in all Internet lists including those "censored" ones. Sorry to see you sign off. Hope you will be back soon. .....doss On Fri, 12 Apr 1996, Carlos M. Perez wrote: > Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 03:41:51 -0500 > From: Carlos M. Perez > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Greetings to the list > > Dear all, > > During a month I was subscribed as a reader to the list. I'm a fellow of TS > in Spain. As I can see, it's impossible for me to spend a lot of time > participating in this list. By other hand, I do not agree with the sense of many > postings, so I decide to resign to it. However, I'd like to make some little > comments before it. > > 1) Does somebody really think that a list plenty of hard actitudes and fighting > postings can be useful for the enlighment or for the truth searching of any > person?. > > 2) Why you are not more honest and add as an object for TI "... to fight > against Theosophical Society of Adyar and their representatives"?. It would be > more "transparent". > > Finally, sorry by my english. Best regards. > > Carlos M. Perez, TS Spain > > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Carlos M. Perez Tel: +(341) 561.25.99 > Technical Director Fax: +(341) 564.00.10 > AFINA SISTEMAS, MADRID (SPAIN) carlosp@afina.es > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Fri Apr 12 13:33:06 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 9:33:06 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604121333.JAA08011@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: to Doss re the TS As I understand your post in response to my Third Refuge post, you are saying that anyone who expects anything from TS affiliation is responsible for any disappointments that ensue. At some level that may be true. But you certainly err in assuming that I "expected" to get publisheby a Theosophical publisher, etc. The bottom line of what I expected is the Three Objects. 1) If an organization proclaims the goal of being a nucleus of universal brotherhood, why can't one expect the most prominent members and leaders of such organization to *at least try* to behave in a fraternal manner toward one another? 2) If an organization proclaims the goal of studying comparative religion, science and philosophy, why can't one expect an open-minded investigation of all subjects related to those objects, rather than proclamations that some subjects are off-limits? Particularly, that the Masters are both perfected men and something beyond that, that it is blasphemous to discuss their human qualities, etc. etc. 3) If an organization proclaims the goal of investigating hidden powers etc., why doesn't one have the right to expect a sincere inquiry into such matters rather than a dogmatic assertiothat they are dang etc.? From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 11 23:05:36 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 00:05:36 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: No Mail today In-Reply-To: <960411155004_189231082@emout10.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960411155004_189231082@emout10.mail.aol.com>, Coherence@aol.com writes >Help. I did not receive my mail today. Could someone please post the "get >theos-l" function instructions again? And how do you know if you've been >dropped from the list, as was discussed a short time ago? > >Many thanks > >Greg H e-mail to listproc@vnet.net - get theos-l theos-l.960411 Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From rdon@garlic.com Fri Apr 12 15:12:28 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:12:28 -0700 From: rdon@garlic.com (Rodolfo Don) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Greetings to the list >Carlos: > >Glad that you took time to post the msg. > >I have been a formal member of TS Adyar close to four decades. > >I have learnt a lot here in the last six months here that I was unaware >in the past. > >There is no substitute for Internet. > >If there are messages that one does not like, I hit the delete key. This >is normal in all Internet lists including those "censored" ones. > >Sorry to see you sign off. Hope you will be back soon. > > .....doss Thank you Doss, I just replied to Carlos directly. I learned a lot here too, and I agree with you that there is no substitute for the Internet. And we need the Spaniards! The country of Jose Xifre. Rudy > >On Fri, 12 Apr 1996, Carlos M. Perez wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 03:41:51 -0500 >> From: Carlos M. Perez >> To: Multiple recipients of list >> Subject: Greetings to the list >> >> Dear all, >> >> During a month I was subscribed as a reader to the list. I'm a fellow of TS >> in Spain. As I can see, it's impossible for me to spend a lot of time >> participating in this list. By other hand, I do not agree with the sense >>of many >> postings, so I decide to resign to it. However, I'd like to make some little >> comments before it. >> >> 1) Does somebody really think that a list plenty of hard actitudes and >>fighting >> postings can be useful for the enlighment or for the truth searching of any >> person?. >> >> 2) Why you are not more honest and add as an object for TI "... to fight >> against Theosophical Society of Adyar and their representatives"?. It >>would be >> more "transparent". >> >> Finally, sorry by my english. Best regards. >> >> Carlos M. Perez, TS Spain >> >> >> -- >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Carlos M. Perez Tel: +(341) 561.25.99 >> Technical Director Fax: +(341) 564.00.10 >> AFINA SISTEMAS, MADRID (SPAIN) carlosp@afina.es >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL Web: http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Fri Apr 12 16:17:07 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 12:17:07 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604121617.MAA21232@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: The White Buddhist-- a review A brief review, followed by some comments, on The White Buddhist: The Asian Odyssey of Henry Steel Olcott, by Stephen Prothero (Indiana University Press, 1996, $34.95.) Theosophists and all readers interested in Col. Olcott should welcome this first scholarly biography of either of the TS founders. The book is competently written, engaging enough for the non-academic reader but still unmistakably the work of an academician. The author's scholarship is very sound, and he applies the tools of a religious historian in approaching Olcott from an angle unlike that of any previoous author. The conclusions follow from the evidence, and indeed the author is quite cautious in drawing any conclusions at all. What I most liked about the book was its insightful use of the concept of "creolization" to explain Olcott's impact on Buddhism. Using a linguistic analogy, Prothero discusses the way that African grammatical structures combined with European vocabulary to produce "creole" dialects in the New World. He argues that while Olcott adopted a vocabulary of Buddhism, his grammar remained that of liberal Protestantism. "Olcott's inability to separate his adopted religion from his inherited culture suggests, in short, that the notion that individuals can convert *from* some hypostatic religious tradition to* another equally hypostatic one may be ill-conceived."(p. 182) The author argues consistently and well for his perspective on Olcott's role in Asian religious history. My greatest concern with the book is its reluctance to deal with issues that are crucial to any understanding of Olcott. The author disavows the intent to write a full biography, and concentrates overwhelmingly on questions of interreligious communication and influence. This is a valuable work, and Prothero states in the introduction that his focus was determined by available sources, as well as by his scholarly interests. Still, he is too avoidant for this reader's taste of the crucial relationship in Olcott's life-- that with HPB. He writes, "I quite intentionally finesse questions regarding, for example, the genuineness of spiritual phenomena attributed to Blavatsky and the reality of her beloved `Masters.'" This may have made his work much easier to write and less controversial to readers, but it also seems cowardly in light of the importance of HPB and the Masters to any profound understanding of Olcott. (Prothero is, however, acute in discussing the feud between the Founders later in their lives.) The acknowledgments thank Radha Burnier, Norma Sastry, Dorothy Abbenhouse, and John Algeo among other Theosophists. The author had the full cooperation of the Adyar and Olcott libraries, and was allowed access to the Adyar archives' collections of Olcott letters and diaries. One might speculate that his "finessing" and "bracketing" was the means by which he obtained such cooperation. I sincerely doubt that if he had said "I certainly do intend to present a reasoned conclusion about the reality of HPB's powers and her Masters, as well as of Olcott's spiritual experiences," he would have gotten the great cooperation recorded in the acknowledgment. From blafoun@azstarnet.com Fri Apr 12 16:51:15 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 09:51:15 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604121651.JAA20916@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Giggling, etc & Chuck's Comments on Olcott Chuck, In your original post you said: >Blavatsky herself was anything but moral in the eyes of her contemporaries >and Col. Olcott left his family to run off with her. I then asked you: >What are your sources for this statement? >Historical documents, etc.? And you Chuck replied to my questions with: >Daniel, >Any good biography of the Colonel tells that he left his wife and only saw >her again once in 1892. Chuck, in your original postings, you said: " Col. Olcott left his family to run off with her." And then in your latest you say: "Colonel tells that he left his wife and only saw her again once in 1892." Now from these two sentences of yours one might think that you are saying that Olcott left his wife and children to run off with HPB. And since you were commenting on HPB's morals or lack of morals when you made this statement, one might also somehow connect all of this together to reflect badly on Olcott as well as HPB. But Chuck, I ask: When did Olcott leave his family to run off with HPB? And what was their destination? Gertrude Marvin Williams in her 1946 biography on HPB writes: "The Colonel...had previously supported his family in modest comfort. When he abandoned his wife to live openly with another woman [HPB], his insistence on a Platonic relationship was not convincing to Mrs. Olcott." p. 106. But it is simply not true that Olcott "abandoned his wife" for HPB. To begin with, Mary Olcott divorced Henry in Dec. 1874. Furthermore, Mrs. Olcott testified that "I have not lived with the defendant as his wife since the 1st of January, 1873...." (See *Blavatsky and Her Teachers* by Jean Overton Fuller.) And, Chuck, I assume you know that Olcott did not meet HPB until Oct. 14, 1874 at the Eddys' Farm, Chittenden, Vermont. Even Marion Meade (who is not always the most accurate writer) in her biography of HPB correctly comments that at the time of his divorce, HPB and Olcott were "casual acquaintances". (p. 134) There's more to all of this but I will stop here. Daniel From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 17:11:20 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:11:20 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412131118_374125442@mail06> Subject: Re: Gaffauing at the Morally Upright John, Great post. If it had not been so late last night I would have blasted them as they deserve, but you have done it far better than me, so let me join you. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From nlporreco@bpa.gov Fri Apr 12 16:34:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 09:34:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: Re: Occultism - HPB Message-Id: <316E900E@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 38 TEXT Jerry, I wasn't really making a point, just throwing some stabilizing ingredients into the boiling pot as it brews. Every once in a while as we are discussing topics ranging from morality, to being unhappy that our leaders don't live up to the images we have formed, I feel it is important to reflect on some of the basic comments that HPB provided us. For me its one way to re-center. Shanti, Nick. > Date: Thursday, April 11, 1996 9:55PM > From: theos-l > Subject: Re: Occultism - HPB Nick quoting HPB: >"Occultism in not magic, though magic is one of its tools. > >Occultism is not the acquirement of powers, whether psychic or intellectual, >though both are its servants. Neither is occultism the pursuit of >happiness, as men understand the word: for the first step is sacrifice, the >second, renunciation. > >Occultism is the science of life, the art of living. > > HPB --- Lucifer, Vol. I, p. 7." > Nick, nice quotes but whats your point? Jerry S. Memer, TI From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Apr 12 17:11:28 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 12:11:28 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: to Doss re the TS In-Reply-To: <199604121333.JAA08011@leo.vsla.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Paul: I see your point. As for myself, one of the prime objectives has always been how I can be a better man due to my exposure to Theosophy and how I can help my fellow beings the make the world little better however little change may be. ....doss On Fri, 12 Apr 1996, K. Paul Johnson wrote: > Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:41:43 -0500 > From: K. Paul Johnson > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: to Doss re the TS > > As I understand your post in response to my Third Refuge post, > you are saying that anyone who expects anything from TS > affiliation is responsible for any disappointments that ensue. > At some level that may be true. But you certainly err in > assuming that I "expected" to get publisheby a Theosophical > publisher, etc. The bottom line of what I expected is the > Three Objects. > 1) If an organization proclaims the goal of being a nucleus of > universal brotherhood, why can't one expect the most prominent > members and leaders of such organization to *at least try* to > behave in a fraternal manner toward one another? > 2) If an organization proclaims the goal of studying > comparative religion, science and philosophy, why can't one > expect an open-minded investigation of all subjects related to > those objects, rather than proclamations that some subjects are > off-limits? Particularly, that the Masters are both perfected > men and something beyond that, that it is blasphemous to > discuss their human qualities, etc. etc. > 3) If an organization proclaims the goal of investigating > hidden powers etc., why doesn't one have the right to expect a > sincere inquiry into such matters rather than a dogmatic > assertiothat they are dang etc.? > > From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 17:12:04 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:12:04 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412131203_374125913@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: up-tightstill Alex, One of the joys of getting the self-rigtheous in a lather is they look so good with foam on their mouths, at least until they get mistaken for having rabies and get put to sleep. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 17:12:20 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:12:20 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412131219_374126076@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: now I've got it Alex, I hope Rich has his valium handy. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 17:12:56 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:12:56 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412131255_374126453@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: It is wonderful! Alex, And never forget that when the sun goes nova, both just and unjust shall fry alike. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 17:13:02 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:13:02 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412131300_374126485@mail04> Subject: Re: Greetings to the list Carlos, Sorry to lose you, and I hope you are still around to read this. You have to remember that most of the people on this list are Americans and we love to argue about anything. Maybe in Spain you are a more homogeneous group, but here we have so many different types of people that disagreement is part of the territory and while we may get a little choleric at times we do get over it. We think ideas should be discussed and yes, the discussion can get a little raucus, but then you should see an American lodge meeting. There was once one in Chicago that the neighbors called the police about because they thought it was a riot in progress and I'm not kidding. As to your comments about TI, that is what I have trying to say it would sound like and no one would listen to me! Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 12 14:33:13 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 15:33:13 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: instant enlightenment In-Reply-To: <960412074617_189695752@emout07.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960412074617_189695752@emout07.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Dear Blessed Alan of Bedlam, >When are they letting you out? > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker I get walkies twice a month. --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 12 17:05:33 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:05:33 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604121809.OAA11619@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Alexis, Re: Uptight Sexuality & diet *do* have to do with it. I don't think a promiscuous person is very mature, & spiritual people are. Part of becoming more spiritual is finding ways to attune yourself to finer & finer vibes. That implies not eating meat & exposing yourself, for example, to the fears the animals went through while they were being killed. That fear is still in their meat. Re "good". I see red whenever I hear that word, because when I was little & even when I got bigger, I always had to be a "good little girl" , whatever that implied in my mother's concept of it. So I never used the word in that sense with my kids, nor with my pets. In the present day, I allow Chouchou to bite, because she needs to be able to defend herself & to be able to express "niet", but she doesn't bite hard anymore as she did when she was a kitten. Just enough to let you know that she means "niet". When she acomplishes something like that, I do tell her "good girl", which is my signal of approval of her, a signal she can accept more readily than being petted. You see, she spent her infanthood in a ditch & who knows where before that, & after that, she had to submit to the painful minstrations of my son healing the 2 infections which were choking her, & were full of maggots. From those first experiences, she shrinks at first whenever you touch her. I accept that, but I do touch her, & she's getting used to the fact that I'm not the enemy every time I touch her. By the same token, the word signal "good" works better with her, so I use it. In other words, rather than trying to get her to be a "good little kitty", I try as much as possible to let her be her own cat, but she's also got to fit in somewhat with my own thing. Like this AM I slept late. It was a healing sleep after acupuncture & somehow she knew that, because instead of pouncing on me "I'm hungry, I'm hungry" at 5:30 AM, she sat quietly alongside my bed & waited for me to wake up at 9:30. Presuming spiritual superiority is not the mark of a spiritual person, but rather that of a pretender. Gurus seem to have ways of informing their chelas that they are such, only neither one vaunts it. Instead they more or less quietly, without much fanfare, try to use their skills to benefit mankind. As for instance many people who practice Therapeutic Touch have never even heard of Dora Kunz, who invented it. When you asked Harry van Gelder to heal someone he'd invariably say "I'll try", & then he'd try with everything he knew how to do, including using his ingenuity. He didn't always succeed, but most often, he did. Liesel Member TSA, TI, TS in Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 12 17:05:42 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:05:42 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604121809.OAA11625@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: morality True morality, to me, comes from inside, & doesn't have too much to do with the religious claptrap trying to be superimposed from the outside. I rebel against someone telling me "thou shalt not...."; yet something inside of me tells me that taking another's life is not what I wish to do. They have a right to their life as I do to mine. In the same sense, at our stage we still need some laws to keep us in check. My ideal is that we'll evolve enough some day, so that superimposed laws will no longer be necessary. May I say that this is not my original thought. Liesel Member TI, TSA,TS in Canada,HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 12 17:05:47 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:05:47 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604121810.OAA11644@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Kim Kim, Try "the Masters & The Path" Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 12 14:21:11 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 15:21:11 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Isis In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >What about "Isis >Unveiled" I shall be uploading some more of this soon - I have had the scanne working on it again for a break between Ernest Wood ... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 12 14:19:26 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 15:19:26 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Wonderrful statement In-Reply-To: <199604120617.SAA17618@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604120617.SAA17618@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz>, Bee Brown writes >If this statement [as I "read" it] was incorporated in TI, I >>certainly would not want to >>join the group. >> >>Daniel > >Me neither >Bee IMHO, there is no place in the TI statement for *any* incorporation regarding theosophical teaching. The objects do not require it, and surely are, by implication, not concerned with what is taught - only that what is available is studied (see object 2). TI does not and cannot have any dogma to defend or promote. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 12 17:13:23 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:13:23 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604121817.OAA16679@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: re: Eldon's morality Dear Eldon, I agree with all you say. Matter of fact In the better sense, "moral" refers to those actions that are for the better good, and "immoral" are those that are harmful to everyone involved, even if the harm is not apparent on the surface. reminded me of a yardstick I'd clean forgotten about, but it applies here, & I think you had in mind. If it furthers evolution, it's moral, if it hinders evolution, you let it be. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 12 17:35:09 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:35:09 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604121839.OAA27031@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To Alexis Yene voice crying in the wilderness! LFD From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 12 17:38:07 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:38:07 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604121842.OAA01942@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: to: Chuck What soul is blasphemy good for? the giver or the receiver? LFD From nlporreco@bpa.gov Fri Apr 12 18:51:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 11:51:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: RE: ReLucifer? Message-Id: <316EA605@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 49 TEXT I don't think her intention was only for the few. She may have realized that at the time there were only a few that could take advantage of the majority of what she had to say, but with time as others developed their experience base and vocabulary they could more and more participate. I think that as the parable goes, you cast seeds and they will take where the soil is fertile. There has been many times that something someone said to me took ten years or more before I could understand it. We can only see things at the level we are conscious, receptive, have experience, etc. Water seeks its own level, so if knowledge is water then we must deepen our vessels of receptivity. IMHO, oh course. Nick Porreco Being of Light and Love > Date: Friday, April 12, 1996 12:19AM > From: theos-l > Subject: ReLucifer? At 04:19 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >In message , alexis dolgorukii > writes >>I can't begin to tell you how much I hate that "only for the few stuff". If >>Blavatsky really believed that, then she was dead wrong! > >.. she wrote hundreds of pages of material for a couple of dozen >people? Not very likely. If only a very few could benefit, then Isis >and the SD would not have been worth a publisher's time and money. > >Just my 2 penn'orth. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > >Iknow that HPB did'nt believe that "Only for the few" nonsense. Not only do her two enormous books give it thelie but what about all the reams and reams and reams of stuff she wrote for lucifer, and the Russian Press, and her other books? Tht to me, is a clear sign that she was seeking the very widest possible audience and therefore that she wanted the theosophical movement to be as large as was possible. If it could have onky had a tiny audience it wouldn't have been worth her "time and money". alexis From nlporreco@bpa.gov Fri Apr 12 18:53:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 11:53:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: RE: ReHome Pages Message-Id: <316EA68E@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 43 TEXT Liesel, I have been to the following two web and they are fine. Some of the ones I have tried have come back with failures but I think that is because they are too busy. http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/Theosophy.html http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/Theosophy/Overview.html Nick Porreco > Date: Friday, April 12, 1996 2:00AM > From: theos-l > Subject: ReHome Pages At 04:54 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >I agree with Alan. Getting messages of other lists on theos-l is too >cumbersome. We have too many messages as it is. If our home page has links >to the others, then whoever wants to can read them via the links. > >Alexis, you said something a while back, that I'm thinking about. Did you >say that the theosophical home pages have been removed? who, what?!? > >Liesel >Member TSa, TI, TS in Canada, HR > >LIESEL: About a week ago, John demonstrated NET Pagees to me on his machine. There was a Home Page for the TS in America and several other "official" Adyar version T>S> pages and references listed. Yesterday John installed Netscape Gold on my computer and, as a teaching method, had me try to find those pages. All of them brought up a message that they'd been removed. They are no longer on the board. John was doing this and he's a professional. If it had been me, I'd have assumed I f----up, but it wasn't me, it was the telephone company's Lord High Computer Specialist! That's all I know..they were there...and now they're not! What itmeans I can only guess. alexis From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Fri Apr 12 18:46:24 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 14:46:24 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604121846.OAA29841@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: More "finessing" Reading Prothero more closely, I noticed two examples of "finessing" that hadn't struck me before. He reports Olcott's short-lived resignation as president without saying either that it was under pressure, who inspired it or what the issues were. This "finesses" a sexual issue, but no more than the author does later in reporting the 1906 Leadbeater scandal. In the body of the book, the author simply says that "he adjudicated another Theosophical crisis, which resulted in the resignation of the Anglican cleric turned Theosophical Buddhist, Charles W. Leadbeater."(169) An endnote gives just a tad more information. It looks more and more as if the price of cooperation from Theosophical officialdom is engaging in the same kind of evasion of unpleasant truths that they have practiced for so long. Sort of a catch-22: the only way you can get access to the secrets is if you take a vow of silence. From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 12 17:46:07 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:46:07 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604121850.OAA03360@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: to: Alexis Carissimo, I'm not so sure I want to know what you're talking about. Salute, also known as Gesundheit LFD From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 19:13:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 12:13 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: No Mail today At 09:32 AM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >In message <960411155004_189231082@emout10.mail.aol.com>, >Coherence@aol.com writes >>Help. I did not receive my mail today. Could someone please post the "get >>theos-l" function instructions again? And how do you know if you've been >>dropped from the list, as was discussed a short time ago? >> >>Many thanks >> >>Greg H > >e-mail to listproc@vnet.net - > >get theos-l theos-l.960411 > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > >Greg: As this happens tome with unfortunate regularity, I'll tell you what I do. When I receive a "Sorry No Mail for You" message I just sutomatically assume that I've somehow gotten dropped from the list. I assume this because all of my other access provider services (I use Slip.net) are still available therefore it's a "glitch" with the List.proc. As sonn as I get the "no Mail" message I sent the following to List.proc@vnet.net (two lines) 1. signoff Theos-l and 2. Subscribe Theos-l My Name. It always works and I'm back on by evening of that day. I go on the net in the morning and just at bed-time so there's never too manymessages to handle. JohnMead posted amessage that said that these problems were caused by the Access Provider and were usually due to unpaid accounts. But I don't see how that's possible for I always continue to have the ability to send and receive private mail, it's only the "List" that I lose, and, at least in my case, it's impossible for my account to be unpaid as it's through a Corporate guaranteed Credit card with salary deducted payments. I hope this has been helpful. alexis From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Apr 12 17:07:39 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 12:07:39 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Greetings to the list In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Rudy: I have forwarded my message to Carlos. It appears he is new to Internet and I hope to see him back soon. ....doss On Fri, 12 Apr 1996, Rodolfo Don wrote: > Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 10:13:16 -0500 > From: Rodolfo Don > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Greetings to the list > > >Carlos: > > > >Glad that you took time to post the msg. > > > >I have been a formal member of TS Adyar close to four decades. > > > >I have learnt a lot here in the last six months here that I was unaware > >in the past. > > > >There is no substitute for Internet. > > > >If there are messages that one does not like, I hit the delete key. This > >is normal in all Internet lists including those "censored" ones. > > > >Sorry to see you sign off. Hope you will be back soon. > > > > .....doss > > > Thank you Doss, > > I just replied to Carlos directly. I learned a lot here too, and I agree > with you that there is no substitute for the Internet. And we need the > Spaniards! > The country of Jose Xifre. > > Rudy > > > > > > >On Fri, 12 Apr 1996, Carlos M. Perez wrote: > > > >> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 03:41:51 -0500 > >> From: Carlos M. Perez > >> To: Multiple recipients of list > >> Subject: Greetings to the list > >> > >> Dear all, > >> > >> During a month I was subscribed as a reader to the list. I'm a fellow of TS > >> in Spain. As I can see, it's impossible for me to spend a lot of time > >> participating in this list. By other hand, I do not agree with the sense > >>of many > >> postings, so I decide to resign to it. However, I'd like to make some little > >> comments before it. > >> > >> 1) Does somebody really think that a list plenty of hard actitudes and > >>fighting > >> postings can be useful for the enlighment or for the truth searching of any > >> person?. > >> > >> 2) Why you are not more honest and add as an object for TI "... to fight > >> against Theosophical Society of Adyar and their representatives"?. It > >>would be > >> more "transparent". > >> > >> Finally, sorry by my english. Best regards. > >> > >> Carlos M. Perez, TS Spain > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Carlos M. Perez Tel: +(341) 561.25.99 > >> Technical Director Fax: +(341) 564.00.10 > >> AFINA SISTEMAS, MADRID (SPAIN) carlosp@afina.es > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL > > > Web: http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > > > > > > > > > > From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 19:28:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 12:28 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: No disappointments At 08:41 AM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >As I understand your post in response to my Third Refuge post, >you are saying that anyone who expects anything from TS >affiliation is responsible for any disappointments that ensue. I think what Doss is saying is that anyone who has any "expectations" of anything is bound to disappointment. My own take on that is if you expect nothing, you cannot be disappointed. You probably would have been disappointed had you joined in 1875. Nothing is ever what we expect. We get out of affiliations only what we put in. You've contributed a lot to theosophy, but you knew it was controversial, and you knew the kind of people you'd be dealing with. Shouldn't have been any surpises. >At some level that may be true. But you certainly err in >assuming that I "expected" to get publisheby a Theosophical >publisher, etc. I'd be very surprised if you were hoping for that, from what I understand from people who have been published by Theosophical Houses they are affronted if you don't donate the royalites and they're cheap with what they do pay. The bottom line of what I expected is the >Three Objects. >1) If an organization proclaims the goal of being a nucleus of >universal brotherhood, why can't one expect the most prominent >members and leaders of such organization to *at least try* to >behave in a fraternal manner toward one another? Paul: All the real "brothers" whom I have known in the last 60 years have fought like "cats and dogs" and so do the sisters! From my experience, "Fraternal Manner" means to "beat up" on one another. >2) If an organization proclaims the goal of studying >comparative religion, science and philosophy, why can't one >expect an open-minded investigation of all subjects related to >those objects, rather than proclamations that some subjects are >off-limits? Particularly, that the Masters are both perfected >men and something beyond that, that it is blasphemous to >discuss their human qualities, etc. etc. Paul: Know what water does on a duck's back? Well if you're going to write on subjects having the slightest connection with religion, and unfortunately THEOSOPHY is almost, if not entirely become a religion, then you've got to be like that "Duck" and just let the contumely run off! To you what you've written isn't blasphemous, nor is it to me or amny others, while I may not agree with all of your "slants" or "takes" I agree over-all and so do many others. As to those who find it "blasphemous", well that's their problem, it shouldn't be yours. >3) If an organization proclaims the goal of investigating >hidden powers etc., why doesn't one have the right to expect a >sincere inquiry into such matters rather than a dogmatic >assertiothat they are dang etc.? I think it's clear that the people to whom you refer are terrified by what they totally don't understand. As to the thrid object, it's up to each Theosophist to investigate or not. All the prohibitions in the world cannot stop you. These folks only have the authority you give them. alexis > > From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 19:34:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 12:34 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Book? At 07:02 AM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, >It may end up as entire book. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: In a way, it already did. It's the basic thrust of my book or didn't you notice? alexis From rdon@garlic.com Fri Apr 12 19:48:19 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 12:48:19 -0700 From: rdon@garlic.com (Rodolfo Don) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: dropped members of theos-l etc. >Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 00:14:02 -0500 >From: jem@vnet.net (John E. Mead) >Subject: dropped members of theos-l etc. > >hi - > >after studying the hundreds of e-mail *error* msgs sent to me daily >by the listserver, I have concluded that the "dropped" users are NOT >a Vnet/listserver problem on our end. If you are repeatedly >"dropped" from the list, then it is due to your own provider/account >(Internet Service Provider, i.e. ISP). > >common problems can be: > >1) if your NODE (i.e. the stuff after the "@" sign) or username >becomes undefined you are dropped immediately. This is a good feature. >many people use AOL e.g. for 10 hours of the free time, and then let their >address/account expire. We often get 2-3 subscribers(daily) who sign-on, >and then drop the ISP they are using. hence,they get purged as soon as >their account goes "unknown". > >2) diskspace quotas?? if the server gets rejections from your provider >(e.g. can't write/add new e-mail etc.) then you will get dropped after >5 consequetive days of having some problems. note: you can use > >set mail theos-l postpone > >as a command to the listserver if you are on vacation. Upon your return >use > >set mail theos-l digest >(or: set mail theos-l ack ) > >to restore e-mail delivery. missed msgs (daily log files) can be >retreived by the "get" command such as: > >get theos-l theos-l.960330 (theos-l.yymmdd for a specific date) > >(above would retreive the theos-l mailings for 3/30/96) > >if you do not know why you are being dropped, I can monitor >some of the e-mail msgs (after you resubscribe) in order to >"catch" the errors from your local ISP etc. > > > >currently (today) their were five addresses dropped (this is normal). >two were the two addresses used by Mike G. (undefined Node-names) >three were dropped due to expired accounts via their ISP (this is common) > >I've had *80* e-mail errors (today) for jhe which bounced (probably due to >disk quota problems on his provider (a guess)). > >there is a *small* minority of people who wish to "stay" but get bounced. >It is not their problem, but rather the ISP's problem. > >The only good solution is to fix your ISP account so this does not happen. >If it not your account (per se), then yor local sysman must get involved >after you explain the problems to him/her. e.g. he should keep his >address/node tables in better array etc. > >The majority of bounced users are people who have *let* their accounts expire. > > >peace - > >john e. mead >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-------- >John E. Mead jem@vnet.net >Member of Theosophy International >[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers] >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-------- > From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 19:51:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 12:51 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Sorry to see you go At 03:41 AM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >Dear all, > >During a month I was subscribed as a reader to the list. I'm a fellow of TS >in Spain. As I can see, it's impossible for me to spend a lot of time >participating in this list. By other hand, I do not agree with the sense of many >postings, so I decide to resign to it. However, I'd like to make some little >comments before it. > >1) Does somebody really think that a list plenty of hard actitudes and fighting >postings can be useful for the enlighment or for the truth searching of any >person?. Yes, in fact, I do. I find that having to rigorously defend my opinions causes me to actually think about them and clarify them, first to myself, and then to the person or persons with whom I was arguing. A group of people who all agree with one another becomes intellectually incestuous. > >2) Why you are not more honest and add as an object for TI "... to fight >against Theosophical Society of Adyar and their representatives"?. It would be >more "transparent". I do not believe that anyone on this list is AGAINST Adyar, they are not happy with what is being done there. I see a tremendous difference. I, for one, do not approve of the Actions of Radha Burnier, but she is NOT, despite what she may think, The Adyar Theosophical Society, but only an elected official in it. Any organization that does not permit criticism by it's membership is on the road to extinction. Alexis dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA > >Finally, sorry by my english. Best regards. > >Carlos M. Perez, TS Spain > > >-- >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Carlos M. Perez Tel: +(341) 561.25.99 >Technical Director Fax: +(341) 564.00.10 >AFINA SISTEMAS, MADRID (SPAIN) carlosp@afina.es >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 19:55:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 12:55 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Nova At 12:18 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, >And never forget that when the sun goes nova, both just and unjust shall fry >alike. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Ah true, but we'll all be long gone by then! alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 12 20:13:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 13:13 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Mature? At 01:13 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >Sexuality & diet *do* have to do with it. I don't think a promiscuous person >is very mature, & spiritual people are. Part of becoming more spiritual is >finding ways to attune yourself to finer & finer vibes. That implies not >eating meat & exposing yourself, for example, to the fears the animals went >through while they were being killed. That fear is still in their meat. Liesel: I could go along with that if I believed, even slightly, that it is the humanphysical personality which "becomes" more "spiritual" by way of practices. But I don't! We are all essentially spirits and only inhabit these "bodies" of ours for a little while. Nothing we do, or don't do in any way effects that. I'm very sorry but that business about the "fear still being in the meat" is just pure nonsense, at least as far as I'm concerned. "It is not that which goeth into a man which defileth him, but that which goeth out" and I think the "goeth out" part refers to actions and words rather than the by-poducts of ingestion. As I see it, "spirit" is "spirit" and "flesh is f;lesh" and they really don't effect one another. Now, I am not promiscuous as you knw, but what others do is none of my business. > >Re "good". I see red whenever I hear that word, because when I was little & >even when I got bigger, I always had to be a "good little girl" , whatever >that implied in my mother's concept of it. So I never used the word in that >sense with my kids, nor with my pets. In the present day, I allow Chouchou >to bite, because she needs to be able to defend herself & to be able to >express "niet", but she doesn't bite hard anymore as she did when she was a >kitten. Just enough to let you know that she means "niet". When she >acomplishes something like that, I do tell her "good girl", which is my >signal of approval of her, a signal she can accept more readily than being >petted. You see, she spent her infanthood in a ditch & who knows where >before that, & after that, she had to submit to the painful minstrations of >my son healing the 2 infections which were choking her, & were full of >maggots. From those first experiences, she shrinks at first whenever you >touch her. I accept that, but I do touch her, & she's getting used to the >fact that I'm not the enemy every time I touch her. By the same token, the >word signal "good" works better with her, so I use it. In other words, >rather than trying to get her to be a "good little kitty", I try as much as >possible to let her be her own cat, but she's also got to fit in somewhat >with my own thing. Like this AM I slept late. It was a healing sleep after >acupuncture & somehow she knew that, because instead of pouncing on me "I'm >hungry, I'm hungry" at 5:30 AM, she sat quietly alongside my bed & waited >for me to wake up at 9:30. > > Presuming spiritual superiority is not the mark of a spiritual person, but >rather that of a pretender. > >Gurus seem to have ways of informing their chelas that they are such, only >neither one vaunts it. Instead they more or less quietly, without much >fanfare, try to use their skills to benefit mankind. As for instance many >people who practice Therapeutic Touch have never even heard of Dora Kunz, >who invented it. >When you asked Harry van Gelder to heal someone he'd invariably say "I'll >try", & then he'd try with everything he knew how to do, including using his >ingenuity. He didn't always succeed, but most often, he did. > >Liesel >Member TSA, TI, TS in Canada, HR > > From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Apr 12 20:54:57 1996 Date: 12 Apr 96 16:54:57 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Name Dropping Message-Id: <960412205457_76400.1474_HHL32-4@CompuServe.COM> > Whenever I talk about my life, I >must perforce, if I am to be truthful, mention people that other people >neither know, nor can know. For me to avoid mentioning well-known people, >I'd have to never mention anyone. Alexis, mention away. Your posts are never dull. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Apr 12 20:54:49 1996 Date: 12 Apr 96 16:54:49 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re:It is wonderful! Message-Id: <960412205448_76400.1474_HHL32-2@CompuServe.COM> Alexis, your paraphrasing and explaining of Chuck's post on intelligence was excellent. It is unfortunate, however, that it was necessary to do so. Its rather like having to explain a good joke, or dissecting a good poem. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Apr 12 20:55:12 1996 Date: 12 Apr 96 16:55:12 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: The poor blind --er, ethical--mice Message-Id: <960412205511_76400.1474_HHL32-6@CompuServe.COM> Chuck: >Assuming that HPB had some great, universal insight and obviously I do or I >would not be engaging in this entertainment, how much of it was she actually >willing to say knowing the audience she had to deal with? And if what she >said was not the entire message, what was she really thinking? Food for thought, Chuck. > We have always been told, often >by people for whom I will admit I have minimal respect, that the true >teachings are hidden in the works. They are right. But they have no idea >how well hidden they are. This echoes Eldon, who says that the more we read and study, the more we discover. True. Jerry S. Member, Ti From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Apr 12 20:54:48 1996 Date: 12 Apr 96 16:54:48 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Psychogenesis--to Richard I Message-Id: <960412205447_76400.1474_HHL32-1@CompuServe.COM> Richard: >So . . . were you just being a good guy again, Jerry, or have you really >figured out a meaning that you can agree with? I figured out what Alexis has since already said: Alexis: >Is that the Jungian "psychologization" of various states of consciousness >that we all agree to call "metaphysical" is far too easily interpreted as >pathology The dangers are the possible conclusions that theosophy is *just* psychology, and that samadhi is pathological. I don't think this will happen if we supplement the existing Theosophical teachings. I am also not too worried about Alexis' "Jungian psychologization." Jung himself cautioned against the idea of *mere* psychology or *just* psychology. Without consciousness, he said, there would be nothing at all. Also, Jung believed that the psyche resides in a "psychic continuum" that is different and separate from our physical space-time continuum. He taught that the psyche pre-exists physical birth and post-exists physical death. This is a radical departure from all other psychologists, and is, I am afraid, one main reason for his lack of acceptance in the psychological community today, which is very materialistic. Obviously, he is most popular today with religious psychologists. Anyway, I have tried to compare the stages of the Path with Kohlberg's moral developmental stages, and will continue to do this kind of thing. There is precious little psychology mentioned today in theosophical literature, and yet it is such a rich field. For example, Erickson's developmental stages could be applied to the human lifewave as it undergoes the 7 Rounds. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Apr 12 20:54:53 1996 Date: 12 Apr 96 16:54:53 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re:Survival Message-Id: <960412205453_76400.1474_HHL32-3@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: >I have to ask why is the SD considered the "core teaching" of Theosophy when >it is entirely a Vedic and Mahayana Buddhist based work? What about "Isis >Unveiled" why is it that most Theosophist's whom I've met tend to utterly >ignore the work that started the theosophical movement on its way? Actually, I rather like Isis as well. It was while reading Isis that I became a Theosophist. But the last chapter of Isis covers magic, and it does so in such detail, that it is clear HPB was a magican and seemed to be advocating it. I suspect a lot of Theosphists would like to cut out the last chapter altogether. > As to Institutionalized Theosophy (all three of them), survive? They >are all three totally moribund! I'll tell you this none of them will survive > the century if they don't wake up. This seems to be the opinion of several on theos-l. I don't happen to share it. Time will tell, I guess. (ps. actually, there are more than three. I am aware of at least five.) Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Apr 12 20:55:07 1996 Date: 12 Apr 96 16:55:07 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: re: bodies and principles (yet again!) Message-Id: <960412205506_76400.1474_HHL32-5@CompuServe.COM> >JHE > Yes. My understanding too. And according to CWL, these >"bodies" and "planes" are made of increasingly finer atomic >material. By analogy, if the astral plane were made up of >marbles, then the mental plane would be made up of sand. The next >higher plane is made of even finer material. I agree with you here. > For HPB, bodies are independent entities that >come into existance either at the death of the physical body, or >through an extraordinary act of will. This is certainly true for the kama-rupa, but not so for all bodies--the mayavi-rupa being used during life by those who know how. > "Mental body" would >also be an incorrect equivalent of "manas," because the they do >not have independent existences as entities. You have lost me here. No bodies, however we want to define them, have "independent existences." I don't think that anyone taught that. Manas simply means mind. We don't normally think of our mind as having or being a "body" as such, but that is because we all tend to equate consciousness with mind. When consciousness is seen as something other than mind, then mind can be considered a "body" or vehicle for it when it focuses on the third cosmic plane. Now, all of this stuff is flakey. G de P, for example, on pages 442-443 describes the mayavi-rupa (one of our bodies acknowleged by HPB) as "the body of thought and feeling" which makes it a combination of astral and mental. Many occultists and magicians (ok, Alexis, and Shamans) experience only a single Body of Light. These are all models or terminology that we give to our experiences, and clearly demonstrate the subjectivity of such experiences. > Further, HPB's >bodies each have their own cycle of existance. They never exist >beyond a single cycle of incarnation and disincarnation (with the >exception of the Causal Body, which exists for a manvantara). Agreed, but where does this differ from anything CWL taught? >For HPB, a principle is not a state of consciousness, but is an >expression of one of the seven basic differentiations of the >Elements or original essences which make up all things. The elements are Earth, Water, Air, and Fire (and some would include Spirit). Are you saying that Air of Water, for example, is a principle? One of the so-called principles is manas or mind. Which element is mind? Another is kama or desire. Which element is desire? Your generalities are hard to follow. I have a very hard time trying to envision a principle as an element or differentiation thereof. Some examples would help. >. The first is that the CWL's >bodies are found on the seven solar planes while HPB's are on the >seven sub-planes of the solar physical plane. The second >difference is that CWL's bodies are formed from the Elements, >while HPB's are *aspects* of the Elements. Again, I don't think that HPB limits her principles to the physical plane only. And I haven't a clue as to what "aspects of the Elements" would be. If you know, please tell me. > For "vehicle" HPB also uses the word "Upadhi" as a >synonym. A vehicle or upadhi is that through which a force acts. >A vehicle is not necessarily a principle, but works within a >principle. That is why HPB says that the physical body is not >really a principle. Terminology is troublesome. On page 283 of Fountain Source of Occultism, for example, G de P uses "Upadhi" to mean "scheme." Anyway, we don't want something through which a "force" acts, but rather something through which consciousness acts. I agree that "body" is not the same as "principle." I don't think that either HPB or CWL thought it was, either. > Therefore, a principle is really the >vehicle of the principle next superior to it. For instance, >Buddhi is the vehicle of Atma; Manas is the vehicle of Buddhi >etc. This is how I understand it. But you seem to be acknowledging a confounding of principles and bodies here. > The causal body, according to HPB, is a combination of >Atma, Buddhi and manas, and normally does not come into existence >until after the death of the physical body. I disagree with your "does not come into existence." I prefer "is not used." We can, in fact, function in the Causal Body during life. Furthermore, while incarnate, all of our bodies must include atma-buddhi- manas. >To call a "monad" a "body" is something that I have never seen >HPB do. The causal body, according to HPB, is a combination of >Atma, Buddhi and manas, and normally does not come into existence >until after the death of the physical body. As I mentioned, she >also calls it "the human monad." So how CWL construes this to be >a "body" that comes from the tattwas is a mystery to me. Which >tattwa makes up the Causal body in CWL's system? Do you know? Monad was a very poor term to use in the first place. It mean something that is indivisible, but HPB and others broke it up anyway. The theosophical monad has both a subjective and an objective counterpart which are held together by Fohat (at least this is my understanding of HPB's descriptions). "Body" refers to its objective counterpart. "Principle" refers to its subjective counterpart. Technically 'monad' is not a body nor is it a consciousness center, but rather both. As to which Tattva, I can't be certain because the East and West differ. In the West it goes Earth, Water, Air, and then Fire (i.e., Fire relates to the causal plane and body). In the East it goes Earth, Water, Fire, and Air (i.e., Air relates to the causal plane and body). I don't know which system CWL used. Probably the Eastern. Jerry S. Member, TI Personal comments: This stuff can get so technical that the details easily become nit-picking exercises. While this is fine for an intellectual pursuit, it scares off a log of good new members, and has little value for those who follow the path of direct experience If nothing else, I think its fair to say that the CWL/AB model is a whole lot easier to understand and to describe. HPB, as Jerry HE has pointed out in previous postings, changed her own model as she went along, making her obscure model even more difficult. As an example of the needless difficulty, Jerry HE first says: > Further, HPB's >bodies each have their own cycle of existance. They never exist >beyond a single cycle of incarnation and disincarnation (with the >exception of the Causal Body, which exists for a manvantara). and then later in the same post says: >5. Causal body: Also called the "karmic body." This is the body >that experiences devachan between incarnations. CWL also has a >causal body that also experiences devachan. The difference is >that HPB's causal body does not exist until after the death of >the physical body. CWL's causal body exists during the lifetime >of the person as well as afterwards. My question, after comparing these two pargraphs, is how can the Causal Body "exist for a manvantara" while at the same time it "does not exist until after the death of the physical body"??? Just a little mental rambling on my part. From RIhle@aol.com Fri Apr 12 21:53:26 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:53:26 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960412175326_468536935@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Psychogenesis--to Alexis Alexis writes> >Richard: It might have been more helpful if you asked me what I meant. >That'susually the best way to find out what soeone means. Is it not? Richard Ihle writes> For a little while, at least, I have decided to regard you as one of those altogether wonderfully enticing yet dangerous creatures one should probably admire from a safe distance. Godspeed, Richard Ihle From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Apr 12 21:55:29 1996 Date: 12 Apr 96 17:55:29 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Occultism - HPB Message-Id: <960412215529_76400.1474_HHL70-1@CompuServe.COM> Nick: >I wasn't really making a point, just throwing some stabilizing ingredients >into the boiling pot as it brews. Every once in a while as we are >discussing topics ranging from morality, to being unhappy that our leaders >don't live up to the images we have formed, I feel it is important to >reflect on some of the basic comments that HPB provided us. For me its one >way to re-center. As far as I know, we are all theosophists on theos-l, and all have read HPB, and pretty much agree with her. Believe it or not, nothing that Chuck or Alexis or Alan or Richard I or JRC (or myself) have posted on theos-l is *against* anything that HPB wrote, that I am aware of. Its another way of saying things, or of looking at things, and sometimes extensions of what she said, or possibly something she should or would have said to a modern audience. But nothing against her, at all. I often deliberately put ideas into a fresh context just to shake people up and make them think a little (the devil makes me do it). Many of the postings from Chuck leave me rolling out of my chair laughing. This is not only good for the soul but serves as a cleansing process in which we can eliminate some of the "uptightness" that serious study often brings. Newbies are entitled to moral uprightness (and uptighness as well) but those of us who have been studying this stuff for many years should be past such silliness. I always feel sorry when I detect moral uprightness in older theosophists because it makes me wonder why they are still back at the newbie stage. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with adding quotes to back up your viewpoint on some subject. But your last post was only quotes, and ones which I, for one, had no disagreement with. So I just wondered what you had in mind. Thanks for your answer, but I do feel sad that you felt any need for "stabilizing ingredients." I hope that this post helps you some. I, for one, have thoroughly enjoyed the recent postings. I used to argue against moral uprightness all by myself on theos-l. Now Alexis and Chuck and JRC are making me look like one of my pussycats. Jerry S. Member, TI Moral Uprightness Basher From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Fri Apr 12 22:12:52 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 10:12:52 +1200 From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Message-Id: <199604122212.KAA24408@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Greetings to the list A pity to read a letter such as this. I know how he feels as I am a semi participant now because of the attitudes, and some people trying to foist their agendas on to this list. I like to be free to to discuss or mention something without getting a load of borax because I am not conforming to the rules imposed by those persons, on theos-l. Dispite what some may think, I have no problems with disagreements but I don't want that disagreement rammed down my throat in a disagreeable manner. Nor am I interested in Radha's sex life or anyone elses and I think this list disgraces itself by stooping to such methods of eliminating the opposition. Therefore I only read some of the post on here now and the rest get deleted as soon as they come into my computer. As a result of this I will not be participating any more as I will not have the flavour of the list and a response from me could quite easily be out of context. I know of others who have also left the list but they have been polite enough to do so because of the 'high noise level'. I am telling it as I see it and if that is incorrect, well so be it. Bee Brown >Dear all, > >During a month I was subscribed as a reader to the list. I'm a fellow of TS >in Spain. As I can see, it's impossible for me to spend a lot of time >participating in this list. By other hand, I do not agree with the sense of many >postings, so I decide to resign to it. However, I'd like to make some little >comments before it. > >1) Does somebody really think that a list plenty of hard actitudes and fighting >postings can be useful for the enlighment or for the truth searching of any >person?. > >2) Why you are not more honest and add as an object for TI "... to fight >against Theosophical Society of Adyar and their representatives"?. It would be >more "transparent". > >Finally, sorry by my english. Best regards. > >Carlos M. Perez, TS Spain > > >-- >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Carlos M. Perez Tel: +(341) 561.25.99 >Technical Director Fax: +(341) 564.00.10 >AFINA SISTEMAS, MADRID (SPAIN) carlosp@afina.es >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 22:18:05 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 18:18:05 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412181805_512387809@mail04> Subject: Re: Giggling, etc & Chuck's Comments on Olcott Daniel, The question of the Colonel's behavior towards his family has always been something of a puzzle, as John Algeo agreed with me when we talked about it at last summers summer school. While the raw facts are basically as you state them, in the 19th century such activity was not considered, shall we say, moral. Considering the level of preaching that the Colonel was capable of, the charge of hypocrisy may at least be warranted. Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 12 22:19:05 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 18:19:05 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960412181905_512388630@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Re Adyar successors Doss, I'm glad you appreciated the post. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Richtay@aol.com Sat Apr 13 00:18:56 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 20:18:56 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960412201855_190091174@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Gnostics vs. "Founding materialists" Chuck writes, > I will admit to being an arch-revisionist, but my reasoning is based on the > fact that HPB was a great admirer of the Gnostics who taught exactly what I > am saying. It is not clear that you are an arch-revisionist if you are basing your work upon HPB's. Either you are revising her work, or carrying it on as she gave it, or something of the two together. Whatever label you choose for yourself (and that is none of my business), it seems worthwhile to look into HPB's roots and sources, her methods (or "skillful means," UPAYA in Buddhism) and forward-looking purposes. HPB seems to draw freely from many sources. "The Gnostics" do make many appearances in ISIS UNVEILED, fewer in the S.D. but "they" are still there. Quoted about 10 times less than Hindu and Buddhist ideas, it is hardly enough "hits" to make a case over and against what the karmically-inclined Easterns are saying, no? Yet who are these amorphous "Gnostics"? Are they opposed to moral teachings and karma? HPB mentions the Ophites, the Marconites, and quite a few others. And if you read closely (not between the lines, mind you, but just at the words themselves) we see that HPB is arguing against the incorrect portrayal of Gnostics by the very prejudiced and threatened Church Fathers, including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, etc. etc. Before the actual discovery in 1945 of the 12 Gnostic Codices near the Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi, the vast majority of our knowledge about Gnostics was in the form of (partisan) quotation in the body of opposite-thinking writers. The one exception is of course Plotinus, who in his Enneads (organized into sets of "nine," hence "enneads" by his disciple Porphyry) has a section "Against the Gnostics" where he disputes with them about impunging the character of the Demi-urge and his (lower) creations, but largely agrees with most of their conceptions. You with me so far? As Elaine Pagels has written in her book, THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS, history is written by the winners. And as Ron Cameron, author of THE OTHER BIBLE, taught me when I was in his class, who would have more reason to misrepresent and libel the Gnostics than the early orthodoxy? How can we really trust what they wrote? Their whole purpose was to undermine the credibility of the Gnostics and crush the entire movement, by polemic as long as possible and by force when necessary. What better way to undermine threatening esoteric teachers than by maiming them morally during their lives, or preferably after they are dead when they can't argue anymore? Why, we see this taking place in Theos-L daily, where people who want to think their own way find it necessary to slash and burn HPB in order to clear-cut a path for themselves. If one cannot assault the philosophy of HPB or the Gnostics, slander them morally, make them hypocritical demons, and then the difficult philosophy can be backgrounded. It is an old and time-honored tradition of the black-hearted. Thus the Gnostics were characterized by the early heresiologists as "antinomian" meaning above or beyond the law. And Irenaeus in his tiresome tome LIBROS QUINQUE ADVERSUS HAERESES raises the names of group after group only to slam them down again with words like "licentious," "morally corrupt," "child-sacrificers," "eaters of the hearts of the innocents." Their philosophy gets short shrift analytically. It is not clear Irenaeus even understood it (compare to the majority of Theos-L posts today) Modern scholars, one and all, have deep suspicions as to whether any of this occurred. Rather, it was a rhetorical polemic designed to castigate the Gnostic groups when attacks upon their philosophy failed. There appears no evidence that ANY Gnostic groups were sacrificing children, than ANY groups were eating human hearts, etc. It is probably true, however, that some Gnostics, in their contempt of the worldly laws and the Creator who ordained them, became sexually quite giddy and imagined themselves free of karma. This is a minority group, and probably confined to Western provinces (round Rome). As documented in the 50-odd texts of THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY IN ENGLISH edited by James Robinson, the majority schools of Gnostics -- Sethians (Ophites), Valentinians, and even the very Christian Marcionites, if they are to be included as Gnostics -- were extremely concerned with morals, and held themselves to much higher standards than the orthodox Christians, whom they felt were much lower. The characterization the Gnostics used for themselves was "PNEUMATIKOI" meaning "Those of the Spirit" while ordinary Christians, the mediocre run who took no vows and studied no hidden wisdom, were deemed "PSYCHIKOI" or "Those of the Psyche", which was still above those mongrels, the materialists like the Sadducees etc. All of that said, we find HPB upholding time and again the moral purity of the Gnostics and the philosophical purity of their works, as opposed to mainstream Christianity. She does not side with the orgiastic and licentious groups, and NEVER quotes them. I defy anyone to locate a quote from any antinomian Gnostic in HPB's works. All her quotes are from the followers of Valentinus -- Marcus etc. who were of the morally rigid traditions. It should be no surprise that Theosophists have divided themselves into similar categories today -- one side following the "original program" of Theosophy and its Founders, and the other imagining that Theosophy is passe, or grotesquely misinterpreting its Founders as "materialistic determinists". Chuck writes, > We know that the universe does not quite work the way > the materialistic determinists who founded the TS (and if you look at the > material that is exactly what they were even though they refused to admit it) > thought it did. What single piece of evidence can be manufactured to support the idea that HPB, Olcott, Judge, or their Teachers, were materialistic determinists? This is laughable. Just read PSYCHIC AND NOETIC ACTION by HPB, or her Addenda, "Science and the Secret Doctrine Compared" in the S.D., both volumes. It is one thing to say that HPB used blinds in her teaching, and to say that HPB tailored her teachings to suit Western people where they were. She most certainly did both of these things. That does not mean that she lied, or said things she didn't mean, or that she was kidding about ethics and moral purity. She says it too often and in too many places to pretend we can overlook it. "Skillful means" in Buddhism, and in the myths of Plato, and in the Neo-Platonists under Plotinus (called sometimes the Analogeticists), doesn't mean outright lies for the benefit of the student, but truths which are not the whole truth. Cf. Plato's myth of Ur, in THE REPUBLIC, where the soul after death spends 1,000 years in a nice place or a rotten one, and then gets assigned to its next body. This is a mythical (not a LITERAL) portrayal of karma and reincarnation. Jesus does the same in the parables. They are true so far as they go, but hint at much deeper truths. It is a vast misunderstanding of HPB and her Teachers to assume that they were joking about ethics, or that they told untruths only to hook the poor Victorians. Rather, these pioneers ruined their reputations and fortunes spreading ideas that were exactly COUNTER to traditional Victorian thought. This is not pandering to the masses, as you suggest, but dedication to the eternal truths. Please document, if you will, the assertions that (1) HPB or her Teachers were materialistic determinists (2) that HPB ever quotes approvingly from supporters of anti-ethical or amoral philosophies or behaviors. From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 12 23:17:05 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 19:17:05 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604130021.UAA26660@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To Jerry S Jerry, are you serious? You're nothing more than an intelligent information processor? Liesel Member TI, TSA, Ts in Canada, HR From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Apr 13 00:37:56 1996 Date: 12 Apr 96 20:37:56 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: RE: The Few Message-Id: <960413003756_76400.1474_HHL30-1@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: >I can't begin to tell you how much I hate that "only for the few stuff". Nick: .. she wrote hundreds of pages of material for a couple of dozen >people? Not very likely. Look at the membership of the TS. Then look at the world's population. Then tell me that we are not the "few." How may people have actually read the SD? sadly, even fewer. Jerry S. Member, TI One of the Few From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 12 23:48:35 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 19:48:35 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604130052.UAA12533@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Doss, Re: TS Sangha Dear Doss, I think what I can expect from the TS is that since I paid my dues, I'm accepted as a bona fide member.. That has not always been the case. I also think that as a member of the TS who did a lot of work at the local level, I was entitled to some support from Wheaton, such as information, help with programs & etc. What I got was minimal, until I finally got to Wheaton & saw that there was such material. Also, when I made feasible suggestions, nobody ever acknowledged, although sometimes they used them. I think acknowledging is common courtesy, especially for people who believe in the brotherhood of man, with siterhood understood. To tell you the truth, I got as much as I received, both the giving & the receiving having been considerable, but it wasn't because anyone made an effort, it was because I made the effort myself. I suppose if you must ask nothing in return, it was too much to hope that Wheaton would be supportive. So please don't sit there & tell me that I have to put something into the TS. I've beefed enough about not getting any support, that I get it nowadays, but I wonder whether my beefing has helped any other people get support as well, or whether I just get it to shut me up. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 13 00:01:57 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 20:01:57 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604130106.VAA17715@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: JRC Re: Giggling at the Morally Uptight Har har hardehar ha ha ha. You can hear me gigling all the way to California. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 13 00:12:55 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 20:12:55 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604130117.VAA22785@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Alexis Re: Rich Alexis, Rich happens to be our ULT representative on this list. He's also doing his PhD on Buddhism. Don't pass him off that lightly. He's a very knowledgeable fellow. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 13 00:19:52 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 20:19:52 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604130124.VAA27730@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re missing www home pages That's all I know..they were there...and now they're not! What itmeans I can only guess. Alexis, I hope it doesn't mean that some nut decided the TSA isn't going to be on the Internet. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sat Apr 13 03:31:32 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 21:31:32 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Gnostics vs. "Founding materialists" In-Reply-To: <960412201855_190091174@emout07.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 12 Apr 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > > What better way to undermine threatening esoteric teachers than by maiming > them morally during their lives, or preferably after they are dead when they > can't argue anymore? > > Why, we see this taking place in Theos-L daily, where people who want to > think their own way find it necessary to slash and burn HPB in order to > clear-cut a path for themselves. If one cannot assault the philosophy of HPB > or the Gnostics, slander them morally, make them hypocritical demons, and > then the difficult philosophy can be backgrounded. It is an old and > time-honored tradition of the black-hearted. Rich ... What the devil *has* gotten into you? You seem to be mounting a valient defense of HPB the last few days, but against *who*? HPB gets slashed and burned daily on Theos-l? You must be on a different Theos-l. In fact, while there *is* considerable controversy over the, um, second tier writers ... CWL, Judge, etc., and certainly an enormous diversity of opinion among the points of view on the list, I've seen no one on this list attempt to make HPB into a hypocritical demon, or "slander" her morally. I doubt anyone here feels as though *HPB* needs to be battled in order to find their own way - *she* never attempted to *restrict* anyone's thought, anyone's studies, anyone's explorations or point of view. - there *is* perhaps a problem in that her writing is so sweeping in scope that anyone with their own idea of what Theosophy is can certainly find reams of quotes from the SD and Isis to back up their own thoughts ... as many different sects of Christians do with the Bible ... and there are people on the list who react quite strongly when someone believes *their* reading of HPB is the "true" reading ... - and, perhaps, HPB is not put on a *pedestal* by the list - she *was* human, and herself always emphasized that ... She is, as with all controversial public historical figures, very difficult to fully understand. There is a very fine line between on the one hand demonizing such a person (as the Christian fundamentalists do to HPB) and going too far in the other direction and making her into some absolutely perfect mythological character whose moral and intellectual stature was flawless. She herself wanted none of *either* - she was neither demon nor goddess. Problem is, when one stands on one end of the line, everyone else appears to be on the other ... to the fundamentalists and Christian conservatives that have decided she is the mother of that evil "new age" and a chief tool of satan, anyone who does not positively revile her is seen as a supporter ... and to those that want her on a pedestal, anyone who even dares think her human is demonizing her. I think this list, as a whole, probably has reached about the most balanced perspective I've seen in any circle where she is discussed. She was a servent of an order of Adepts. She made significant mistakes, both personal and with the TS (*her* judgement of herself, not mine). Alexis, perhaps, has said some things that upset some people a bit, but he has a familial connection to HPB, and there are things known within families that the outer world, no matter how good the historian, may not discover - IMO, its extremely interesting, but nothing he could say would lessen my regard for HPB ... only broaden and enlarge my picture of her. Chuck may read her *writings* and choose to interpret them in a way very different from the norm in Theosophical circles, but that certainly doesn't constitute demonization or slander ... except to someone who believes her writings are not even open to question. There is a regard, I think, for HPB on this list that is so deep, so assumed, that it is rarely even stated. And almost every discussion of her or her writings, even if they appear critical, takes place on the *foundation* of that regard. To accuse the list of *daily* (for god's sake) demonizing HPB and slandering her character, to place yourself above everyone else as her defender ... categorizing the whole list as filled with people who would flame someone for simply quoting HPB ... is simply ridiculous. Its the equivilent of a Catholic walking into the Basilica in Rome and "boldly" declaring he intends to defend the Pope. Simply because people do not share your personal perspective of HPB, or interpret her writings differently than you do certainly does not mean they are black-hearted scoundrals with evil intentions. HPB never spoke *down* to Theosophists, and probably would not appreciate anyone else believing they do so on her behalf. Regards, -JRC From eldon@theosophy.com Sat Apr 13 03:41:01 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 20:41:01 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960413034101.006a8e5c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Wonderrful statement Alan: [writing to Bee] >IMHO, there is no place in the TI statement for *any* incorporation >regarding theosophical teaching. The objects do not require it, and >surely are, by implication, not concerned with what is taught - only >that what is available is studied (see object 2). TI does not and >cannot have any dogma to defend or promote. Saying that TI does not have any particular body of doctrines to promote is *only half* of the neutrality that it must preserve. The other half is to neither confirm *nor deny* that there is a body of theosophical doctrines that are rooted in the Mysteries and are fundamentally true. If there is any element of denial in the TI's objectives, it would be another organization to promote a specific belief, rather than an association of people from all beliefs and approaches. For the TI to say "the theosophical doctrines are not true, they are merely a belief held by certain unenlightened people" it would be promoting a specific belief of its own regarding the nature of the world, and not be inclusive of all beliefs. It would be ironic, if it were to happen, if the only belief system excluded by Theosophy International was the theosophical! My hope is that TI will respect this neutrality and give as much respect to Theosophists and it may pay to Jewish Kabbalists, Christians, Buddhists, Jungians, and even the Politically Correct! -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 00:29:21 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: karma or what Message-ID: In message , Thoa Tran writes >And what if the tradition is to eat a person named Dennis on a Sunday? We >could make it painless by making it an honor to sacrifice oneself for the >holy eating. Like a Shmoo in L'il Abner, you just croak over and die when >it's your time to be eaten. > >Thoa the gourmet Chucky Babe with fries ... Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 00:31:29 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: The Web Message-ID: In message , Thoa Tran writes > With faster >incoming communication, the more likelihood of Star Trek-like communication >draws closer. Gee, does that mean I have to look good? You already do. So do I. Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 00:22:57 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: I believe there is some misunderstanding/errors here Message-ID: In message <334E3BA6.7D9C@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes > My uncle used to live in an Indian section of London, and people called >it "the nigger area". In Victorian England, it was a commonly used term, >certainly racist, but not always derisive (for example, those who had a >"white man's burden" form of racism used it, as well). And note that >"white man's burden" racism also existed in a number of prominent >Theosophists, including Alice Bailey and Clara Codd. I used to live in London, and my parents are Londoners (going way back in my mother's case, though my Dad's family came from Scotland originally). I was brought up recognising the term 'nigger' as applying to African, West Indian, and occasionally Asian Indian people, though it was usually used for the first two. I was told it derived from 'Niger' as in 'Nigeria' on account of the slave trade. The term was not usually used in a derisive way, but certainly in a 'racist' way, as the the belief of the common people (blame Darwin) was that Africans etc. were a 'lower' kind of human being. This was reinforced by the fact that blacks had little or no hope of getting a decent education in England, except in the very few cases where someone had enough money to pay highly for it, as happened with Krishnamurti and Nitya. Chinese were called 'Chinks' and Vietnam and countries in that part of the world were generally unknown quantities, and their inhabitants stayed at home. There was little malice among ordinary people towards those to whom these terms were applied, and there was a kind of unspoken and mutually agreed 'apartheid' in effect. The Limehouse (East End) area of London was known as Chinatown (viz. the jazz number "Limehouse Blues") and the different racial types kept to their own areas by and large. Maybe this was partly due to probable English hypocrisy, in that slaves were not allowable in England or the UK, but *were* shipped via English ports to the Americas, where as we know too well the Southern States did, and some of their inhabitants still do, persecute, denigrate (and worse) anyone of a different color. Alan the Pinky --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 17:25:36 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Jung Message-ID: <199704120025.RAA18766@palrel1.hp.com> liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) wrote: > Tim, > > Your source wasn't the first one to accuse Jung of being a Nazi > collaborator. I read Jung's biography a few months back, & it was mentioned > in there. I forget what it was Jung did that made people say that, but he > did *not* collaborate with the Nazis. If he did, I'd disown him. Jung saw that the Nazi movement was a phenomenon of the collective unconscious. Initially he thought it would have a positive effect on the German psyche. He later admitted his mistake. Many thought Jung was too late in confessing and too silent during the early part of the Nazi movement. Third hand quotes from FREUD & JUNG (Scribners 1988): -Jung's colleague C.A. Meier remembered that at one of the meetings of the International Society, Jung had been asked to have a psychiatric consultation with Hitler. Meier recalled the H. Goering had arranged for Jung and Hitler to meet in Berlin on the occasion of a big military parade. Jung and Meier had come to Berlin as planned. The night before the parade, Meier recalled, the hotel room he shared with Jung was carefully searched by secret police. The next day Jung was fascinated by his glimpse of Hitler standing at the parade only yards away. "Hitler made upon me the impression of a sort of scaffolding of wood covered with cloth, an automaton with a mask, like a robot." Jung then said, "With Hitler, you are scared. You know you would never be able to talk to that man; because there is nobody there." Meier was never sure whether it was Jung or Hitler who at the last moment refused to participate, but the consultation did not take place.- And ... -Although Jung never treated Hitler, he proposed a cure for him. "I would send him East," he would tell an American correspondent in October 1938. "Turn his attention away from the West, or rather encourage him to keep it turned away... That is the logical cure for Hitler... Nobody has bitten in Russia without regretting it... Meanwhile we should be safe, and by we, I mean all of Western Civilization... How to save your democratic U.S.A.? It must, of course, be saved, else we all go under."- (from FREUD & JUNG. Scribners 1988.) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 20:30:26 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Sexism in religion Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970412013026.006ade50@mail.eden.com> At 08:04 PM 4/11/97 -0400, you wrote: >In message , Thoa Tran > writes >>Hi Alan, >> >>I'm not referencing you because I left your e-mail message on the other >>computer and don't feel like turning it on. >> >>Yes, sexism is definitely in all the religions. Even in Buddhism, >>traditionally the monks would not allow women into their fold because it >>causes distractions for the men. There was this story of a woman who >>wanted to become a Buddhist monk but no one would accept her because of her >>beauty. In desperation, she mutilated her face by branding it. >>Afterwards, she was accepted. > >These sorts of stories can make me very angry. > >> Now, I think that if a person can have a >>family, finances to deal with, and a job, and still be a holy person, then >>that is true holiness. It's very easy to follow all the rules when >>everything adverse is taken away from you. If I don't have chocolate >>pudding in the house, I can't eat it. > >Agreed 100%! I have known very few people of such stature, but they are >occasionally to be found. > >> I find it amusing that the military >>now has to deal with increasing enrollment of women. I'm reading accounts >>of all sorts of sex and sexism scandals in the military. > >Me too, as it happens here as well. Right now the problem for the >military has been extended to inlude gays of both kinds ... >> I think the problem is going to go away in the future. In talking to the present youngsters in middle and his schools, there appears to be less and less interest in them joining military. In the US, if you declare yourself as gay, they don't want you in the military at all. But you could be a politician, one of these days heading the military as a defence secretary (minister)!!! mkr >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age: >http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ >E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 20:36:22 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: I believe there is some misunderstanding/errors here Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970412013622.006cdd2c@mail.eden.com> At 08:22 PM 4/11/97 -0400, you wrote: >In message <334E3BA6.7D9C@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky > writes >> My uncle used to live in an Indian section of London, and people called >>it "the nigger area". In Victorian England, it was a commonly used term, >>certainly racist, but not always derisive (for example, those who had a >>"white man's burden" form of racism used it, as well). And note that >>"white man's burden" racism also existed in a number of prominent >>Theosophists, including Alice Bailey and Clara Codd. > >I used to live in London, and my parents are Londoners (going way back >in my mother's case, though my Dad's family came from Scotland >originally). I was brought up recognising the term 'nigger' as applying >to African, West Indian, and occasionally Asian Indian people, though it >was usually used for the first two. I was told it derived from 'Niger' >as in 'Nigeria' on account of the slave trade. > >The term was not usually used in a derisive way, but certainly in a >'racist' way, as the the belief of the common people (blame Darwin) was >that Africans etc. were a 'lower' kind of human being. > >This was reinforced by the fact that blacks had little or no hope of >getting a decent education in England, except in the very few cases >where someone had enough money to pay highly for it, as happened with >Krishnamurti and Nitya. > Krishnamurti flunked matriculation exam and never was able to get into University in England. In those days, there were two classes of people from India who got higher education in England. First are the children of very affluent in India and second are those few bright young men (rarely women) who went on a scholarship especially after being recruited for Indian Civil Service. MKR >Chinese were called 'Chinks' and Vietnam and countries in that part of >the world were generally unknown quantities, and their inhabitants >stayed at home. > >There was little malice among ordinary people towards those to whom >these terms were applied, and there was a kind of unspoken and mutually >agreed 'apartheid' in effect. The Limehouse (East End) area of London >was known as Chinatown (viz. the jazz number "Limehouse Blues") and the >different racial types kept to their own areas by and large. > >Maybe this was partly due to probable English hypocrisy, in that slaves >were not allowable in England or the UK, but *were* shipped via English >ports to the Americas, where as we know too well the Southern States >did, and some of their inhabitants still do, persecute, denigrate (and >worse) anyone of a different color. > >Alan the Pinky >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age: >http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ >E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 20:38:25 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Greta Message-ID: <334F11BF.6013@withoutwalls.com> Thoa (the Gourmet) wrote: > Yes, sexism is definitely in all the religions. Even in Buddhism, > traditionally the monks would not allow women into their fold because it > causes distractions for the men. There was this story of a woman who > wanted to become a Buddhist monk but no one would accept her because of her > beauty. In desperation, she mutilated her face by branding it. > Afterwards, she was accepted. Someone once introduced Greta Garbo to a man saying "This is the body that sent several men to their deaths." Her response to the man: "Kiss me." Viva la difference! Mark (The Romantic) -------- WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space http://www.withoutwalls.com E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 20:40:22 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Greta Message-ID: <334F1234.C4C@withoutwalls.com> Thoa (the Gourmet) wrote: > Yes, sexism is definitely in all the religions. Even in Buddhism, > traditionally the monks would not allow women into their fold because it > causes distractions for the men. There was this story of a woman who > wanted to become a Buddhist monk but no one would accept her because of her > beauty. In desperation, she mutilated her face by branding it. > Afterwards, she was accepted. Someone once introduced Greta Garbo to a man saying "This is the body that sent several men to their deaths." Her response to the man: "Kiss me." Mark (The Romantic Buddhist) -------- WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space http://www.withoutwalls.com E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 20:51:21 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Temple Bells Message-ID: <334F14C5.79AD@withoutwalls.com> Thoa wrote: > I used to be made fun off by being called, "Chinese, Chinese." I'm not > Chinese but even if I was Chinese, I would have been offended. Some people can be so supid. They don't realize the beauty of Asian people or culture. Dull tones of temple bells ring out while snows are falling along the lonely pines that line the shores of Sano Bay. I see snowflakes melting highlights in your hair, Mark -------- WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space http://www.withoutwalls.com E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 00:19:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Temple Bells Message-ID: <970412001928_250325395@emout06.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-04-12 00:15:09 EDT, you write: >Some people can be so supid. > >They don't realize the beauty of Asian people or culture. > > The morons we shall always have with us. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:00:59 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The Christian slant to history Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970412060059.006c5af0@mail.eden.com> At 08:25 PM 4/11/97 -0500, you wrote: >Saumen: > Well, noone knows what the "original folks" thought about it >but >> recording of events for the sake of posteriority did not occur in India >> until she came in contact with her Arab traders. Thats why practically >> nothing is known of the "Vedic age" or for that matter the history of >> India before the ascendance of Guptas in the national scene. >> >> Even their Vedas were not allowed to be transcribed. The idea of >> representation through statues, idols, etc. was totally unknown in >> the East. India did not have her statue of Buddha until the Greeks >> introduced it first (two hundred years after Buddha's passing away) >> in Kandahar. I think one could identify similar states in the Judaic >> tradition and in Islam. > >With your keen interest in Indian history, you may be interested to know >about a film I watched recently. > >My boss' wife had me over to dinner recently with their family, and >afterwards we talked briefly about Krishnamurti. She is aware I went to >California years ago to hear Krishnamurti speak, and was curious about >my perceptions of him - whether I thought the whole movement might be a >cult or not. > >You see, she is steadfast in her Christian beliefs, Bible-belt Baptist, >although generally most kind and considerate towards me. So our >conversation was warm, but reserved. She brought up a film she wanted me >to see called "Gods of the New Age", and I told her I would watch it. > >It was made in 1988, and begins by critiquing some of the more extreme >guru-led movements of the past few decades, such as that of the Bhagwhan >Rajneesh commune in Oregon. From this it attempts to extrapolate a kind >of conspiracy among Hindus and guru leaders to infiltrate the West. It >even goes so far as to suggest that every form of yoga is innately >sinful, and that vegetarianism is inherently evil. Luckily I fell asleep >before the film ended, but it was so full of an essentially hateful and >judgmental Christian mindset that I have been pretty disturbed since >seeing it. > >There is such a strong undercurrent here in this part of the country >against anything that hints of looking at things differently than what >is traditionally the way. The image portrayed of Hinduism in that film >equated it as being devil-inspired, and basically considered anything of >Indian origin as Hindu. You see the lopsided logic to it? > >It is refreshing to hear you and others on this 'party line' speak of >the facts about Indian history as you know them to be. Thanks for >helping to illumine these dark corners of the mind. > > >Respectfully, > >Stephen Smalley > > Glad you posted the msg. I had a very interesting experience recently. I have been around theosophy for several years and recently another interested person who was living in another state was visiting my city and wanted to meet with me and others in our city. So when this person arrived in town, I called on the telephone and suggested that we should meet and even volunteered to drive down to her sons place where she was staying. She told me on the phone that her ex-husband was a minister and her son and daughter in law belong to a fundamentalist church in town and in a kind of friendly way indicated to me that they are very suspicious of any one who is not a fundamentalist christian and that they may not like my visiting her. I left it at that. Later just before she was leaving town, I had a telephone conversation and during the course of which I indicated that may be I will take her and her son to lunch so that we can meet. And I also indicated that I may be in a position to give some business referrals to her son. I did not want to push this business aspect. She said that this would work and she spoke to her son and in five minutes they called me back and the luncheon appointment was set and we met. But for the potential dollar involvement, I would not have been able to meet with this person who by the way also wanted to meet me and others interested in similar matters. The son is a practicing tax attorney in town and the daughter in law is on the faculty of a local university. Even with this background, they were very suspicious. Just thought I should share. MKR From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 04:54:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:54:00 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413005400_468799988@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Genius Alex, Anyone who tried to work at a Frank Lloyd Wright desk would have another word to describe him in place of genius. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 04:54:37 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:54:37 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413005436_468800011@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Menotti Alex, Okay, he did write the radionics anthem "This is my box, this is my box, I never travel without my box." Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 04:54:56 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:54:56 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413005454_468800356@mail06> Subject: Re: TI is a Container???? "A limit is a jumping off point" Newt Gingrich Sorry Alex, I just couldn't resist it. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 06:29:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 23:29 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Subject: Re: the Russians Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:39 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >I agree with what Rodolfo writes. > >I think we'll already help the Russians, if they can join in in our talking >back & forth, & can ask us questions if they want to. I think our >cosmopolitan format is something they'll appreciate. > >They may also have other needs, as I outlined to Alan, but it can really be >for all TI'ers to read. I think we can address any other needs as they come >up. Let's find out first what they want & need, before we organize something >they don't need. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > >Liesel and all: I think, being Russian myself, that what they want most of all, is exactly what they have NOT received, and that is OPEN ARMS OF WELCOME!! Russians are an emotional people and they hurt easily, what worries me is how hurt are they by Adyars rejection of them, and by Radha Burnier's inexcusable arrogance towards them. We Russians have a tendency to react to a perceived slight by turning away from it. Russia, and Russians, have always felt that the West was contemptuous of Russia and they have always deeply resented that fact. This is just more fuel for the fire! Alexis Dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 06:49:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 23:49 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: to Bob Holmstromk At 06:16 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: Bob: I am going to echo alan's remark. Oh how nice to hear good sense spoken. Your defintion of Theosophy Intenational is just exactly what it should be, and unless I am terribly mistaken, you have put in words, what most of us feel and very well too. alexis dolgorukii, MTI,FTSA >Bob, > >I think TI is also a thing with which each one is able to fulfill their own >dharma, whatever that dharma may be, ie do your own theosophical thing, with >the support of others. >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR >............................................................................ > > > >>In message <9604121519.AA19891@netra>, Robert Holmstrom >> writes >>>Everyone seems to be talking about TI as a "container", something that a >>>member fits "inside of" or excludes the offended. >> >>Everyone? Not me. >> >>> I don't see it that way >>>at all. Should not the TI be a source of Theosophical information, possibly >>>Theosophical values, and maybe a provider of signposts on the way? In that >>>way, it frees its members to search and to grow but does not "contain" them. >>>Membership means only that one has accepted the requirements for membership >>>but should not restrict anyone in any way. One should always be free to >>>make one's own errors and to learn from them. One should be free to search >>>any path one wishes, even CWL's if one has a hankering for mythopoeia. >> >>That's right! >>> >>>It seems to me the point of the three objects is that one must become free >>>to search and actually search. Beyond that there is no dogma to wrap >>>oneself in. Why should a prospective member then want to be wrapped in the >>>TI? The grand argument about what "freedom" is meant by the word "freedom" >>>seems pointless to me. Let each member take whatever meaning s/he walks in >>>with and fly with it. If it is "restrictive", said member will either drop >>>out or break through the limits. That is up to the individual, not the TI, >>>imho. >>> >>>Take care, >>> >>>==<>== >>> >>Oh the joy of reading sense! >> >>Alan :-) >>--------- >>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html >> >> > > From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 06:53:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 23:53 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: truth At 05:48 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: > >So I am poor - mention it as much as you like - maybe someone will send >me money! :-) and we all know "Blessed are the poor...in Spirit". >> >>I beg your pardon? Liesel, when did I do any such thing? I am tremendously >>fond of Alan and I also admire him for his knowledge and efforts. I would >>never say or do anything that would hurt him. > >And you never have. > >>Thank you for that Alan. Liesel had me seriously disturbed that I might have done, or said something inadvertantly that I hadn't intended. Thank you for reassuring me that I hadn't. I certainly meant what I told Liesel however. >>alexis >>> >>>Liesel > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > > From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 07:31:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 00:31 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: truth At 09:21 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >Hi, Alexis, > >I forget what you said to Alan, & I've since deleted it. so just forget it. > >As for your statement re Jews & Gays, you may be right, but I stick to mine. >Other people aren't as generous as you are, but rather tend to be jealous. >So I'd just as soon just think that Jews are in the arts & etc, & not say it >too loud, unless someone else says it first. >Liesel > >Liesel: Is there really anyone who isn't fully aware of the immense contribution Jews make to society? In almost every single field? That's a light that cannot be hid under a bushel. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 08:06:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 01:06 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Genius At 12:20 AM 4/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, > Anyone who tried to work at a Frank Lloyd Wright desk would have another >word to describe him in place of genius. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: Do you know that one of Wrights most famous houses was originally designed without a bathroom (he didn't like them thought they were far too mundane)? And so when the client complained ONE was installed, minus window, at the end of the row of bedrooms. His furniture was uncomfortable and stiff, his houses close to unlivable but he was still the most incredibly innovative archtectural philosopher I know of. That's the thing, Wright was a philosopher of architecture but not an architect. Because of him, all architecture changed for the better, and no I never met him, but I used to work with some of the folks from Taliesin East and West. You did know that in one of my earlier incarnations in this same body, I was an archtectural designer? That was right after my incarnation as a paratrooper-special forces mug, and that was right after my incarnation as a fashion model. It's been fun! alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 08:08:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 01:08 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Melchior's Box At 12:21 AM 4/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, >Okay, he did write the radionics anthem "This is my box, this is my box, I >never travel without my box." > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: How many people on this list would have known that? alexis From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 21:09:57 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:09:57 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413170956_512970806@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Genius Alex, I have always been of the opinion that the only architectural philosopher whose work had any practical value was Vauban. If you consider the unlivable monstrostities that such folks have caused in this century we would all have been better off if they all had been shot along with a few theosophical pederasts. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker Lover of comfort From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 21:10:05 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:10:05 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413171004_512970885@mail04> Subject: Re: Melchior's Box Alex, For the sake of their taste in music, very few, I hope. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 04:53:46 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:53:46 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413005345_468799864@mail04> Subject: Re: to: Chuck Liesel, Blasphemy is good for both the giver and the receiver. The giver gets to deal with some religious stuff that is probably hanging around from childhood and never got properly exorcised and the receiver gets to practice patience and tolerance. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 04:52:45 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:52:45 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413005244_468799443@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: instant enlightenment Alan, How nice, do they let you out alone or do you have an attendant? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 04:53:53 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:53:53 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <199604130453.AAA28030@emout06.mail.aol.com> Apparently-To: theos-l@vnet.net Greg is on AOL and I had the same problem with the list disappearing for a while yesterday. I think it was probably something in the AOL mail system. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 04:54:41 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:54:41 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413005441_468800196@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Book? Alex, That's right, it did, didn't it. My mind must be wandering again. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker Now let's see, where did I leave that K Bomb? From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 04:54:47 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:54:47 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413005446_468800282@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Name Dropping Jerry, Besides, I think we would rather have Alex's name dropping than the droppings we get from certain other people on this list. :-) giggle giggle guffaw guffaw giggle giggle Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 04:54:43 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:54:43 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413005442_468800247@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: No disappointments And Paul, with regard to the third object, they're so cute when they're terrified. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 04:54:52 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:54:52 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413005451_468800317@mail04> Subject: Re: The poor blind --er, ethical--mice Poor blind mice, Poor blind mice, See how they run, Right into the wall, The blind lead the blind right into the ditch and guess which one is a son of a... Sorry about that, just having a fit of humor. :-) :-) giggle giggle giggle Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker Its fun to be the bad guy. From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 04:54:59 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:54:59 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413005458_468800385@emout04.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Occultism - HPB Jerry, Don't be so surprised if you look mild by comparison. Alex is a mad artist and activist who has a wolf, I am a psychic warrior who used to duel with the KGB (them machines weren't built for healing) as well as being an alternative lifestyle activist as well as editor of a journal dedicated to promoting same and JRC lives in Montana where every day brings new confict and occasional explosions along with long and somewhat rambling manifestos. Of course we are going to be just a bit fierce and firey. Look what happened when we fought with each other a month ago. I'm still amazed we're all alive, much less friends. I wonder how Alan manages to put up with us. No wonder he's in Bedlam. Have nice day. :-) Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 04:55:01 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:55:01 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413005501_468800402@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Psychogenesis--to Alexis Rich, Your last comment to Alexis sounds very much like something a former girlfriend once said to me. Careful careful. :-) Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker Great Spear of Odin, the Mirth Demons are back! From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 04:55:09 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:55:09 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413005508_468800433@mail02.mail.aol.com> Subject: requirements for the Russians to enter TI I tried to post this about a week or so ago but it got eaten in the listserver so I will try again. It seemeth to me, in my never-humble-opinion, that we should not make it too easy for the Russians to get into TI. After all, we can be just as snooty as Radha, so here is a little list for your consideration of what we should expect of them. 1. They have to be conversant in English. Learning Russian is just too much trouble and we are very busy fighting among ourselves and do not have time to learn new languages. 2. They have to have internet access. We are not going to spend a fortune on postage for them. 3. They have to be able to list 300 reasons why Radha should not be president of the TS. 4. They have to be able to pass an exam on Psionics, Enochian Magick and the Unabomber Manifesto (in case the FBI has the wrong man and it really is JRC) 5. They have to be able to list all the Czars and every important person in Europe and America so they can understand what Alex is talking about. 6. They have to know that a prune danish is not Kim Poulson. 7. They have to demonstrate a sense of humor. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 04:55:05 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:55:05 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413005505_468800414@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: debate (to bee) Bee, If you think this list gets ferocious, you should attend a TS meeting in America sometimes. I thought a couple of people were going to come to blows at last summer's convention during the great pronoun war and I only managed to stop the fight by making the not-entirely-serious suggestion that maybe the society should get rid of the three objects altogether. That so shocked everyone that they were speechless for two minutes and had to start talking about something else. It could be that in New Zealand things are just more placid and you are not used to our style of debate. My own postings that have caused such a furor between the fundamentalists (for lack of a better word) and the revisionists are actually not new ideas. I have been spreading them around Olcott for almost 15 years now and everyone who knows me is probably rather bored with them, so it is stimulating to have a debate over these thoughts for the first time in what often seems forever. When I joined the TS there was a saying in the American Section that went something like this: Two Theosophists is an argument. Three Theosophists is a study center. Four Theosophists is a convention. Five Theosophists is a riot. But we have calmed down. We have not had a murder in a TS meeting in ages. And, between you, me and the rest of the list, if Radha had had a sex life the TS might be in better shape. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sat Apr 13 05:29:11 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 23:29:11 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: debate (to bee) In-Reply-To: <960413005505_468800414@emout09.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Chuck ... Well put - I never heard that "Two Theosophists are ..." etc. saying. Why stop at five tho'? Five Theosophists are a riot. Six Theosophists are a new religion. Seven Theosophists [Halt! Seven is a "sacred number", and there are certain "occult" properties associated with it, so we regret that we are unable to publicly mention what seven Theosophists actually are.] Eight Theosophists are the average membership of a National Section. -JRC UnaTheosophist From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 06:09:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 23:09 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Internet At 08:28 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >That's all I know..they >were there...and now they're not! What itmeans I can only guess. > >Alexis, I hope it doesn't mean that some nut decided the TSA isn't going to >be on the Internet. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > >Well Liesel: It seems for sure that Elisabeth Trumpler is on the internet, at least to the extent of connection with this list. It certainly seems she at least shes its utility. Wouldn't it be odd if, when the gonses welt is turning to the internet for communication and inter-relationships, the TSA would withdraw? That would be entirely irrational. It's pretty clear that Radha, and Adyar withher, is contemptuous of such moderninity as the Internet, but John Algeo? My expereinces with him thus far are nil, as he does't respond to my letters, but I would be surprised if he couldn't see how useful the Internet can be. The only reason the TSA would withdraw from the net is that "quality before quantity" insanity, or that even nuttier notion that: "they'll come when they're ready". But who really knows what has happend? alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 06:15:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 23:15 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: PhD At 08:19 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis, > >Rich happens to be our ULT representative on this list. He's also doing his >PhD on Buddhism. Don't pass him off that lightly. He's a very knowledgeable >fellow. > >Liesel > >Liesel: First: I assume we're talking about Rich Tay? Well I assumed he was some kind of HPB hagiographer. And his absolute reliance on the Secret Doctrine as "revealed religion" would make it likely that he's ULT. But, what or should I say which kind of Buddhism is he taking his PhD in, and where? He clearly knows the Secret Doctrine cover to cover, like a fundamentalist knows his "Good News Bible". That's obvious.But, unfortunately his position is only important if one happens to agree with his view of the Secret Doctrine, and I don't. I also do not particularly regard HPB as a kind of deity. I don't pass anyone off lightly, but I find it impossible to have reasoned conversations with someone who is essentially a fanatic. I guess it runs in the family, you know the story about my Mother and Jerry Falwell. We just don't brook fanatics lightly. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 06:25:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 23:25 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE:perhaps At 07:44 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis: >>I can't begin to tell you how much I hate that "only for the few stuff". >Nick: >Alan: >>.. she wrote hundreds of pages of material for a couple of dozen >>people? Not very likely. > > Look at the membership of the TS. Then look at the >world's population. Then tell me that we are not the "few." >How may people have actually read the SD? sadly, even fewer. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > One of the Few >Jerry: I'm also what you call "one of the few", but you may not be as right in that respect as you think. I've got a copy in Polish, so perhpas more folks have read it than you are aware of. Of course, one could say "one of the few" about the readership of any book not on the Danielle Steele level. A lot of people only read Harlequin Romances, but serious books have a much smaller readership. You write serious non-fiction, you should know how few "readers" there really are. I also would venture to say that of the limited number of people who have actually read the Secret Doctrine, many are like myself and, shall we say, "underwhelmed"? Based on my many Theosophical friends and aquaintances, I'd say "Isis Unveiled" had even a smaller readership, and IMO it's the far better book. There are, of course, other reasons that could easily be mentioned to account for the paucity of TS members as compared to the World Population. And they're probably good reasons too. Alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 06:44:00 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 23:44 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Don't faint! At 07:21 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >>>CUT<<<<<<< I hope it will not cause you any distress, or faintness, but I am going to say that for the most part, I agree entirely with what you say. As you may know I am one of those who very much prefers "isis Unveiled" to the "Secret Doctrine" for many reasons that I find well and good. You're certainly almost completely correct in your discussion of the Gnostics. Though I personally would tend to agree with Plotinus (or Porphyry, as I think more likely). There are a lot of things about the Gnostics that I agree with, the one thing I disagree with is their Christianity. The other thing I disagree with is their unrelenting dualism. The same is true, in a way, with Buddhism. With Gautama's basic ideas, I totally agree, with what time and disicples have done to those ideas, I do NOT agree. I think Mahayana Buddhism is a reincarnation of all those things in the Brahmanic Religion that Gautama was rebelling against. I certtainly don't believe in Karma, as either Buddhism or Theosophy teaches it. But then I don't have to, because Karma isn't mentioned at all in the three objects, is it? alexis dolgorukii >It is not clear that you are an arch-revisionist if you are basing your work >upon HPB's. Either you are revising her work, or carrying it on as she gave >it, or something of the two together. Whatever label you choose for yourself >(and that is none of my business), it seems worthwhile to look into HPB's >roots and sources, her methods (or "skillful means," UPAYA in Buddhism) and >forward-looking purposes. > >HPB seems to draw freely from many sources. "The Gnostics" do make many >appearances in ISIS UNVEILED, fewer in the S.D. but "they" are still there. > Quoted about 10 times less than Hindu and Buddhist ideas, it is hardly >enough "hits" to make a case over and against what the karmically-inclined >Easterns are saying, no? > >Yet who are these amorphous "Gnostics"? Are they opposed to moral teachings >and karma? HPB mentions the Ophites, the Marconites, and quite a few others. > And if you read closely (not between the lines, mind you, but just at the >words themselves) we see that HPB is arguing against the incorrect portrayal >of Gnostics by the very prejudiced and threatened Church Fathers, including >Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, etc. etc. > >Before the actual discovery in 1945 of the 12 Gnostic Codices near the >Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi, the vast majority of our knowledge about >Gnostics was in the form of (partisan) quotation in the body of >opposite-thinking writers. The one exception is of course Plotinus, who in >his Enneads (organized into sets of "nine," hence "enneads" by his disciple >Porphyry) has a section "Against the Gnostics" where he disputes with them >about impunging the character of the Demi-urge and his (lower) creations, but >largely agrees with most of their conceptions. > >You with me so far? > >As Elaine Pagels has written in her book, THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS, history is >written by the winners. And as Ron Cameron, author of THE OTHER BIBLE, >taught me when I was in his class, who would have more reason to misrepresent >and libel the Gnostics than the early orthodoxy? How can we really trust >what they wrote? Their whole purpose was to undermine the credibility of the >Gnostics and crush the entire movement, by polemic as long as possible and by >force when necessary. > >What better way to undermine threatening esoteric teachers than by maiming >them morally during their lives, or preferably after they are dead when they >can't argue anymore? > >Why, we see this taking place in Theos-L daily, where people who want to >think their own way find it necessary to slash and burn HPB in order to >clear-cut a path for themselves. If one cannot assault the philosophy of HPB >or the Gnostics, slander them morally, make them hypocritical demons, and >then the difficult philosophy can be backgrounded. It is an old and >time-honored tradition of the black-hearted. > >Thus the Gnostics were characterized by the early heresiologists as >"antinomian" meaning above or beyond the law. And Irenaeus in his tiresome >tome LIBROS QUINQUE ADVERSUS HAERESES raises the names of group after group >only to slam them down again with words like "licentious," "morally corrupt," >"child-sacrificers," "eaters of the hearts of the innocents." Their >philosophy gets short shrift analytically. It is not clear Irenaeus even >understood it (compare to the majority of Theos-L posts today) > >Modern scholars, one and all, have deep suspicions as to whether any of this >occurred. Rather, it was a rhetorical polemic designed to castigate the >Gnostic groups when attacks upon their philosophy failed. There appears no >evidence that ANY Gnostic groups were sacrificing children, than ANY groups >were eating human hearts, etc. > >It is probably true, however, that some Gnostics, in their contempt of the >worldly laws and the Creator who ordained them, became sexually quite giddy >and imagined themselves free of karma. This is a minority group, and >probably confined to Western provinces (round Rome). > >As documented in the 50-odd texts of THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY IN ENGLISH >edited by James Robinson, the majority schools of Gnostics -- Sethians >(Ophites), Valentinians, and even the very Christian Marcionites, if they are >to be included as Gnostics -- were extremely concerned with morals, and held >themselves to much higher standards than the orthodox Christians, whom they >felt were much lower. The characterization the Gnostics used for themselves >was "PNEUMATIKOI" meaning "Those of the Spirit" while ordinary Christians, >the mediocre run who took no vows and studied no hidden wisdom, were deemed >"PSYCHIKOI" or "Those of the Psyche", which was still above those mongrels, >the materialists like the Sadducees etc. > >All of that said, we find HPB upholding time and again the moral purity of >the Gnostics and the philosophical purity of their works, as opposed to >mainstream Christianity. She does not side with the orgiastic and licentious >groups, and NEVER quotes them. I defy anyone to locate a quote from any >antinomian Gnostic in HPB's works. All her quotes are from the followers of >Valentinus -- Marcus etc. who were of the morally rigid traditions. > >It should be no surprise that Theosophists have divided themselves into >similar categories today -- one side following the "original program" of >Theosophy and its Founders, and the other imagining that Theosophy is passe, >or grotesquely misinterpreting its Founders as "materialistic determinists". > Chuck writes, > >> We know that the universe does not quite work the way >> the materialistic determinists who founded the TS (and if you look at the >> material that is exactly what they were even though they refused to admit >it) >> thought it did. > >What single piece of evidence can be manufactured to support the idea that >HPB, Olcott, Judge, or their Teachers, were materialistic determinists? This >is laughable. Just read PSYCHIC AND NOETIC ACTION by HPB, or her Addenda, >"Science and the Secret Doctrine Compared" in the S.D., both volumes. > >It is one thing to say that HPB used blinds in her teaching, and to say that >HPB tailored her teachings to suit Western people where they were. She most >certainly did both of these things. > >That does not mean that she lied, or said things she didn't mean, or that she >was kidding about ethics and moral purity. She says it too often and in too >many places to pretend we can overlook it. "Skillful means" in Buddhism, and >in the myths of Plato, and in the Neo-Platonists under Plotinus (called >sometimes the Analogeticists), doesn't mean outright lies for the benefit of >the student, but truths which are not the whole truth. Cf. Plato's myth of >Ur, in THE REPUBLIC, where the soul after death spends 1,000 years in a nice >place or a rotten one, and then gets assigned to its next body. This is a >mythical (not a LITERAL) portrayal of karma and reincarnation. > >Jesus does the same in the parables. They are true so far as they go, but >hint at much deeper truths. It is a vast misunderstanding of HPB and her >Teachers to assume that they were joking about ethics, or that they told >untruths only to hook the poor Victorians. Rather, these pioneers ruined >their reputations and fortunes spreading ideas that were exactly COUNTER to >traditional Victorian thought. This is not pandering to the masses, as you >suggest, but dedication to the eternal truths. > >Please document, if you will, the assertions that (1) HPB or her Teachers >were materialistic determinists (2) that HPB ever quotes approvingly from >supporters of anti-ethical or amoral philosophies or behaviors. > > From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 07:03:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 00:03 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Survival At 04:24 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >> As to Institutionalized Theosophy (all three of them), survive? They >>are all three totally moribund! I'll tell you this none of them will survive >> the century if they don't wake up. > This seems to be the opinion of several on theos-l. I don't >happen to share it. Time will tell, I guess. (ps. actually, there are more >than three. I am aware of at least five.) > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > >Jerry, I was talking to the TSA (Pasadena) spokesperson for the SanFrancisco Bay Area last week. She told me that they had exactly three members in the area. One of them Ninty Years old, one of them eighty eight years old, and that she was spokespeerson because she was only "in her forties". The Pasadena Group is by far the best of the lot, but what future is there in a group with member ship like that? She told me that I would have to go to Pasadena on a Friday evening to see the group "really in action". I am told on good authority rthat the ULT has perhaps one thousand members world-wide, I'm not sure which are the "other two" that make up your five. But we are verily like the Shakers, too many superannuated mebers and almost no young ones. That's not a good sign for the future. I work with young people all the time in the course of myshamanic function, they do not like authority or authority figures, and they will not put up wioth them for even a short time. Luckily in the kind of shamanism which I practive, demonstrate, and discuss, there are not authorities, so the young ones are happy. But what does an authority based group, which is what the TSA is, say to these youngsters? I'm afraid it's "stay away". The "quality before quantity" attitude not only says that,it says "stay away we don't want you". That doesn't look like much of a future to me. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 07:06:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 00:06 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Occultism - HPB At 04:59 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >Nick: >>I wasn't really making a point, just throwing some stabilizing ingredients >>into the boiling pot as it brews. Every once in a while as we are >>discussing topics ranging from morality, to being unhappy that our leaders >>don't live up to the images we have formed, I feel it is important to >>reflect on some of the basic comments that HPB provided us. For me its one >>way to re-center. > As far as I know, we are all theosophists on theos-l, and all >have read HPB, and pretty much agree with her. Believe it or not, >nothing that Chuck or Alexis or Alan or Richard I or JRC (or myself) have >posted on theos-l is *against* anything that HPB wrote, that I am aware of. >Its another way of saying things, or of looking at things, and sometimes >extensions of what she said, or possibly something she should or would >have said to a modern audience. But nothing against her, at all. I often >deliberately put ideas into a fresh context just to shake people up and >make them think a little (the devil makes me do it). Many of the >postings from Chuck leave me rolling out of my chair laughing. This >is not only good for the soul but serves as a cleansing process >in which we can eliminate some of the "uptightness" that serious >study often brings. Newbies are entitled to moral uprightness >(and uptighness as well) but those of us who have been studying >this stuff for many years should be past such silliness. I always >feel sorry when I detect moral uprightness in older theosophists >because it makes me wonder why they are still back at the >newbie stage. > Anyway, there is nothing wrong with adding quotes >to back up your viewpoint on some subject. But your last post >was only quotes, and ones which I, for one, had no disagreement >with. So I just wondered what you had in mind. Thanks for your >answer, but I do feel sad that you felt any need for "stabilizing >ingredients." I hope that this post helps you some. I, for one, >have thoroughly enjoyed the recent postings. I used to argue >against moral uprightness all by myself on theos-l. Now Alexis >and Chuck and JRC are making me look like one of my pussycats. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > Moral Uprightness Basher > >Jerry Well said, and thanks. My Pussycats, by the way, are anything but Bunnies, but then they live with the Wolf. (and soon the Wolves) From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 07:08:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 00:08 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: enticing? At 04:57 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis writes> >>Richard: It might have been more helpful if you asked me what I meant. >>That'susually the best way to find out what soeone means. Is it not? > >Richard Ihle writes> >For a little while, at least, I have decided to regard you as one of those >altogether wonderfully enticing yet dangerous creatures one should probably >admire from a safe distance. > >Godspeed, > >Richard Ihle > > >You mean like my Wolf? But actually neither of us is "dangerous", merely secure. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 07:12:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 00:12 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:dissection At 04:19 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis, your paraphrasing and explaining of Chuck's post on intelligence >was excellent. It is unfortunate, however, that it was necessary to do so. >Its rather like having to explain a good joke, or dissecting a good poem. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > >Sometimes we have to do that, intellectually. But this you know better than most. I really liked what Chuck said but felt it could be improved a little. I did so, he liked it. It really is the basic premise in a book that akes over 500 pages to say it. alexis dolgorukii From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 07:15:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 00:15 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Thanks At 04:16 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >> Whenever I talk about my life, I >>must perforce, if I am to be truthful, mention people that other people >>neither know, nor can know. For me to avoid mentioning well-known people, >>I'd have to never mention anyone. > > Alexis, mention away. Your posts are never dull. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > >Jerry: It's a difficult position to be in, for most of my life, I've been a "name" that others drop! As they say in mandarin: "It's a bitch!" Butmany thanks for saying that my posts are "never dull" I agree with Oscar Wilde as to dullness being the worst of sins. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 07:19:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 00:19 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re Yene? At 01:46 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >Yene voice crying in the wilderness! > >LFD > >O.K. Kid you got me! What means "Yene" please that one I can't transliterate! alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 07:23:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 00:23 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: At 01:55 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: > Carissimo, > >I'm not so sure I want to know what you're talking about. >Salute, also known as Gesundheit >LFD > >Carisima: You're not alone! Lot's of folks would rather not know what I'm talking about. But they will, just the same. One pays a penelty when one is one's own "authority" but then the price is worth the game. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 07:29:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 00:29 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Blasphemy At 01:48 PM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >What soul is blasphemy good for? the giver or the receiver? >LFD > >I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, especially chucks. But, "blasphemy" is an impossible act! Think about it! If "God" is what the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Triad says it is, then how could anyone "blaspheme" THAT in any way? If there is no such "God" then blasphemy is an entirely moot point. I also thing that the perception of "God" as Cosmic Busybody, Cosmic Tyrant, Cosmic Genocidist, is the only real blasphemy ever actually committed as it utterly "blasphems' against Human Intelligence. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 07:50:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 00:50 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: hpb JRC: In all the postings I have made on this list, I have never said anything negative about HPB. Did I say she may have made a few mistakes? Well, didn't she? Doesn't everyone? Did she either expect or desire to be deified? She sure as hell didn't? I have made it clear that I prefer Isis" to the Secret Doctrine" is that a slam at HPB? As far as I know she wrote both books. I have nothing but admiration and, in fact, love for HPB and not just because she's my cousin. I love her becuase she was a feisty, independent, unique person, far more unique than most. So the only thing I can assume you mean to say I said when I "upset some people" is when I said she was an active cross-dressing Lesbian for most of her life. That, coming from ME, is hardly to be considered a "slam" at HPB! A "slam" is when someone says something they think is "bad" about someone. I am, as you well know, the absolutely LAST person to consider the attribution of Homosexuality to be a "bad" thing. Now, I am not addressing this posting to you JRC, becuase I know you don't have the kind of problems that would cause people to be "upset" when told HPB was Gay, but I am addressing those who would feel so, through the medium of your posting. I am so doing becuase your ownposting addressed the rest of Rich Tay's problems, and very well too, but "speak of the Devil and...." you mentioned me and so "pop" there I am! alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 07:59:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 00:59 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: gasoline At 12:16 AM 4/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >But we have calmed down. We have not had a murder in a TS meeting in ages. >And, between you, me and the rest of the list, if Radha had had a sex life >the TS might be in better shape. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: You're wonderful, you have the most amazing talent for pouring gasoline on dying embers! Your last sentence will send Bee into orbit around Pluto! alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 08:12:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 01:12 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: marvelous! At 12:36 AM 4/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >Chuck ... > Well put - I never heard that "Two Theosophists are ..." etc. >saying. Why stop at five tho'? > > Five Theosophists are a riot. > Six Theosophists are a new religion. > Seven Theosophists [Halt! Seven is a "sacred number", and there > are certain "occult" properties associated with it, so we regret > that we are unable to publicly mention what seven Theosophists > actually are.] > Eight Theosophists are the average membership of a National > Section. > > -JRC > UnaTheosophist > > >JRC and Chuck: Marvelous! But I just woke up all my cats, my wolf, and my lover, howling with laughter! By the way, I have this wonderful image of certain theosophical faces belonging to folks on this list everytime I use the word "my lover". Red, Redder, Reddest! alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 08:22:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 01:22 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Trois Fous At 12:08 AM 4/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >Jerry, >Don't be so surprised if you look mild by comparison. Alex is a mad artist >and activist who has a wolf, I am a psychic warrior who used to duel with the >KGB (them machines weren't built for healing) as well as being an alternative >lifestyle activist as well as editor of a journal dedicated to promoting same >and JRC lives in Montana where every day brings new confict and occasional >explosions along with long and somewhat rambling manifestos. Of course we >are going to be just a bit fierce and firey. Look what happened when we >fought with each other a month ago. I'm still amazed we're all alive, much >less friends. >I wonder how Alan manages to put up with us. No wonder he's in Bedlam. >Have nice day. :-) > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > Alan manages to put up with us because he's just as much an individualist as each of us is. After all he's an ex-anarcho-syndicalist! The most encouraging thing is not that we're all still friends, but that we're all BETTER friends now than before. It's clear that a good fight clears the air, the Irish have made this their "Secret Doctrine" for ages! Even the folks who are dicombobulated by us (and Jerry too)are, in the long run, going to realize that having to defend their beliefs actually makes thenm think about them, and will either result in stronger beliefs or none at all! And please Chuck, I am a Mad Russian Artist, it makes a considerable difference in degree of madness! alexis From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 11:45:23 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 07:45:23 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413074522_190321969@mail04> Subject: Re: Gnostics vs. "Founding materialists" Rich, What you have to say about the gnostics is of course mostly true, except I would remind you that when something like the Nag Hammadi Library hits it tends to create a new fashion in scholarship which may not be any more accurate than the older views. The Gnostics were divided between the ascetics and the libertines, much as we theosophists are today. Both were of the opinion that there was a strict duality between matter and spirit and the argument between them was how best to get away from the rule of matter, which was the province of the demiurge. And as you must be aware the gnostics were not above going to extremes to do this. In truth, much of what their Christian enemies had to say about them was true and had to be in order to persuade the gnostics they were trying to convert to listen. The gnostics were real characters in their day, in many ways much like modern pentecostals in their worship, with many of the long, incomprehensible invocations being the glossalalia of the worshipers written down and ossified in text form. HPB admired the gnostics for at least two discernable reasons. First, she liked anyone the Christians hated. Second, she recognized in their ideas a fundamental part of nature, as expressed in the Mahatma Letters (and don't ask me which one, it's been too many years since I read it) that "all manifestation is dual." Now that leads us to materialistic determinism. The words are confusing because it leads people not familiar with Lucullus' De Rerum Naturum to think it means nineteenth century materialism, which HPB was most certainly not into. Rather it refers to a general view of the world, which is not going to be found in any specific text, but rather as an overarching theme. In its essence, and the bandwidth available to me is too small to make an overly detailed dissertation on the subject so I may have to create an attachment with more stuff when I have a few spare days, materialistic determinism views the cosmos as a closed system. In such a system, there is no leeway for action and the view of Karma as expressed in the Key to Theosophy is a perfect example of such a cosmology. The problem is that the gnostics, no matter what there stripe, were not materialistic determinists and did not see the cosmic all that way at all. So we have a problem in interpreting the thought of HPB, because she seems to be advocating two mutually exclusive concepts, a universe where everything is tightly close, in which case a strict behavioral code is essential to spiritual progress on one hand (which would make the good Victorians in their red flannel waistcoats very happy) and a system of duality in which matter is temporary and the despised creation of the demiurge, existing to be either put down or outraged as the path to spiritual liberation. Now we know, from our science alone, that materialistic determinism does not hold sway. If it did, there could be no quantum mechanics, but the good Victorians did not know this. So, facing the discernable reality that God does play at dice, we are forced into the gnostic mode of trying to see what relation this world of matter has to the world of spirit. If we assume that HPB was a genuine mystic and, as she has also been interpreted, a genuine magician, she was capable of soaring in her spirit far beyond the reaches of her physical self and such illumination would have put her in a position to see that the actions of a single lifetime count for nothing in the great scheme of existence. It is simply too short. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 11:45:29 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 07:45:29 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413074528_190321976@mail06> Subject: Re: The Few Jerry, The FEW The PROUD The OBNOXIOUS WHOOPS! :-) the THEOSOPHISTS Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 11:45:51 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 07:45:51 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413074551_190322011@emout06.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Gnostics vs. "Founding materialists" John, Thank you for your spirited defense of us revisionists. But it has been so many years since I was called a "black-hearted scoundrel" that you should let me enjoy the moment. Now if you will excuse me, I have to go tie my girlfriend to the railroad tracks. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker Chela of Snidely Whiplash (heh heh heh) From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 11:45:58 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 07:45:58 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413074557_190322023@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Wonderrful statement Eldon, I would hope that TI is open and broad enough to encompass all of us, including the most fundamentalist. After all, if we exclude everyone foolish enough to disagree with us, who will we have to argue with at meetings? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 13 13:52:12 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 09:52:12 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604131456.KAA10464@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To Alexis rE: Karma Dear Alexis, If one doesn't, over lifetimes, become more spiritual because of practices, why then is there a belief that you can influence your Karma by your actions? Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR .......................................................................... Liesel: I could go along with that if I believed, even slightly, that it is the humanphysical personality which "becomes" more "spiritual" by way of practices. But I don't! We are all essentially spirits and only inhabit these "bodies" of ours for a little while. Nothing we do, or don't do in any way effects that. I'm very sorry but that business about the "fear still being in the meat" is just pure nonsense, at least as far as I'm concerned. "It is not that which goeth into a man which defileth him, but that which goeth out" and I think the "goeth out" part refers to actions and words rather than the by-poducts of ingestion. As I see it, "spirit" is "spirit" and "flesh is f;lesh" and they really don't effect one another. Now, I am not promiscuous as you knw, but what others do is none of my business. From eldon@theosophy.com Sat Apr 13 15:52:37 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 08:52:37 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960413155237.0069de80@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Regarding Blasphemy and What is Good for Others Chuck: [writing to Liesel] >Blasphemy is good for both the giver and the receiver. The giver >gets to deal with some religious stuff that is probably hanging >around from childhood and never got properly exorcised and the receiver gets to practice patience and tolerance. This is one of those times when I go back to the dictionary. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as: AHD> 1.a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing AHD> concerning God or a sacred entity; b. The act of claiming AHD> for oneself the attributes and rights of God. 2. An AHD> irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard AHD> to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct. With the first definition, I'd say that expressions of contempt for the sacred would certainly be offensive to those that respect it. We may want to make fun of the funny ideas that people sometimes hold regarding the deeper side of life, but should respect the actual feeling of the sacred that those people feel with the ideas. Our intent may be to get them to review and upgrade their thinking; it certainly would not be to get people to stop their appreciation of the sacred, simple because we don't like the words that they use to describe it. The second definition is a problem which people can fall into when the approach the spiritual. They presume to speak for God and Gods and end up profaning the very things that they identify with. The third definition has to do with actual acts of disrespect for the sacred. Someone may be reading a spiritual book and it is obvious that they are involved in something that is sacred for them. Another person comes along, mocking them, going "har, har, har" and manages to provoke their anger, taking them out of their deep feelings. This would be an example of the final definition, although better examples could easily be given. What would I conclude from this? That we should (never mind the word "should", just listen to what I'm saying) respect the sense of the sacred in others, regardless of their words and practices. We should try to lead them into higher forms of thinking and behavior in a way that doesn't disrupt them and cause them to lose their sense of the sacred. In our excitement over what we consider our higher words and forms of expression, we shouldn't forget that we're dealing with other living human beings, and forget to look at them and see the effect our words and actions have on them. -- Eldon From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 13 14:58:32 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 10:58:32 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604131602.MAA15591@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: TS on the Internet Alexis, John Algeo wants Wheaton to be on the Internet, & the Board is with him. Nick sent me 2 www addresses that are theosophical. I found them last night. One of them is Rodolpho's, of which the address was given out wrong the 1st time. The 2 I found are http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/Theosophy.html http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/Theosophy/Overview.html As for Elisabeth, part of her being terribly busy seems to consist of reading the internet. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR but John Algeo? My expereinces with him thus far are nil, as he does't respond to my letters, but I would be surprised if he couldn't see how useful the Internet can be. From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 13 15:03:11 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 11:03:11 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604131607.MAA15759@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Alexis re: Rich Taylor Dear Alexis, When I first read Rich, I thought all ULT members were fanatics too., Rich isn't. I hardly think that he believes HPB is a deity. nor the Masters. But let him speak for himself. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS on Canada, HR From eldon@theosophy.com Sat Apr 13 16:06:55 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 09:06:55 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960413160655.006a91ac@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Is Theosophy for the Few? Nick: >I don't think her intention was only for the few. She may have realized >that at the time there were only a few that could take advantage of the >majority of what she had to say, but with time as others developed their >experience base and vocabulary they could more and more participate. I'd agree in part, and say that there are many levels to Theosophy, with something to offer people of all backgrounds. Like Judge says in the opening words of "The Ocean of Theosophy", Theosophy is like a great ocean, with depths to meet the needs of the most demanding students, yet with a shoreline that offers something to everyone who'd approach it. In our promoting of Theosophy, it's easy to concentrate on meeting the needs of deep-sea divers, and forget that there are waders, swimmers, and surfers at its shoreline, also with important needs. -- Eldon From RIhle@aol.com Sat Apr 13 16:16:33 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 12:16:33 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960413121631_374675656@emout04.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Psychogenesis--to Richard I In a message dated 96-04-12 17:23:24 EDT, Jerry S. writes> >Anyway, I have tried to compare the stages of the >Path with Kohlberg's moral developmental stages, and will continue >to do this kind of thing. There is precious little psychology mentioned >today in theosophical literature, and yet it is such a rich field. For >example, Erickson's developmental stages could be applied to >the human lifewave as it undergoes the 7 Rounds. Richard Ihle writes> Yes, we are on the same wavelength as usual. Sometimes, however, I wonder whether there will be a future for *psychogenesis* or not, since people ordinarily think it is primarily concerned with academic or therapeutic psychology in some way and then often immediately begin arguing against it on that basis. Actually, psychogenesis may be a possible way to partially reclaim the word *psyche* from the philistines paid according to the fifty-minute-hour. Isn't it interesting that *psyche* comes from the Greek root meaning not only "soul" but also "butterfly"? However "cosmogenesis" or "anthropogenesis" can be successfully approached, the understanding of the psychogenetic "heuristic overlay" seems most dependent upon being a good observer of one's sequentially changing states of consciousness in meditation. (I believe that someone with a high Degree of Self-Awareness could observe exactly the same sequence in the process of falling asleep.) The *Theosophical Pattern* is the crucial thing--whether it is psyche-building, human-building, or cosmos-building. (I may even be more radical than you, however, since I am convinced that all the grand theosophical systems which attempt to articulate the latter pair of overlays were originally developed in a metaphorical manner by individuals who were first-and-foremost advanced witnesses of their own "internal scenery"--thus, I cling so strongly to the definition of *theosophy* as "knowledge which has its base in, or at least originally derives from, transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight.") Perhaps the reason I am going to be the last person on earth to dismiss THE SECRET DOCTRINE as "largely irrelevant for the new times" is that I came to the ideas of the Rounds, Chains, etc. *after* I had hastily put together some of my own meditationally derived ideas about the Pattern in something I immodestly called "The Doctrine of the Seven-Year Cycles." Because a crucial feature of this is that the potential for egoic delusion unfolds in an orderly manner according to an individual's age and that the characteristics of the next cycle begins manifesting at the mid-point of the present, I was dumbfounded one day when I was casually browsing the yet-unread THE SECRET DOCTRINE and just by chance hit a page where HPB was outlining the exact same Pattern as it applies to "returning monads" etc. Anyway, I am not so optimistic at this point that I will live long enough to see psychogenesis become a respectable idea in the Theosophical world. Whenever I have spoken about it in talks, I have generally had the "interesting-but-not-really-Theosophy" response (thus, my obsessive discussion with Eldon about the limiting aspects of the capital *T*). I wrote the privately printed book WISDOM TEACHING in 1984, but even I think it is probably a rotten, uninteresting book in most respects except for the rough suggestion of the Pattern (don't ask for a copy because I have learned my lesson: a year or two ago, I sent one to Eldon's wife who gave it to the housekeeper after a reading a few pages--I don't even trust people to lie and tell me that they read it and that it was good anymore. . .). Godspeed, Jerry, Richard Ihle From eldon@theosophy.com Sat Apr 13 16:17:33 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 09:17:33 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960413161733.006aab90@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Wonderrful statement Jerry S: [writing to Chuck] >The purpose of life is to be, not to do. I'm not sure I agree. Simple beingness is only a partial participation in life. One participates in space, and has a static appreciation of life. Doing things brings one to a participation in time (via state changes in oneself and others), and moves one from static to dynamic beingness. -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Sat Apr 13 17:45:47 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 10:45:47 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960413174547.00693f08@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Giggling at the Morally Upright JRC: [quoting Rich] >>You will indeed face the firing squad, sir. How DARE you quote >>the founder of the modern Theosophical movement to a bunch of >>Theosophists? >Ah!!!!! Decided to speak down from the heights to us poor >little deluded children, eh? >[Hey! Eldon! ... >remember that line about "passive-aggressive condescension" that >you found so unfair? This post is exactly the attitude I was >talkin' about I think that you're taking Rich's comments out of context. He was clearly, as I see it, trying to make fun of the extreme statements he was reading (about uptight Theosophists, etc.) and the "har har" humor and responding in kind. His post was intended to be *funny*, and you seem to be taking it literally. His only mistake may have been to leave off an occasional "" or "" or two from the text, although I could detect the feeling-tone behind the words. Perhaps you might agree that when we attempt to make fun of views that we disagree with and consider extreme, we have to be careful in our expression to not come across as through we were dead serious. You attempt not too, ending your satire with some laughing words, but again it's important to be clear on the type of humor that is being shown. There's a difference between light-hearted, friendly humor, and a darker humor that mocks, belittles, and is cruel in nature. We need to be clear in our intent, or we can be misread, and that misreading can lead to anger, hostility, polarized views, and other negative consequences. -- Eldon From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 17:55:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 10:55 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: The Few???? At 06:48 AM 4/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >Jerry, >The FEW >The PROUD >The OBNOXIOUS >WHOOPS! :-) >the THEOSOPHISTS > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >It is true that there are only a "few" Theosophists, but are the "quality is bettter than quantity" crowd making a virtue out of a neccesity? One thing is clear, a lot of the "few" need some of the hot air let out of their stuffed shirts. alexis From eldon@theosophy.com Sat Apr 13 17:57:52 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 10:57:52 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960413175752.006ac3cc@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Written any Good Books Lately? Richard Ihle: [writing to Jerry S] >I wrote the privately printed book WISDOM TEACHING in 1984, but >even I think it is probably a rotten, uninteresting book in >most respects except for the rough suggestion of the Pattern >(don't ask for a copy because I have learned my lesson: a year >or two ago, I sent one to Eldon's wife who gave it to the >housekeeper after a reading a few pages--I don't even trust >people to lie and tell me that they read it and that it was >good anymore. . .). But it was a good book to you at the time that you were writing it. And you've learned from the experience, and could write better the next time. With the give-and-take of ideas on theos-l, as well as the general growth in your learning and knowledge over the years, you may be better equipped to write now than you were then. One aspect of writing a book is that it may not be done the first time, when the words first get written. It make take many reviews and revisions based upon the input of others before it is ready to print. Perhaps you rushed your book out the door too quickly. Also, there's something to *intent* when writing. Was there something wanting to be said through you, something important that you felt too valuable to keep inside, or were you writing because you were "supposed to", as a part of being a good Theosophist? The final thought I have about your book is regard to getting feedback from people. You may find words that *to you* clearly express your ideas, but if the words do not work to convey your ideas to others, they need to be changed. What works well in a personal journal may not work in a book intended for a multitude of people with diverse backgrounds. This is something you've obviously faced in your work as the great eastern teacher (at your high school work), but are you taking this into account in your theosophical writings? If you're writing to Theosophists, you may need to use different words than if you were writing to a group of meditators, or to college students with no background in metaphysics. It's great with 'theos-l' to have a place to try out different words in expressing ideas, to see first hand and with immediate feedback how well the words work in communication. We can all learn and grow as writers, as long as the occasional bitterness that emerges doesn't discourage us. -- Eldon From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 18:09:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 11:09 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Regarding Blasphemy and What is Good for Others At 10:56 AM 4/13/96 -0500, you wrote: Eldon: In a perfect world, filled with perfect people your comments to Chuck re: Blasphemy would surely be valid, as all "Dictionary Definitions" are. But we don't live in a perfect world, we live in one which is very much imperfect as are those who inhabit it. You say we should respect the rights of others to what we see as "funny beliefs". Well now, I personally see regarding the "Secret doctrine" as revealed religion is pretty funny and while I will argue against it (as we all argue against things we find misguided) I do respect the rights of those who feel that way to feel that way. But now we must come to the thoughts beliefs and actions of what is loosely called "The Religious Right" here in America. Their beliefs aren't at all "funny", their beliefs are about as acceptable in any decent society as the beliefs of the White supremecists. The American Fundamentalist is a religious totalitarian. And that is, and must be, totally unacceptable to all people with a decent respect for the rights of others. You will note that I said "religious totalitarian" because there is nothing at all "spiritual" about American Fundamentalism. The only possible way to deal with people like these is not to repect either them or their notions of the Christian religious paradigm. People like Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Lou Sheldon, James Dobson and Jerry Fallwell are all opportunists, they are all totally disrespectful of everyone, especially their own dupes, and they all preach a totalitarianism that it is the duty of all free peoples to combat. As I said to Liesel, Blasphemy in and of itself, as it relates to "God" is an impossible act. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 18:14:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 11:14 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TS on the Internet At 11:05 AM 4/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis, > >John Algeo wants Wheaton to be on the Internet, & the Board is with him. > >Nick sent me 2 www addresses that are theosophical. I found them last night. >One of them is Rodolpho's, of which the address was given out wrong the 1st >time. >The 2 I found are > http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/Theosophy.html > http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/Theosophy/Overview.html > >As for Elisabeth, part of her being terribly busy seems to consist of >reading the internet. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > > >Liesel: I found Rudolpho's Web Page (that's what I went looking for in the first place). But he's not an Official Web Page of the TSA. I'll check out the second one. But what I was looking for were Web Sites which are an official theosophical site, ie.e connected to Wheaton. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 13 18:23:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 11:23 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Being & Doing At 11:21 AM 4/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >Jerry S: > >[writing to Chuck] > > >>The purpose of life is to be, not to do. > >I'm not sure I agree. Simple beingness is only a partial >participation in life. One participates in space, and >has a static appreciation of life. Doing things brings >one to a participation in time (via state changes in >oneself and others), and moves one from static to dynamic >beingness. > >-- Eldon > >Eldon: What about this? The purpose of life is both to be, and to do. Far too many people misunderstand that "to be" as an invocation to passivity, as a declaration of neutrality in life. A person in a vegetative state is simply being, but that is hardly a complete life. One can hardly gain the experiential growth which Theosophy seems to believe is the prime reason for incarnation, if one is in a null state. Therefore "static beingness" is useless to evolution it is dynamic beingness that is productive. alexis From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Apr 13 18:51:39 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 13:51:39 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: TS on the Internet In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, alexis dolgorukii wrote: > Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 13:18:11 -0500 > From: alexis dolgorukii > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: TS on the Internet > > At 11:05 AM 4/13/96 -0500, you wrote: > >Alexis, > > > >John Algeo wants Wheaton to be on the Internet, & the Board is with him. > > > >Nick sent me 2 www addresses that are theosophical. I found them last night. > >One of them is Rodolpho's, of which the address was given out wrong the 1st > >time. > >The 2 I found are > > http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/Theosophy.html > > http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/Theosophy/Overview.html > > > >As for Elisabeth, part of her being terribly busy seems to consist of > >reading the internet. > > > >Liesel > >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > > > > > >Liesel: > > I found Rudolpho's Web Page (that's what I went looking for in the first > place). But he's not an Official Web Page of the TSA. I'll check out the > second one. But what I was looking for were Web Sites which are an official > theosophical site, ie.e connected to Wheaton. > > alexis > > Alexis: None yet, as far as I know. You may have to wait for next manvatara to see an official www. ...doss From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Apr 13 21:04:52 1996 Date: 13 Apr 96 17:04:52 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Blasphemy & Humor Message-Id: <960413210452_76400.1474_HHL48-1@CompuServe.COM> Eldon: >. We may want to make fun of the >funny ideas that people sometimes hold regarding the deeper >side of life, but should respect the actual feeling of the >sacred that those people feel with the ideas. Our intent >may be to get them to review and upgrade their thinking; >it certainly would not be to get people to stop their >appreciation of the sacred, simple because we don't like >the words that they use to describe it. Our intent may be simply to see where the other person is, spiritually. If they laugh with us, they are far along. If they cry out in moral anguish, they are standing right in front of the starting gate. Humor, Eldon. If you don't have a sense of humor, you are not a very spiritual person, irregardless of how many books you have read and years you have studied. I hate to say this in such blunt terms, but there it is. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Apr 13 21:05:09 1996 Date: 13 Apr 96 17:05:09 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: To Eldon: Do vs Be Message-Id: <960413210509_76400.1474_HHL48-5@CompuServe.COM> Jerry S: >>The purpose of life is to be, not to do. > >I'm not sure I agree. Simple beingness is only a partial >participation in life. One participates in space, and >has a static appreciation of life. Doing things brings >one to a participation in time (via state changes in >oneself and others), and moves one from static to dynamic >beingness. >-- Eldon I didn't expect you to agree, Eldon. We have discussed this one before. You are absolutely right when you say that doing gets us involved in manifestation, but when you worry about static vs dynamic, you are too deep into dualism. By "be" I don't mean just sitting around breathing. By "do" I don't mean just acting. The idea of "do" involves goals and objectives and a sense of accomplishment. The "wonderful statement" says, it matters not what we do, so all of our goals and objectives are relative and inconsequential in the final analysis. Our sense of accomplishment after "doing" is all part of maya. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Apr 13 21:05:00 1996 Date: 13 Apr 96 17:05:00 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Fundamentalism Message-Id: <960413210500_76400.1474_HHL48-3@CompuServe.COM> Liesel: >When I first read Rich, I thought all ULT members were fanatics too., Rich >isn't. I hardly think that he believes HPB is a deity. nor the Masters. I doubt if anyone ever thought HPB was a deity, Liesel. I would say that "fundamentalists" (rather than "fanatics") believe every word that she wrote is true. This is rather like the Christian fundamentalists who take every word of the Bible as true. The problem with this is that most passages are open to many different interpretations. Not every word is truly inspired. But fundamentalists cannot understand this, and honestly think that there is only one interpretation, and those who don't agree are influenced by the devil. While I have found little that HPB wrote that I don't accept, I can see a lot of her passages are open to interpretation. Eldon and I have different views on what HPB and G de P say about some subjects, for example, even though we are reading the same words. Because Eldon realizes this difference in possible interpretations, I have never called him a fundamentalist. Rich, on the other hand, seems to be saying that HPB taught us all to be morally upright, and that anyone who disagrees is not a "real" theosophist. His last posting tends to place him in the fundamentalist camp (Rich, am I wrong?). As I have said before, I hate to put labels on anyone. I am not so sure that being a fundamentalist is all that "wrong" but rather just trying to point out the distinction. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Apr 13 21:05:06 1996 Date: 13 Apr 96 17:05:06 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Psychogenesis Message-Id: <960413210505_76400.1474_HHL48-4@CompuServe.COM> Richard I: >Sometimes, however, I wonder whether there will be a future for >*psychogenesis* or not, since people ordinarily think it is primarily >concerned with academic or therapeutic psychology in some way and then often >immediately begin arguing against it on that basis. The layman gets the two confused, yes. But there is a big difference between psychology (the study of human behavior) and psychotherapy (fixing mental disorders & problems). Actually, a compare/contrast of pathological states and the spiritual Path could make for an interesting study. > Actually, psychogenesis >may be a possible way to partially reclaim the word *psyche* from the >philistines paid according to the fifty-minute-hour. Isn't it interesting >that *psyche* comes from the Greek root meaning not only "soul" but also >"butterfly"? This Greek meaning is, I thin, one reason why Jung adopted the word, while most modern psychologists avoid it. >However "cosmogenesis" or "anthropogenesis" can be successfully approached, >the understanding of the psychogenetic "heuristic overlay" seems most >dependent upon being a good observer of one's sequentially changing states of >consciousness in meditation. (I believe that someone with a high Degree of >Self-Awareness could observe exactly the same sequence in the process of >falling asleep.) The *Theosophical Pattern* is the crucial thing--whether it >is psyche-building, human-building, or cosmos-building. I clearly agree with the need for a Theosophical Pattern. I believe that G de P once wrote that one can never tell exactly when one falls alseep. This is simply not so. I have done this many times. As a matter of fact, it comes about when you hear voices. Visual dream images aren't enough. I see images first. Then, as soon as I hear a voice talking to me, off I go. It is nothing more than changing my focus of consciousness. Yet I find myself in a new body with new surroundings, and sometimes with a whole new personality complete with a new set of memories. > "--thus, I cling so strongly to the definition of *theosophy* as >"knowledge which has its base in, or at least originally derives from, >transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight.") Yes, it has to. Even Eldon agrees that this insight was from a line of Adepts. Each school of Tibetan Buddhism was generated by an Adept who passed his/her insights down through a line of disciples, who often became Adepts in turn. Its an ageless process, apparently still going on today. But it all has to go back to someone's personal direct experience of other worlds besides this physical Earth. And what we don't want to forget is that each school has differences, large or small, from each other. This demonstrates a certain "subjectivity" to all such experiences. The areas of agreement, I have called "signposts" in that most people should share those experiences. All other areas are variable, and one's experiences may or may not converge to anothers. >Anyway, I am not so optimistic at this point that I will live long enough to >see psychogenesis become a respectable idea in the Theosophical world. Nor I. Because it is just beginning. HPB would have done so herself, if modern psychology had been available to her. > Whenever I have spoken about it in talks, I have generally had the >"interesting-but-not-really-Theosophy" response (thus, my obsessive >discussion with Eldon about the limiting aspects of the capital *T*). This is because most theosophists are intellectual but not experiential. They have probably tried yoga at some point, but had no success. They are not aware of the limitations of the intellect, or human mind, even though HPB tells us time and time again that the mortal cannot know the immortal or the human the divine. Using the globes and planes model, we can say that Theosophy (cap T) is limited to the lower three cosmic planes which contain the lower 5 globes, while theosophy (little t) runs through all 7 planes and 12 globes. However, try to explain this to the human intellect, and watch it scream in protest. Sorry to hear about your book (no, I haven't read it). Maybe you could do a revision? Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Apr 13 21:04:55 1996 Date: 13 Apr 96 17:04:55 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Is Theosophy for the Few? Message-Id: <960413210454_76400.1474_HHL48-2@CompuServe.COM> >In our promoting of Theosophy, it's easy to concentrate on meeting >the needs of deep-sea divers, and forget that there are waders, >swimmers, and surfers at its shoreline, also with important needs. > >-- Eldon You may be right, Eldon, but my experience is the other way around. All TS promotion seems to me to be geared at the shoreline surfers, and damn little is available for us deep-sea divers. As I have mentioned before, this is the main reason I enjoy theos-l. It is the only place us at-large deep-sea divers can go to learn something new. Jerry S. Member, TI From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 21:08:43 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:08:43 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413170842_512970195@mail02.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Blasphemy Alex, There you go, taking things seriously again. You are really going to have to stop doing it because it is ruining some of my best jokes. Of course there is no such thing as blasphemy as far as the gods are concerned, unless you are working with one that is a bit hot tempered. It is people who create such concepts, just like good, evil, karma, rounds, chains, morality in all its forms, all the other pseudo-spiritual balderdash that we have to cut through in order to find out what is really going on. In that regard, blasphemy, as the act of getting rid of the baggage, is very good for the human soul. Chuck the Blaspheming Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 21:09:51 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:09:51 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413170951_512970767@mail06> Subject: Re: gasoline Alex, It will be interesting to see how she reacts. Chuck the Rocket Launching Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 21:10:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:10:00 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413171000_512970845@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: marvelous! Alex, You did see it. I too would love to see certain faces on occasion. I'll bet they look real cute as they get all red and round and the steam comes out of their noses and ears and then they jump up, scream at the top of their lungs, terrifying the neighbors, run around the room seven times and then sit down and write academic bullshit, working so fast that the keyboards verily burn with friction and indignation. It's great fun. I don't what I did before I discovered Theosophy. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 21:10:08 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:10:08 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413171008_512970911@emout04.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Trois Fous Alex, OK, Mad Russian Artist it is. I just hope that Alan gets out of the looney bin soon. Chuck the Barbarian MTI FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From eldon@theosophy.com Sat Apr 13 21:11:47 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 14:11:47 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960413211147.0067acd4@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Regarding Blasphemy and What is Good for Others Alexis: >You say we should respect the rights of others to what we see as >"funny beliefs". Well now, I personally see regarding the >"Secret doctrine" as revealed religion is pretty funny and while >I will argue against it (as we all argue against things we find >misguided) I do respect the rights of those who feel that way to >feel that way. That's fine. And perhaps we can have places and times where we argue the merits of "The Secret Doctrine", giving ideas pro and con. At other times, I'd hope there would be a truce long enough for people to study the contents of the book without being distracted by various disagreements with what it says. >But now we must come to the thoughts beliefs and actions of what >is loosely called "The Religious Right" here in America. Their >beliefs aren't at all "funny", their beliefs are about as >acceptable in any decent society as the beliefs of the >White supremacists. The American Fundamentalist is a religious >totalitarian. And that is, and must be, totally unacceptable to >all people with a decent respect for the rights of others. The particular beliefs that they hold could be tolerated, as long as they don't lead to objectionable actions by the fundamentalists. What they need is a tolerance for the views and lifestyles of others; their particular beliefs aren't in themselves any more harmful than those in other religions groups. I've seen people of genuine spirituality and inner depth, people holding a wide spectrum of beliefs. Part of their spirituality is in how they treat others; the tolerance and compassion in their lives make them quite easy to get along with. >You will note that I said "religious totalitarian" because there >is nothing at all "spiritual" about American Fundamentalism. Many of the followers are not spiritual. The ideas themselves are substandard from a metaphysical standpoint. But there may be quite spiritual people that still hold to those ideas, and may not be ready to move on to broader ways of thinking just yet. I wouldn't take their ideas away from them, but would allow them the right to use the ill-formed ideas as a source of comfort and inspiration until they felt the need for a broader intellectual understanding. >The only possible way to deal with people like these is not to >respect either them or their notions of the Christian religious >paradigm. People like Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Lou Sheldon, >James Dobson and Jerry Fallwell are all opportunists, they are >all totally disrespectful of everyone, especially their own dupes, >and they all preach a totalitarianism that it is the duty >of all free peoples to combat. The difficult but important insight that many fundamentalists fail to make is this: one can be sincere and 100 percent dedicated to a spiritual approach and at the same time respect different and contrary ways. What usually happens is that people see one or the other half of this truth, and either are sincere but rigid-minded, or open-minded but lacking in dedication. Realizing both truths at the same time is extremely difficult but greatly rewarding! >As I said to Liesel, Blasphemy in and of itself, as it relates >to "God" is an impossible act. While a fundamentalist would consider a contrary belief as blasphemy, that's not really what it is. I'd consider blasphemy, having consulted the dictionary and arrived at my own understanding of the term, as meaning active disrespect for the spiritual yearnings of others. This is when one has an open disregard for the sacred, and the living appreciation of it in the hearts of others. Regardless of the confused ideas that the others may hold, if their hearts are filled with a living, real, vibrant sense of the sacred, and we were to dishonor and degrade it, we would be doing blasphemy. It is the opposite type of act from inspiring, ennobling, uplifting, and spiritualizing others. -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Sat Apr 13 21:19:43 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 14:19:43 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960413211943.006761b8@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Wonderrful statement Alan: [writing to Chuck] >>Look, the universe is a value-free information system and nothing you do in >>the physical is going to have the slightest impact on your future >>incarnations. The only thing that matters is intelligence, how efficiently >>you process information, because that is what the Universe is really all >>about, but what you do with that information does not matter in the >>slightest. >What a wonderful statement of what theosophy really has to teach! Now that >statement, almost word for word, should be somewhere in the TI statement of >purpose. In fact,if a person was to ask: "What does theosophy teach?" That's >the best answer I've ever seen! You're forgetting your avowed purpose to not establish a body of required beliefs for TI. This statement is a matter of belief, and there's a number of points in it that could be disputed from the standpoint of the traditional theosophical doctrines. Without getting into discussing those points at the moment, I just thought I'd bring this up. As soon as you start associating your favorite ideas or beliefs as part of the TI platform, you'll alienate people that won't go along with the ideas. You might consider the approach taken by the former Theosophical Network. In it, any theosophical group could be listed in its directory, but there was no required beliefs, organizational commitments, objects to subscribe to, etc. There were no obligations imposed upon groups and individuals that were listed, because they weren't joining anything. They were basically allowing themselves to be listed alongside other theosophical groups and Theosophists -- nothing more. -- Eldon From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Apr 13 21:27:10 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 16:27:10 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: TS on the Internet In-Reply-To: <199604131602.MAA15591@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Liesel & Alexis: There is the www on TSA which is put up by John E Mead. Have you visited it. Still it is not official www. It is one put up by John and DeGracia. You can reach it at http://www.vnet.net/users/jem/ ....doss PS: I believe it was put together in a couple of days, did not take a Manvantara!!! On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 11:04:34 -0500 > From: liesel f. deutsch > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: TS on the Internet > > Alexis, > > John Algeo wants Wheaton to be on the Internet, & the Board is with him. > > Nick sent me 2 www addresses that are theosophical. I found them last night. > One of them is Rodolpho's, of which the address was given out wrong the 1st > time. > The 2 I found are > http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/Theosophy.html > http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/Theosophy/Overview.html > > As for Elisabeth, part of her being terribly busy seems to consist of > reading the internet. > > Liesel > Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > > but John Algeo? My expereinces with him thus far are nil, as he > does't respond to my letters, but I would be surprised if he couldn't see > how useful the Internet can be. > > From Richtay@aol.com Sat Apr 13 21:39:47 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:39:47 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960413173946_374837771@emout04.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Don't faint! Alexis writes, > There are a lot of things about the Gnostics that I agree with, the > one thing I disagree with is their Christianity. The other thing I disagree > with is their unrelenting dualism. Not all Gnostics were dualists. The Valentinians -- the most respected school in antiquity -- taught a monistic Godhead, which only achieved dualism through manifestation. There is no good-evil dichotomy. Plotinus probably wasn't arguing with these Gnostics, but more likely with the Jewish-centered sects e.g. Sethians (who claimed an apocryphal decent from Adam's son Seth, the "Revealer"). They were FIERCELY dualist, in reaction to rigidity among the more zealous Jews as to their Almighty and his All-goodness. Sethians taught that the traditional Jahweh was evil along with the entire universe he created -- but a higher, transcendent God existed. Even in this extreme dualism there is a hidden hint as to the gulf between matter and spirit. (See Gershom Scholem, *Jewish Mysticism*) Though they may be two poles on one spectrum, still, "the self of matter and the self of spirit may never meet." (*The Voice of the Silence*) Alexis continues, The same is true, in a way, with > Buddhism. With Gautama's basic ideas, I totally agree, with what time and > disicples have done to those ideas, I do NOT agree. I think Mahayana > Buddhism is a reincarnation of all those things in the Brahmanic Religion > that Gautama was rebelling against. This is mighty tough. We don't have ANY CLUE what the Buddha actually taught from his lips, just as we haven't ANY CLUE what Jesus himself spoke (on the mount, on the plain, or in any other conflicting version of the Beatitudes, for example). All we have are what the disciples preserved, first in oral tradition, then in many SEPARATE streams of written tradition. No stream agrees completely with any other. The first WRITTEN Buddhist documents date from around 100 BCE to 100 CE. That leaves, by most estimates, 400 years from Buddha himself to the earliest text. How, Alexis, will you decide what was the Buddha's, and what was His disciple's, works? Could you list for me some of Gautama's "basic ideas"? From all accounts, it seems the Buddha did indeed teach karma: it's in all the earliest texts as well as in the Mahayana (which, by the way, is not NECESSARILY a later development, their texts appear in history as early as the Hinyana ones). Finally, Alexis writes, I certtainly don't believe in Karma, as > either Buddhism or Theosophy teaches it. But then I don't have to, because > Karma isn't mentioned at all in the three objects, is it? Even if it were mentioned in the Three Objects, would you feel forced to believe it? Who cares what the Objects, or Radha, or the Danes, or anything or anyone else says? What's that to you and me? To me Theosophy isn't about "fanatical" re-statements as to the wonderfulness of *The Secret Doctrine* or any other allegedly "revealed" text (what idiot is running around claiming THAT?). Nor is it predicated upon the divine perfection of Our Lady, Her Holiness Madame Blavatsky. Her personality, in all its complexity, is pretty irrelevant to the philosophy she delivered. Theosophy is practice, Theosophy is understanding, Theosophy is inner growth with the intent to benefit all. There is no need for orthodoxy, or agreement, or even playing "nice." If this list wants to be vicious as hell, by all means. (Curious, though, why so few newcomers seem to be posting. Hmmm -- wonder how I would feel if I signed on to this board looking for what Theosophy teaches, and found only insults and polemic?) From Richtay@aol.com Sat Apr 13 21:39:52 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:39:52 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <199604132139.RAA04279@emout06.mail.aol.com> Apparently-To: theos-l@vnet.net on good authority rthat the ULT has perhaps one thousand > members world-wide, I'm not sure which are the "other two" that make up your > five. I'll take quality over quantity any day, and that goes for my good friends in the Pasadena T.S. as well. Those folks do tremendously good work, and there is little to no friction between Pasadena and ULT. Just two weekends ago, I attended the William Q. Judge gathering, hosted by ULT and Pasadena T.S. jointly. It was smooth, enjoyable, and truly informative. (And yes, I saw Eldon there, I know he has already posted a report to the board). So what if the numbers are small? I'd rather have 3 adepts than a nation full of fools. But just for the record, ULT has quite a few thousand worldwide. I don't believe the associates have ever been counted, per se, but judging solely from the number of associate letters that go out annually, we are looking at perhaps 4 or 5,000. I would be curious, Alexis, as to the source of your "good authority." As for "superannuated," in the ULT there are quite a few young ones. I am 26, and there are many active members younger than me, in their teens and early twenties. Not to mention Theosophy School for kids. I would say, however, the median age is around 45 or 50. The only "authority" is our OWN understanding of the philosophy. I check with no one before I post on Theos-L, and I say what I like. And I have significant disagreements with a few other ULT students. So what? If you folks are having such problems with the TS Adyar/Wheaton, and you are so unhappy, why not do something else and leave those people alone? From Richtay@aol.com Sat Apr 13 21:40:00 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:40:00 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960413174000_374837869@mail04> Subject: Re: Gnostics vs. "Founding materialists" Chuck writes, > I > would remind you that when something like the Nag Hammadi Library hits it > tends to create a new fashion in scholarship which may not be any more > accurate than the older views. This is truly often the case. But surely we all agree that having, for the first time, complete texts used by the Gnostics themselves in their own words is far superior to polemic quotes in the works of their enemies! > In truth, much of what their > Christian enemies had to say about them was true and had to be in order to > persuade the gnostics they were trying to convert to listen. What's the evidence for this? Rather, I think the target audience of the Christian Fathers was the Roman government and their own good Christians flock, housing at it did many secret Gnostics. Irenaeus, in continuing the process toward canonization of the "Scriptures" which Marcion began, complained bitterly that "the Gnostics say the same prayers, attend the same ceremonies, read the same texts as the real Christians do, and yet meet secretly at night to discuss the inner meaning of the Scriptures." The Church Fathers were very distressed as well that while their own leaders were being martyred, the Gnostics felt no such compunction, they saw nothing to be gained by sacrificing the body to the government for an exoteric profession of faith. If you have counter evidence as to the audience of the Church Fathers polemic writings against the Gnostics, I'm all ears. > The gnostics were real characters in their day, in many ways much like modern > pentecostals in their worship, with many of the long, incomprehensible > invocations being the glossalalia of the worshipers written down and ossified > in text form. I assume you are referring to "mantras"? It is not clear whether this is, as you say, more similar to Pentecostals, or more similar to modern day Hindu teachers passing on sacred sounds which help the practitioner rise above mundane life. As for their being real characters, sure. Why not? But there is good evidence that the Gnostics were actually Jewish Buddhists, influence by missionaries sent west under King Ashoka in 252-3 BCE. HPB is not the only one to state this. See *The Original Jesus: the Buddhist Origins of Christianity*, 1995, by two respected German scholars. Good stuff, lots of data and not just groundless assertions. > materialistic > determinism views the cosmos as a closed system. In such a system, there is > no leeway for action and the view of Karma as expressed in the Key to > Theosophy is a perfect example of such a cosmology. ----CUT----- > So we have a problem in interpreting the thought of HPB, because she seems > to be advocating two mutually exclusive concepts, a universe where everything > is tightly close, in which case a strict behavioral code is essential to > spiritual progress on one hand (which would make the good Victorians in their > red flannel waistcoats very happy) and a system of duality in which matter is > temporary and the despised creation of the demiurge, existing to be either > put down or outraged as the path to spiritual liberation. Your thinking appears (excuse me) confused. A closed system of matter does not exclude co-adunated sphere or planes over and above and around such a system. You say there is no room left for action, and then suggest a strict code of action was enforced. HUH? HPB time and time again asserts the illusory nature of matter. But that illsory matter in its effects upon our illusory personalities is very real on its own plane. If she (and we must not forget her Teachers were involved too) truly wanted to help us poor Theosophists wake up, she had to give teachings which could be used and understood by the little personality (which most of are functioning in, most of the time, deluded fools that we (including me) are), as well as point out the transcendent reality, the monad which we truly are and its manvantaric life. Which itself is probably not the final story ... This is not a difficulty interpreting, but a difficulty APPLYING the teachings. Neither side of the picure painted is false, but the lower one is considerably relativized when compared to the "higher" story. No obfuscation here, just a hesitancy to "confound the planes." > Now we know, from our science alone, that materialistic determinism does not > hold sway. If it did, there could be no quantum mechanics, but the good > Victorians did not know this. So, facing the discernable reality that God > does play at dice, Whoa, Nelly! What makes you think science now has the final word? In the words of that immortal beloved, Einstein, "God does NOT play dice with the universe." Even in chaos theory, there is the critique from the systems theory people that chaos is misunderstood order. Why are we so quick to blast the poor Victorians for their sad little world view, while assuming that ours is the last and final one? Is it not possible that quantum theory is itself just another step along the way to total understanding? And wouldn't it be a riot (oops, that five Theosophists gathered) if science finally comes around to the position of the Secret Doctrine, of vast ordered hierarchies of intelligence functioning on an inconceivable number of planes? This appears to be the teaching of Mahayana Buddhism as well, discussed in the *Vimilakirtinirdesha Sutra*, the *Avatamsaka Sutra* (I am referring to the "Indra's Net," passage, etc. The same teaching comes up in Plotinus's Enneads on the teaching of the Many and the One. And last, but not least, our little Gnostics, teaching the doctrine of the 7 sphere, each headed by a conscious hierarch (whether evil in the Sethian system or merely neutral in the Valentinian), beyond which is the Pleroma of infinite delight and union with the ALL. > HPB ...was capable of soaring in her spirit far beyond the reaches of > her physical self and such illumination would have put her in a position to > see that the actions of a single lifetime count for nothing in the great > scheme of existence. It is simply too short. We all know the Chinese proverb, "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." How can we say the actions of a single short physical life are meaningless? Our karma today is the accumulationg of thousands of earthly life, in whatever form. Today we throw more fuel into the fire in forming our futures. Why is this so disputed? It may well be true that the monad has a life of its own, unaffected by physical karma. This doesn't mean that it isn't present, overshadowing our present, suffering through our travails, enjoying our spiritual successes. This is the meaing of the "great sacrifice" of the Manasaputras, or "Sons of Mind," who incarnate among men, "who are themselves." From eldon@theosophy.com Sat Apr 13 21:58:06 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 14:58:06 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960413215806.006a7400@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Blasphemy & Humor Jerry S: >Our intent may be simply to see where the other >person is, spiritually. If they laugh with us, they are far along. >If they cry out in moral anguish, they are standing right in >front of the starting gate. That may help us judge them, but should we be testing people and playing guru to them, or treat them with greater respect? Some people may choose the role of trickster, but I'm not sure that it's the best way to promote Theosophy and the spiritual Path. >Humor, Eldon. If you don't have a sense of humor, you are >not a very spiritual person, regardless of how many books >you have read and years you have studied. Humor is important, and when we can freely laugh about something, it means that we don't have any inner conflicts in that area. Sometimes, though, certain subjects have considerable unconscious content associated with them; there may be buried feelings and inner conflicts that need to be sorted out, and the joke turns sour in someone's eyes and they are upset. A victim of sexual abuse as a child may not like sexual oriented jokes when growing up. Someone with angry feelings in a certain direction may not like jokes that mock things they are sensitive about. Jokes that appear mean-spirited and mocking in an abusive way are not appreciated. One of us may not like "theosophical buffoon" jokes, another might not like "stupid psychics" jokes. Sometimes the objection to humor is that it is insensitive, appearing to be callous, mocking in a bitter way, and out of place. This may not be the intention of the jokester, but still seen and felt as such. In this case, the offended people need to ask the jokester "is this what you intended?" and the jokester needs to clarify their intentions. Consider this example of jokes that would be out-of-place. Say there's a gathering of theosophists holding a sacred seasons meeting, where they are gathered to express appreciation for life and feel as a group some reverence for the majesty of life. Some college students, drunk, come barging into the meeting, along with some barking dogs, flying chickens, etc., like in some low-grade movie. The pranksters may feel they've had a good joke, and the theosophists may disagree. I wouldn't simply put it that the theosophists are lacking in a sense of humor and therefore unspiritual tyros. A good joke is funny, and it's great to have a laugh at times. But we have to consider if something is really a joke, or if it is a guise for other motivations? Is the intent to bring a smile to everyones' faces and to brighten their hearts, or is it to goad people one thinks are uptight into losing their cool, getting angry, and losing their tempers? That would not be humor and joking, it would be the act of a troubled child with an attention-seeking disorder. Someone doing this might hide behind saying "I have a sense of humor and they don't!" As I said, though, we cannot judge the motivations of another, but should simply ask them what they intended, and give them every opportunity to put things in the best possible light (e.g. that they did not mean ill and everything's fine and we're all still buddies and let's get on with life etc.) I'm certainly not averse to humor myself, with both a six-year-old girl and one-year-old boy around the house! There's a lot of joking that goes on, good natured laughing, etc. >I hate to say this in such blunt terms, but there it is. You don't really think that tricksters are the only ones with a sense of humor? I'd agree that it's possible for someone to be in dead earnest about the Path, regarding it with a life-or-death seriousness, yet be light-hearted and having a good sense of humor. But I'm not sure they would idly stand by and laugh if they thought the sublime Mysteries were subject to public mockery and disgrace! But this is not what I think you mean; you're referring to the inability to laugh, smile, and not always see life in dark, heavy terms. -- Eldon From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 22:09:36 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 18:09:36 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413180936_271179635@emout04.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Regarding Blasphemy and What is Good for Others Eldon, If you watch every word you say you never get anything said. Your idea has a certain merit, but it is practically impossible. And some ideas (and people) are simply not worth respect. Even so, there is a difference between blasting a deity who may or may not exist and telling a historic truth and then watching someone have a gran mal siezure. The siezure is unfortunate, but the statement is still true. In any event, one must not be controlled by the tender sensitivities of those who have no intention of respecting yours. Otherwise we are going to get back into the fight over political correctness and we are still bruised and limping from that one. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 22:10:33 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 18:10:33 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413181033_271180124@emout04.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The Few???? Alex, I just hope that Jerry realizes that I did not mean that he was obnoxious. You know the ones I mean. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 13 22:10:46 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 18:10:46 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960413181046_271180269@mail04> Subject: Re: Being & Doing Alex, Eldon and Jerry, I must have either missed the post or passed over the phrase while reading it at three in the morning. In any event, I will risk offending Alex by quoting William Gray in his "Magickal Ritual Methods" "A mystic is concerned with being, a magician with doing." That pretty well sums up the difference between the two paths and as I, and I presume Jerry are magicians... And I am not entirely persuaded that life has a purpose, at least not as we understand the concept. Something else entirely may be going on. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 13 20:04:30 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 21:04:30 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Wonderrful statement In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960413034101.006a8e5c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960413034101.006a8e5c@mail.deltanet.com>, "Eldon B. Tucker" writes >My hope is that TI will respect this neutrality and give as much >respect to Theosophists and it may pay to Jewish Kabbalists, >Christians, Buddhists, Jungians, and even the Politically Correct! > >-- Eldon "... in amity with all theosophical organisations." For goodness' sake: isn't that clear enough? Kabbalists etc., all have their theosophical aspects, and the "universal human family" of the first TI object means "universal" and not "universal except for ..." The TI statement is extremely clear about its purpose - why the need for nit-picking about things that are NOT IN IT? Alan [sigh!] --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 13 19:50:14 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 20:50:14 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: The Few In-Reply-To: <960413003756_76400.1474_HHL30-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960413003756_76400.1474_HHL30-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >Alexis: >>I can't begin to tell you how much I hate that "only for the few stuff". >Nick: >Alan: >>.. she wrote hundreds of pages of material for a couple of dozen >>people? Not very likely. > > Look at the membership of the TS. Then look at the >world's population. Then tell me that we are not the "few." >How may people have actually read the SD? sadly, even fewer. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > One of the Few > While you have a valid observation, my point is that HPB did not *write* for the few but for the many. That the many may not have taken her up would not change her original intention. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 13 20:07:47 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 21:07:47 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: mice In-Reply-To: <960413005451_468800317@mail04> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960413005451_468800317@mail04>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Sorry about that, just having a fit of humor. :-) :-) >giggle giggle giggle > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Do try to keep it under control - surely you have a machine that can do this? Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 13 20:05:24 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 21:05:24 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: instant enlightenment In-Reply-To: <960413005244_468799443@emout10.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960413005244_468799443@emout10.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >How nice, do they let you out alone or do you have an attendant? > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker Two attendants - one to stop me from murdering barbarians. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 13 20:22:14 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 21:22:14 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Railroad In-Reply-To: <960413074551_190322011@emout06.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960413074551_190322011@emout06.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Now if you will excuse me, I have to go tie my girlfriend to the railroad >tracks. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Chuck ... you forgot to untie her from last time. The railroad company are looking for you, as several trains are waiting in line to get through ..... SUED --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 13 20:23:04 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 21:23:04 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Wonderrful statement In-Reply-To: <960413074557_190322023@emout07.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960413074557_190322023@emout07.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Eldon, >I would hope that TI is open and broad enough to encompass all of us, >including the most fundamentalist. After all, if we exclude everyone foolish >enough to disagree with us, who will we have to argue with at meetings? > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker Chuck the Barbarian. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 13 19:58:53 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 20:58:53 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: HPB In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , JRC writes > There is a regard, I think, for HPB on this list that is so >deep, so assumed, that it is rarely even stated. I agree - and have that very deep regard for her. I don't think she was a saint, though. Whether she was a saint or a sinner is irrelevant - her work lives on, and without her work we would not have much to talk about at all. According the Shakespeare: "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 13 19:52:55 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 20:52:55 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Re missing www home pages In-Reply-To: <199604130124.VAA27730@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604130124.VAA27730@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. deutsch" writes >That's all I know..they >were there...and now they're not! What itmeans I can only guess. > >Alexis, I hope it doesn't mean that some nut decided the TSA isn't going to >be on the Internet. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > The way I heard it they plan something for later in the year - maybe it is simply that they are working on it - though why they would want to remove existing references is a puzzle. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 13 23:03:08 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:03:08 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604140007.UAA12677@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Eldon, Re: B;asphemy, & what is good for others. Dear Eldon, Thank you for those thoughtful words. When I look at Chuck's humor in the light of CWL's idea of thought forms & their effect, I shudder. Liesel member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 13 23:03:12 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:03:12 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604140007.UAA12684@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Alexis Re: Blasphemy etc. Alexis, I wonder whether you've found anyone on this list who views the SD as revealed religion, or the masters as Gods. I know such people exist, but you're not reaching them, I don't think. And how did you get from there to the "religious right"? I didn't follow your thinking. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 13 23:03:17 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:03:17 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604140007.UAA12688@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Ti: Jerry re: Blasphemy & Humor Jerry, I don't agree with you. There's humor & there's humor. I think just to rip every thing & everyone down just for the h... of it is funy weird, & not funny haha. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 13 23:03:21 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:03:21 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604140007.UAA12691@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: tO: Eldon Re: Fundamentalists > But there may >be quite spiritual people that still hold to those ideas, and >may not be ready to move on to broader ways of thinking just yet. Right you are. What you said just reminded me, when I worked in Hacksack NJ, there was an older black woman, Naomi, working in my office. She taught in a born again sunday school. We talked religion a lot. This woman was quite sincere, & quite spiritual, & we found we had a lot in common to talk about .. always provided she didn't get around to trying to get me to "Come to Jesus". But even there, her motives were spiritual. She liked me, & wanted me to be saved. I accepted her feelings & wishes, while telling her that I was already "saved" in my own way. That wasn't something she could accept, but on lots of other metaphysical issues we saw eye to eye. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Apr 14 00:13:23 1996 Date: 13 Apr 96 20:13:23 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Gnostics vs. "Founding materialists" Message-Id: <960414001322_76400.1474_HHL78-1@CompuServe.COM> Rich Taylor: >Yet who are these amorphous "Gnostics"? Are they opposed to moral teachings >and karma? HPB mentions the Ophites, the Marconites, and quite a few others. They were a very diverse bunch, rather like Christians. Many practiced magic. Some practiced sexual magic. Others were repulsed by sexual magic. Its hard to say "the Gnostics taught that ..." without a qualifier, just like you and I agreed was necessary for Buddhism. >What better way to undermine threatening esoteric teachers than by maiming >them morally during their lives, or preferably after they are dead when they >can't argue anymore? While I have no great love for Christians per se, I don't think their intention was to deliberately distort the Gnostics in order to discredit them. There are very real differences in Gnostic moral values and Christian ones. Christians love Jehovah. The Gnostics consider Jehovah (the creator) to be Satan and hate him, and so on. The Christians were appalled at the Gnostic practice of magic, especially in its sexual forms. Well, they really did practice these things. Possibly the only real aggreement they had, was that Earth was a kind of hell, and Heaven was where one wanted to escape to. There are several passages in the Nag Hammadi texts to suggest they believed in reincarnation and karma, and that even those who practiced magic had a strong sense of ethics and morals. But, alas, the real kicker was that they did not teach Jesus was the only son of God, nor did he die for our sins, etc. This very real difference in teaching was enough for the Christians to argue against them. >Why, we see this taking place in Theos-L daily, where people who want to >think their own way find it necessary to slash and burn HPB in order to >clear-cut a path for themselves. If one cannot assault the philosophy of HPB >or the Gnostics, slander them morally, make them hypocritical demons, and >then the difficult philosophy can be backgrounded. It is an old and >time-honored tradition of the black-hearted. Rich, your fundamentalism is showing. Would you like to tie us to the stake, and really show us your zeal for the Truth? >It is probably true, however, that some Gnostics, in their contempt of the >worldly laws and the Creator who ordained them, became sexually quite giddy >and imagined themselves free of karma. Here is exactly why HPB liked the Gnostics, Rich, and it is a shame that you don't see it. They taught that personal direct experience or samadhi results in Gnosis, or a Seer of Truth. This frees them from the karmic restrictions of past lives. This is, I would point out, exactly the teaching of several schools of Tibetan Buddhism even today and is probably the chief diffference between esoteric and exoteric teaching on karma. >...grotesquely misinterpreting its Founders as "materialistic determinists". But they were, at least in the sense of followers of Newton's determinism. The TS founders all believed that if a person could only gain more knowledge, they would eventually understand the world and how it works (G de P, I think, says exactly this somewhere). Adepts were people with more knowledge. HPB hints that this is so, that by gaining esoteric knowledge, all things are possible. Today we know that this kind of determinism simply isn't true. However, they obviously were not "materialsitic" in the sense of only believing in matter and the physical plane. The teaching that the law of karma is a remorseless unending chain of cause and effect is pure determinism. Alexis says that he doesn't believe in karma this way. Neither do I. If I am "grotesquely misinterpreting" HPB here, then so be it. However, I see HPB as teaching out of two sides of her mouth, so to speak: exoterically to the masses, and esoterically to "those who have ears to hear." When I first joined theos-l, I had expected that theosophists would all be in the second group. They aren't. Thats ok, but I still feel the need to tell others how I feel, and why. If you don't agree with me, thats ok too. But please don't use the excuse "HPB said" as your justification. Sometimes what she hints at is much more important than what she actually says. >Please document, if you will, the assertions that (1) HPB or her Teachers >were materialistic determinists (2) that HPB ever quotes approvingly from >supporters of anti-ethical or amoral philosophies or behaviors. They were, in the sense that I mention above--that they believed our physical world was largely determinable if one had the knowledge. This was the spirit of the day back then. HPB argued against this scientific attitude only in the sense that she felt esoteric or spiritual knowledge (i.e., Gnosis) was needed rather than more mathematics. IMHO even Gnosis won't help, because our world is not deterministic. Karma is not an unbreakable chain going on forever, nor will it ever come to an end by doing good deeds and cultivating moralistic attitudes (and you can call me black-hearted for this if you want to, but I am convinced that it is true). As to the second part of your paragraph, HPB quoted only those who she wanted to quote--those that would support her aim. Her aim was to establish a world-wide fellowship, and such a thing must have a strong sense of ethics in order for its members to survive. Today the TSs are in pieces and membership is decreasing to worrisome proportions, and members even in TI argue and bicker. Was she right to have emphasized ethics so much? I think we must wait another hundred years or so to tell, but she may have made a mistake because religions are founded on ethics, and her beloved Theosophy is slowly becomming a religion, albeit a small one. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Apr 14 00:13:25 1996 Date: 13 Apr 96 20:13:25 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: The Self as Data Processor Message-Id: <960414001325_76400.1474_HHL78-2@CompuServe.COM> >Jerry, are you serious? You're nothing more than an intelligent information >processor? > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, Ts in Canada, HR What do we take with us, when we die? Our experiences, which are our personal processed data or intelligence in the form of memories, are all we have, Liesel. HPB calls this the "aroma" of the past life. Its all we have, but its also all we really need. Jerry S. Member, TI I From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Apr 14 00:13:29 1996 Date: 13 Apr 96 20:13:29 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re:Survival Message-Id: <960414001329_76400.1474_HHL78-3@CompuServe.COM> Alexis, in addition to Adyar, Pasadena, and ULT, there is also Hyclone (spelling???) or the Temple of the People, and the Point Loma group. As far as I know, membership of Adyar is the largest, followed by Pasadena, and then ULT, and then Point Loma, and finally The Temple of the People. I am sure that all members put together would be less than 1% of the world's popluation (probably less than .5%). The future does not look real bright considering the goal of universal brotherhood. Jerry S. Member, TI From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 13 23:37:51 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:37:51 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604140042.UAA02589@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Doss, Re: home page by John & Don Hi, Doss, Thanks for the address. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 13 23:47:35 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:47:35 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604140051.UAA07526@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Rich >If you folks are having such problems with the TS Adyar/Wheaton, and you are >so unhappy, why not do something else and leave those people alone? Rich T > my sentiments exactly. All this panning is a tremendous waste of time & energy. I've said that before, but I guess a few people on this list are so angry they need to let off steam, & don't listen. We should be doing something else, more constructive, & valuable. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun Apr 14 00:00:56 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 20:00:56 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604140105.VAA12612@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Eldon Re; Blasphemy & Humor Agree 100% with what you say. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun Apr 14 00:10:23 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 20:10:23 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604140114.VAA17594@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Chuckles Re: Blasphemy etc. >And some ideas (and people) >are simply not worth respect. Dear Chuck, I wonder whether those sick jokes of yours are your attempt at earning our respect. Also, I would suggest that if you're going to use medical terms, you first learn to spell them right. It's "grand mal seizure", and I wouldn't wish one of those on my worst enemy. Liesel Member TI,TSA, TS Canada, HR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 97 16:04:21 PDT From: "Mika Perala" Subject: Science and Spirit Foundation Message-ID: Hello everyone! Check out the "Science and Spirit Foundation" web page at www.parascience.org. You`ll find articles on theosophy, occultism, astrology, shamanism, social commentaries etc. Science and Spirit Foundation is a venue where you can exchange opinions and share your knowledge with others. The more you know the less easier it is to lie to you! Mika From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 00:37:17 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Krotona e-mail Message-ID: <3350710D.6EF9@eden.com> Hi I just found out that Krotona now has e-mail. The address is: krotona@jetlink.net. One of these days all of us will be linked by e-mail and snail mail will be history, like horse buggy. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 00:46:22 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: e-mail addresses Message-ID: <3350732E.53E@eden.com> As time goes on, more and more of the theosophical organizations and branches and centers and members around the world are accessible by e-mail. It would be an invaluable information to have a list of all e-mail addresses of the above. If any of you know of any of them, please post here. MKR ramadoss@eden.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 00:50:25 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Pumpkin Hollow is now on e-mail Message-ID: <33507421.4046@eden.com> I just found out that Pumpkin Hollow is now on e-mail. The address is: pumpkin@taconic.net E-mail access is going to be very useful. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 00:37:17 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Krotona e-mail Message-ID: <3350710D.6EF9@eden.com> Hi I just found out that Krotona now has e-mail. The address is: krotona@jetlink.net. One of these days all of us will be linked by e-mail and snail mail will be history, like horse buggy. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 00:50:25 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Pumpkin Hollow is now on e-mail Message-ID: <33507421.4046@eden.com> I just found out that Pumpkin Hollow is now on e-mail. The address is: pumpkin@taconic.net E-mail access is going to be very useful. mkr ------------------------------ End of THEOS-NEWS Digest 110 **************************** From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 15 01:06:39 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 21:06:39 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604150210.WAA13374@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Corrections Yes Liesel > >Below is the (corrected!) revised version for the consideration of >TI members, as also mentioned in a separate post. If you accept >this revision which seeks to extend the potential outreach of TI >into the community at large, as well as the specifically >theosophical organisations, please send a "YES" or "NO" vote to >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > >If you have already voted, apologies for this repeat, which has >been bulk-mailed. > >If you do not reply, a "YES" vote will be assumed. > >If you wish to be removed from the TI membership list, please >advise as above. >------------------------------------------------------------------- >Revised statement begins: > >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises free men and women who >subscribe to the spirit of the three objects first formulated by >the Theosophical Society, but in a more up-to-date form based on >suggestions by members of the internet community, and expressed >thus: > >1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family, without >distinction of sex, 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 mysteries of nature and unrealized >human potential and abilities, at the same time respecting all >life. > >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is a voluntary 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. > >We hope to be of service, and to share what we have >in amity with other theosophical, occult, and esoteric >organizations. > >To join, send an e-mail message asking to be registered to > >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > >or give your name and other details you wish to share to the >member who introduced you to Theosophy International. >---------------------------------------------------------------- > >"TI" has members in seven countries. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > > From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Apr 14 22:27:09 1996 Date: 14 Apr 96 18:27:09 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Do vs Be Message-Id: <960414222709_76400.1474_HHL107-1@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: >Of course yopu're right there. but preaching at Humans to "be" rather than >to do, usually results in deep misunderstanding. Most Humans understand "be" >as "sit on your ass, and while you clearly understand that it doesn't mean >that. How do you propose to es\xplain it to "Joe Sixpack"? That's what >theosophy is all about, I think, to explain abstract reality as best as >possible to "Joe Sixpack". Joe Sixpack? I wasn't even able to explain it to a single family member, who all consider me a black sheep for leaving the Christian Science fold. I still recall one evening when I was young, when my grandparents came for a visit. My grandfather was in his early 80s at the time (he died at 90). He was a bit depressed, and began talking about old age. He stated, loudly, that all old people should be lined up and shot because they no longer contributed anything to society. Now, it turns out that this idea was prevelant with the American Indians, but my grandfather was German, and spoke from his heart rather than from a philosophy. So, you are right, Alexis, people don't understand the difference between be and do. They think that life is doing, and when there is no longer anything constructive to do, they die. I was not able to help my grandfather (no one else could either, except maybe my grandmother who told him to shut up). I suspect that I will be unable to give much solice to Joe Sixpack either. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Apr 14 22:27:12 1996 Date: 14 Apr 96 18:27:12 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Humor Message-Id: <960414222711_76400.1474_HHL107-2@CompuServe.COM> >>If you don't have >>a sense of humor, you are not a very spiritual person, >>irregardless of how many books you have read and years >>you have studied. > >Wow! I must be real holy! :-) > >Alan Alan, you are. You are. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Apr 14 22:27:25 1996 Date: 14 Apr 96 18:27:25 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re:Survival Message-Id: <960414222724_76400.1474_HHL107-6@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: >>Jerry; It's Halcyon, and I've been told it's no longer extant. Sorry to hear that. I recently downloaded some of their material from the New Age Forum on Compuserve, and so I naturally thought they were still around. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Apr 14 22:27:20 1996 Date: 14 Apr 96 18:27:20 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Advise to Newbies Message-Id: <960414222719_76400.1474_HHL107-4@CompuServe.COM> Bee: >I have tried to tell you what it feels like to try to join in on this list >when one isn't used to airing one's views in public. It is fine for all you >who feel comfortable doing that but when a newbie has a go and gets >flattened then why do it again? We are all newbies at some point, Bee. The real challenge for me on theos-l is controlling my ego. If I can keep my emotions and personal feelings under control then theos-l can offer nothing that will hurt me. Theosophy teaches me to downplay the ego, and to try to *be* egoless. Theos-l provides me with a real chance to practice what I have been studying. Sometime I get angry, and fail. But somethimes I can laugh it off, and usually feel the better for it. I usually know, when I write something, that I will get flamed for it, but if I really feel strongly about it, I will post it anyway (I hope that everyone does this). Then I sit back, read the responses, and see how my ego reacts. Its good theosophical practice, and as Eldon says, we also get to practice our writing styles. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Apr 14 22:27:24 1996 Date: 14 Apr 96 18:27:24 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: To:Jerry Re: human word processor Message-Id: <960414222723_76400.1474_HHL107-5@CompuServe.COM> Liesel: >The minute you quote HPB as using the word "aroma", you get away from the >idea of a word processor. WP's don't have an aroma, but I think what a >person takes with them has such intangibles. From a "word processor" yes. But we were talking about a data processor, which is a lot more generic (a word processor is a very specific data processor). Our brains, for example, are data processors. Our memories are processed data. As for "aroma" I don't think HPB meant smell or odor. I think she meant the "essence" of one's life. Our "aroma" (her word, not mine) will contain all of our processed memories and the karmic burden of our past life. The latter are in the form of 'shistas' or seeds: the reminants of our past life which will be used as a foundation for the next one. These too are a type of processed data. I am not a "human word processor" but rather a "human data processor." We all are. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Apr 14 22:27:15 1996 Date: 14 Apr 96 18:27:15 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: To: Jerry Re; Gnostics Message-Id: <960414222715_76400.1474_HHL107-3@CompuServe.COM> >Jerry > >I really think that occultists need to be ethical. Otherwise you blow up >Nagasaki, >& steal ova out of unsuspecting women, & we haven't as yet figured out how >to ethically use recombinant DNA. > >Liesel What can I say, Liesel? I can't argue with you, and won't. This may be the hundredth time I have said this, but let me say say it one more time: I am not opposed to ethics, and I believe that ethics comprises the first step that we must take if we are to tread the spiritual Path. What I am opposed to, is forced ethics. Ethics usually has to be forced onto children as they grow up in order to be good citizens and so on. At some point in our life, there really should come a time when we are spontaneously ethical, without having to think about it, or worry about how "morally upright" we are. Theosophists who concern themselves with how ethical they, or their neighbors are, are still working on the first step of the Path. While this can be expected of Newbies, I have a hard time wondering why oldtimers are still stuck on this step, when they should be well along. I know that you don't worry about such things, Liesel, and I can sense from your postings that you are well into the second step, of developing compassion. You, for example, don't try to rub my nose in right and wrong, nor point out to me what HPB and Judge have to say about the importance of ethics. We both already know that it is important. I simply feel that it is also important to move onto the next step, and show some compassion. Compassionate people don't try to judge others (while I judge postings and viewpoints, I really do try not to judge people). Compassionate people are spontaneously ethical. OK, off my soapbox, and back to my quiet room... Jerry S. Member, TI From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 14 22:41:00 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 15:41 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: free at last! At 02:50 PM 4/14/96 -0500, you wrote: >In message <960413171008_512970911@emout04.mail.aol.com>, >Drpsionic@aol.com writes >>Alex, >>OK, Mad Russian Artist it is. I just hope that Alan gets out of the looney >>bin soon. >> >>Chuck the Barbarian MTI FTSA >>Heretic >>Troublemaker > >I escaped this afternoon, all four legs intact. :-) > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Oh Good! I have a feeling you're needed soon. We went house hunting again, down to a decision between two properties, both of which we really like, and now it's up to our banker! Denali very much favours one of them, but it's a flat acre for him to dash wildly about on! We should have it all settled in a week or two. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 14 22:54:00 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 15:54 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: applause! At 02:46 PM 4/14/96 -0500, you wrote: >On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: Alexis comments on JRC's statement: Hear - hear! I applaud your honesty and insight. If I'm not careful I'llbecome the least outrageous on the list! But you are right and Eldon is very very wrong. All things considered, I'd say he is contemptuous, at least of the beliefs of others if they disagree with his own ideas. Like Richard Taylor he has a tendency to being condescending and patronizing, making it appear as if his entirely HYPOTHETICAL TRUTHS are superior to anyone else's perceptions, especially if they are based upon the higher senses. I think that perhaps the division on this board is not between "revisionists" and "Traditionalists" (no matter which way your define them) but between intellectual hypothetecists such as Eldon, Richard Taylor, and Richard Ihle and the "sensitives" whose perceptions of theosophy and the "sacred" (a term I really dislike) are not brain based! alexis >> This is one of those times when I go back to the dictionary. >> The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as: >> >> AHD> 1.a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing >> AHD> concerning God or a sacred entity; b. The act of claiming >> AHD> for oneself the attributes and rights of God. 2. An >> AHD> irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard >> AHD> to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct. >> >> With the first definition, I'd say that expressions of >> contempt for the sacred would certainly be offensive to >> those that respect it. We may want to make fun of the >> funny ideas that people sometimes hold regarding the deeper >> side of life, but should respect the actual feeling of the >> sacred that those people feel with the ideas. Our intent >> may be to get them to review and upgrade their thinking; >> it certainly would not be to get people to stop their >> appreciation of the sacred, simple because we don't like >> the words that they use to describe it. > The dictionary only tells part of the story. The >*intent* to blaspheme probably matters more in practice than >the blasphemy itself. The charge of "blasphemy" has been used >throughout the ages as a reason to put people *who didn't >believe in an institutionally enforced definition of "the >sacred"* to death. Appreciation or respect for what others >think to be "sacred" is a fundamentally religious concept, but >is not relevant (IMO) in a philosophical tradition that holds >that there is no religion higher than truth. And in fact, while >your sentiment would be readily acceded to in a Unity Church, >it is not something that ever concerned the founders of the >TS. HPB, throughout her life positively *delibrately* went after >"the sacred" as defined by virtually all western religions - >and the Masters ... well there's no need to repeat the infamous >"religion" letter - our founders did not care a wit about >anyone's sense of the sacred ... nor even slightly moderated >their words or ideas to take it into account. But its not just >the founders ... virtually every scientist, philosopher and >artist that has had a profound effect on human civilization >was called, by those in their time, a "blasphemer" of some >sort - and accused of upsetting people's sense of the sacred. > If someone's sense of the sacred is based on an >*illusion*, one needs to have no concern about upsetting it, or >rather, its *gonna* be upset sooner or later anyway ... the >Christian sense of the "sacred" was based, until the likes of >Copernicus and Galileo, on the earth being the center of the >universe - Galileo, asserting it wasn't even the center of the >solar system, *powerfully* shook the entire foundations of that >sense, was the ultimate blasphemer. If one's sense of the sacred >is based solely on the quest for understanding larger and larger >ranges of the Real, there *is* no such thing as blasphemy ... >because nothing anyone else says can harm its foundations. > >> The second definition is a problem which people can fall >> into when the approach the spiritual. They presume to speak >> for God and Gods and end up profaning the very things that >> they identify with. > Like, for instance, Jesus? > >> The third definition has to do with actual acts of disrespect >> for the sacred. Someone may be reading a spiritual book and >> it is obvious that they are involved in something that is >> sacred for them. Another person comes along, mocking them, >> going "har, har, har" and manages to provoke their anger, >> taking them out of their deep feelings. This would be an >> example of the final definition, although better examples >> could easily be given. > Yes, how about this one: >"I don't think that being able to see auras means very much. >It might give a marginal shred of hope to someone with nagging >doubts about the spiritual side of life, since they might tell >themselves "well, at least *this* shows that there's some reality >to this stuff." But those uncertainities arise from a lack of >depth to their studies, a lack of certainity, a lack of making >the spiritual doctrines a living part of their lives." > One of your delightful little dismissals of what you >refer to as the "psychic". While your opinions, based entirely on >theoretical concepts about clairvoyance, do not trouble me, as >I've heard them from Christians and scientists for most of my life >and I *don't* happen to equate it with my sense of the "sacred" >(except that the more *ranges of perception and conception* through >which I can grasp the world, the larger my appreciation for the >magnificence and diversity of existence) - still, for many people, >in fact for growing numbers just beginning to have inner abilities >open, and to whom those abilities are *powerful* foundations for >their sense of the "sacred", your statement, in all its condescending >glory, is *pure* "blasphemy" ... it says that anyone who *does* feel >a sense of the sacred in the experience of seeing the inner worlds >possesses it only because they are a spiritual child, with a lack >of certainty about "real" spirituality, and because they haven't yet >made spirituality part of their lives. > Leave aside for a moment the fact that this is simply wrong >(in fact, the ML, HPB, and many others spoke at length about the fact >that such abilities can be virtually *counted upon* to arise naturally >and of their own accord *as an effect* of spiritual discipline, often >extending over lives ... and in fact every Master or initiate in TS >literature possessed and used a whole pile of them - the only reason >there *are* warnings about them *to chelas* is *because* the result >of spiritual training becoming *deeply* embedded in day to day life >is likely to cause them to begin developing of their own accord). The >point here is that of course *you* wouldn't call your statement >"blasphemous", you would simply defend it by saying you have the right >to state the truth as you see it, and to articulate your own path ... >and if *others* see that as blasphemy, as an attack on their "sense >of the sacred" ... well, that's just something *they* have to learn >to be less sensitive about (which *was* your response when *I* told >you your attitude might be silencing other Theosophists). > You can't have it both ways ... everyone has their own >particular beliefs and perspectives ... you can't hold that we >"should" respect people's sense of the sacred when it comes to >Chuck's fairly delibrate shots at what he sees as sacred cows, >but then say that when *your* words might damage someone's sense, >it is your right to state your perspective, and if they have problems, >*they* need to deal with them. > >> >> What would I conclude from this? That we should (never mind >> the word "should", just listen to what I'm saying) respect >> the sense of the sacred in others, regardless of their words >> and practices. We should try to lead them into higher forms of >> thinking and behavior in a way that doesn't disrupt them and >> cause them to lose their sense of the sacred. In our excitement >> over what we consider our higher words and forms of expression, >> we shouldn't forget that we're dealing with other living >> human beings, and forget to look at them and see the effect >> our words and actions have on them. > Yes! (Tee Hee). do you remember? I said almost *precisely* >those words to you some time ago ... and you not only ignored them, >but have continued to make utterly condescending statements about >any manifestation of inner abilities - often raising the subject >in response to posts that had little to do with the subject (the >previous quote of yours was from a discussion of shamanism, but >it seemed you couldn't help but use the opportunity to take >another shot at "psychic" powers). In fact Eldon, it was *from you* >that I learned that on this list we should expect *no* one to >even pretend respect for our ideas. I never ranked *you*, or any >abilities you may or may not have claimed to have, as "higher" or >"lower" ... though when you began saying experience wasn't >necessary when one possessed some sort of insight, that is, used >it as a foundation for an argument, I did question it ... you >have always *started* it. From you I learned that the standard >here was to throw aside all notions of empathizing with the point >of view of another, and to simply state my own perspective as >forcefully as possible. And actually, after I got used to it, I've >come to find it rather refreshing ... I don't consider it better >or worse than the attitude your words (but not your actions) >suggest we "should" adopt. But ... > this attitude might work somewhere other than on this >list, but is it not curiously flawed here? Who should we try to >lead into "higher" forms of thinking and behaviour - *the other >people on this list*? This may be, Eldon, a place where your >perspective and mine are just too different to ever really relate. >While I'll concede there may well be relative stages of growth >that might allow people to be "ranked" as higher and lower along >some sort of continuum, I do *not* think anyone less than an *Adept* >capable of making such judgements in any absolute way - and I >believe those whose range of awareness is *not* that of an Adept, >is still constricted, have fallen prey to one of the most lethal >and damaging illusions of the "mental plane" if they do so. I >could simply not claim to be "higher" or "lower" than anyone else >on the list, and your suggestion of what we "should" do *presumes* >the assumption that some are "higher" (how else, if we "should", >*could* we lead people into something "higher" in a way that doesn't >upset their sense of the sacred). > I believe that many, if not *most* people on the list either >don't feel qualified to do such precise rankings, or if they do, >simply do not consider them very seriously - certainly not seriously >enough for them to actually make it a project to take those who *in >their particular perspective are "lower"* and try to "lead" them into >something "higher". I guess I would say that perhaps to *those in >whom this sort of ranking is a prominant idea* - as it is in your >writings, some of Rich's & etc. - your advice may very well be good. >But a lot of the list doesn't even accept the paradigm within which >your advice could even make sense. > >[And I must say that probably *no* advice has much meaning here ... >we have all spoken of things we "should" do, and I can't think of a >single instance in which a person has *taken* the advice of another; >generally when its given, it gets a post or two of agreement from >people already doing it anyway, and giggles or flames from those that >don't ... and in fact the advice is rarely even followed by the person >giving it]. > Regards, -JRC > > > > From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 14 23:00:00 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 16:00 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Ycch! At 02:29 PM 4/14/96 -0500, you wrote: >This is from a book by Julia Cameron, which promises to teach a spiritual >path to higher creativity; > >God likes money. > >(This one is especialy for Alexis) >We operate out of the toxic old idea that God's will for us & our will for >us are at opposite ends of the table. > >God's a woman, on my side. > >Many of us equate difficulty with virtue. >Hard work is good. >A terrible job is building our moral fibre. >Something that comes easily, like painting or writing, must be a cheap >trick, not to be taken seriously. > >Looking at creation, God clearly didn't know when to stop. >There are hundreds upon hundreds of cherry blossoms. >Snowflakes are the ultimate exercise in creative glee. No 2 alike. > >Liesel: That's a lot of superficial, honeyed tripe! If you add it all up it doesn't say anything at all either profound or superficial. That's what's wrong with the so-called "new Age". But most of all it's "God" centered and that cosmic Busybody is a figment of humanity's imagination. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 14 23:25:00 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 16:25 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: aroma At 02:52 PM 4/14/96 -0500, you wrote: >Dear Jerry, > >The minute you quote HPB as using the word "aroma", you get away from the >idea of a word processor. WP's don't have an aroma, but I think what a >person takes with them has such intangibles. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > >Liesel: They didn't have word processors (or even good typwriters) in HPB's time so she couldn't have looked in that direction for her mataphor. The "aroma" she was referring to had nothing to do with smell, and she could have, and in fact did, use the word "flavour" instead, or ven "tint" and yet none of them have anything to do with anything but the nature of the life-experience, and the understandings and knowledge accumulated during the life-experience. This is all quite possible to describe as 'Data". Knowledge and data are synonyms. You just find the term "data" too impersonal. Your personality is simply an item in the data assembled and accumulated during the past years since your birth. It may be too abstract to be enjoyable, but that's how it is. "No Religion Higher Than Truth" remember? alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 14 23:32:00 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 16:32 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: this list At 02:53 PM 4/14/96 -0500, you wrote: >>>>>>cut<<<<<<<<< >>(Curious, though, why so few newcomers seem to be posting. Hmmm -- wonder >>how I would feel if I signed on to this board looking for what Theosophy >>teaches, and found only insults and polemic?) "Insults and polemics" are in the ear of the listener. This is not, I think, a place where one goes to"learn" Theosophy or theosophy for that matter. It is a place where theosophists go to compare their ideas and perceptions, and calling people "blasphemers" is certainly as polemical as anything else. Alexis >> >>I have tried to tell you what it feels like to try to join in on this list >when one isn't used to airing one's views in public. It is fine for all you >who feel comfortable doing that but when a newbie has a go and gets >flattened then why do it again? When I first began, I was either sorta >ignored or else treated kindly but something has changed here and now I seem >to have to 'defend' myself and that I am not prepared to do as my knowledge >is still in the formative stage and it would be childsplay to shoot me down >in flames as I have experienced so I have gone to play in another sandpit :-) >Bee Brown >Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. >Theos Int & L > >Everyone has to start somewhere. And the total removal from human contact the internet permits gives shy people a chance to air their views facelessly where "no one can see them". Is this not so? If one isn't used to airing one's views in Public, perhaps it's something one ought to get used to. Because the Internet is far less "Public" than a room full of people. Enjoy your new sand pit. alexis From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Apr 15 00:06:42 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:06:42 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Advise to Newbies In-Reply-To: <960414222719_76400.1474_HHL107-4@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Let me add one more technique that is useful at times. When some idea or opinion comes to our mind, we know that it is important to get it broadcast and also we can expect flamed by everyone. Even when such is the case, the importance of broadcasting (in the poster's opinion) outweighs all the potential flaming, you just go ahead and post the msg and sit back and relax and watch all the flaming. After the message or opinion would have been broadcast no matter whether anyone understands and appreciates. I have seen this done even in real life situations. ....doss On Sun, 14 Apr 1996, Jerry Schueler wrote: > Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 17:37:14 -0500 > From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Advise to Newbies > > Bee: > >I have tried to tell you what it feels like to try to join in on this list > >when one isn't used to airing one's views in public. It is fine for all you > >who feel comfortable doing that but when a newbie has a go and gets > >flattened then why do it again? > We are all newbies at some point, Bee. The real challenge > for me on theos-l is controlling my ego. If I can keep my emotions and > personal feelings under control then theos-l can offer nothing that > will hurt me. Theosophy teaches me to downplay the ego, and to try > to *be* egoless. Theos-l provides me with a real chance to practice > what I have been studying. Sometime I get angry, and fail. But > somethimes I can laugh it off, and usually feel the better for it. I usually > know, when I write something, that I will get flamed for it, but if I really > feel strongly about it, I will post it anyway (I hope that everyone does > this). Then I sit back, read the responses, and see how my ego reacts. > Its good theosophical practice, and as Eldon says, we also get to > practice our writing styles. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 14 23:26:58 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:26:58 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Morality Mime-Version: 1.0 As I understand it, "Morality" derives from "mores" = "customs" or "conventions." This makes "morality " a movable feast, which, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder. Therefore, quoth he, why are people wittering on about its pros and cons? "Morality is as morality does" = Confuseus. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 14 23:30:53 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:30:53 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: HPB In-Reply-To: <960414074555_271477091@emout09.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960414074555_271477091@emout09.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >Nice quote, but for all her peccadillos, I doubt that HPB had an evil bone in >her body. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker I don't recall quoting her. You must be thinking of three other people. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From eldon@theosophy.com Mon Apr 15 00:51:41 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 17:51:41 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960415005141.00682e18@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Survival Alexis: [writing to Jerry S] >>Jerry; It's Halcyon, and I've been told it's no longer extant. As far as I know Halcyon is still around. Perhaps 10 years ago I went to a conference on theosophical history held there. Its address is: The Temple of the People Post Office Box 7095 Halcyon, CA 93420-7095 (805)489-2822 -- Eldon From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 14 23:38:24 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:38:24 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <84Z7xSAwxYcxEw4+@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: To: Jerry Re; Gnostics In-Reply-To: <199604140132.VAA27554@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604140132.VAA27554@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. deutsch" writes >Jerry > >I really think that occultists need to be ethical. Otherwise you blow up >Nagasaki, >& steal ova out of unsuspecting women, & we haven't as yet figured out how >to ethically use recombinant DNA. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > TI object 3: "... at the same time respecting all life." Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 14 23:39:04 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:39:04 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <+4z7RUAYyYcxEwZP@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Humor In-Reply-To: <960414222711_76400.1474_HHL107-2@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960414222711_76400.1474_HHL107-2@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >>Wow! I must be real holy! :-) >> >>Alan > > > Alan, you are. You are. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > I know, I know! And modest with it. Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 14 23:41:34 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:41:34 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <7Yu6JbAu0YcxEwb2@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Don't faint! In-Reply-To: <199604140831.UAA05771@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604140831.UAA05771@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz>, Bee Brown writes >as my knowledge >is still in the formative stage and it would be childsplay to shoot me down >in flames as I have experienced so I have gone to play in another sandpit :-) >Bee Brown >Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. >Theos Int & L > Something for us to think about if we claim to care about *people* Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 14 23:42:25 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:42:25 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <7ot61fAh1YcxEw4p@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: To: Jerry Re; Gnostics In-Reply-To: <960414222715_76400.1474_HHL107-3@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960414222715_76400.1474_HHL107-3@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >Compassionate people don't try to judge others (while I >judge postings and viewpoints, I really do try not to judge >people). Compassionate people are spontaneously ethical. > >OK, off my soapbox, and back to my quiet room... > > Jerry S. > Member, TI Keep a space for me ... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 14 23:33:57 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:33:57 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Being & Doing In-Reply-To: <960414010805_76400.1474_HHL61-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960414010805_76400.1474_HHL61-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes > Grey is too Christian for my tastes, and I am >surprised that you are quoting him. He is like a breath of fresh air to me - gets right up my nose! Olde Englisshe Joke Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 14 22:59:33 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:59:33 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Do vs Be In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >How do you propose to es\xplain it to "Joe Sixpack"? That's what >theosophy is all about, I think, to explain abstract reality as best as >possible to "Joe Sixpack". > >Alexis >> You looking for trouble, pal? - Joe Sixpack --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 15 01:43:37 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 21:43:37 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604150247.WAA01162@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Chuck's "Jokes" " I think his "jokes" are his way of taking the sting out of things he needs to say." Alexis I think his jokes put more sting into situations & people. Maybe they take out his sting, but why do we have to listen to that. Darn tooten right. I've been using my "delete" button, until someone called to my attention that he was really going off the deep end. That's when I had a look see. He's alienating people. Who wants to tune in to theos-l to read garbage? Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 15 01:50:15 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 21:50:15 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604150254.WAA06135@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Bee Re: Don't Faint Bee, Who the dickens made you feel that you had to go on the defensive? I wonder whether it was the same stupid person who told me the other day something like he had a whip in his bedroom. Don't mind people like that. Most of us want to reasonably discuss, well, at least semi-reasonably ... and then we're friends again. I think we're all learning as a group. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 15 02:03:07 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 22:03:07 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604150307.XAA11304@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: TO: Chuckles Dear Chuck, My Bishop would tell me to view you with compassion. I'll try. Sorry your cat died. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 15 02:18:32 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 22:18:32 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604150322.XAA21265@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Jerry, Re: Gnostics. Dear Jerry, I agree with you about superimposed ethics. all such stuff should come from within. Hadn't realized that's what you meant. As for judging people, I think you're pretty good at that. You don't judge (which is better than I do, I'm still trying to learn about Serge's should rule), & if you do judge, you're very gentle about it. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canda, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 15 02:26:17 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 22:26:17 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604150330.XAA23012@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Alexis, Re:Applause between intellectual hypothetecists such as Eldon, Richard Taylor, and Richard Ihle and the "sensitives" whose perceptions of theosophy and the "sacred" (a term I really dislike) are not brain based! alexis Alexis, I think what you're describing there is the difference between occultists & mystics. Those are, totally valid, different paths to the same goal, taken by people with different temperaments. It is said that it's difficult for someone of 1 perusasion to understand someone of the other persuasion. But maybe, if we're aware of the fact that these 2 paths exist, we can be more tolerant of each other. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 15 02:31:39 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 22:31:39 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604150335.XAA26354@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Aroma Alexis, Jerry in his reply changed "aroma" to "essence". If you know the story of Shweta Ketu, which deals with essence, it still makes my point. Maybe it depends on whose religious truth you're talking about. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 11:41:35 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Blavatsky, Satan and evil. Message-ID: <199704131841.LAA03903@palrel1.hp.com> Tim Maroney wrote: > Blavatsky would not have approved of Crowley's rituals, due to their > sexual element, but they don't seem especially shocking to people living > at the end of the twentieth century. His rituals are theurgical magick > intended to unite the magician with higher powers, and to make progress > toward mystical goals, and they are still regularly practiced today. I don't know any details about Crowley's rituals and so won't talk about them directly. Your comments, though, do suggest a related topic. The conventions of acceptable behavior are not a reliable gauge of right or wrong. After our twentieth century experiment and consequences I think they'll change again. Alice Bailey had some interesting comments about the laxity of sexual morals. She said that sex *solely* for the sake of personal gratification attracts less evolved souls to be born. In many cases the timing for their reincarnation was upset giving the danger of an over-concentration of such souls. Looking at the karma in today's parenting and the morals of children today, I would say we have such an over-concentration now. > As for Satanism, that's another point of contact between Blavatsky and > Crowley -- not too surprising, since they both drew so heavily on Eliphas > Levi, who did so much to justify "sympathy for the devil" among the > nineteenth century occultists. Both denied the Christian Devil while > advocating a positive, enlightened reinterpretation of the character as > unfairly demonized. I'd be curious what you think of Blavatsky's > teachings on the fallen angels, Satan/Lucifer, and Ialdabaoth from "Isis > Unveiled" and "The Secret Doctrine". For one class, I listened to a lecture by Jeffrey Burton Russell on Lucifer. He has probably studied more of the literature on Satan/Lucifer than anyone else today. I have to say that after my paper for the course, I am convinced that there is an entitized, intelligent, personalized body of evil caused by the collective experimentation and willful perversion of mankind. There are many who have experienced the terrifying visages of evil. Read, for example, the biography of Padre Pio. His biography is quite fascinating, though probably biased by the Catholic rendition of it. The idea of a personalized form of evil does not necessarily contradict the ideas of HPB. In my take on her writings, she wanted to present the following notions (heavily paraphrased in my own vernacular): 1) Free will - even the Satanic ability to go against God - is the way we learn. And together with the law of karma ultimately will assure the realization of our innate Godhood. Comment: The harmful use of free will may serve as a temporary schoolroom to perfect our discernment of transcendental Good (to be distinguished from conventional good), but it still hurts ourselves and others! Calling the play of conventional good and evil "nothing but" Maya is a similar euphemism. Even imaginary pain hurts. 2) The apparent evils in the world are part of the play of free will. Comment: It is difficult at times to say with certainly what "evil" is not ultimately a good and what so-called "good" is not really evil. But we have the responsibility to try - even if our judgements are sometimes wrong. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 11:33:26 -0500 (CDT) From: cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: Temple Bells Message-ID: > > In a message dated 97-04-12 00:15:09 EDT, you write: > > >Some people can be so supid. > > > >They don't realize the beauty of Asian people or culture. > > > > > > The morons we shall always have with us. > > Chuck the Heretic > And also the heretics! (or do i really mean lunatics?) (g)-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 17:15:06 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Blavatsky, Satan and evil. Message-ID: <33514CD9.7056@sprynet.com> Titus Roth wrote: > 1) Free will - even the Satanic ability to go against God - is the way we > learn. And together with the law of karma ultimately will assure the > realization of our innate Godhood. Interesting. In Roman Catholicism (at least in what they teach to priests, Judaism, certainly in Calvinist-derived Protestantism, and in most other Protestant branches, Satan has no free will. He is an aspect of God, not a separate being. I did a bit of research into Blavatsky's attitude towards Satan, when researching her attitude towards hypnotism (far too many people read the note at the top of the page, "Hypnotism is Satanism" without bothering to what she is REALLY saying, or looking in the Theosophical Glossary to see what she means by "hypnotism", or, for that matter, what her sources knew about hypnotism (if you bother to do the research, you will find out that Blavatsky's knowledge of hypnotism comes from an account by a doctor who heard the account of another doctor who saw a demonstration of hypnosis). However, she uses Satan in two ways. One is as a Promethean figure (one who defies the powers that be to aid humanity at a high personal cost). She also uses Satanism as meaning (probably deriving from Eliphas Levi, and certainly the way modern occultists interpret it) the rejection of the spiritual in favor of the material (note that this is the modern interpretation of the Devil card in Tarot, as well). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 18:04:16 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: crowley and doss Message-ID: <199704132320.TAA14681@ultra1.dreamscape.com> > He should have known Indians are not >"niggers". Hey, youall, brothers, and sisters. Ain't no niggers, no place, no way. Liesel ............................................................................... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 18:59:05 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Blavatsky, Satan and evil. Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970413235905.006b881c@mail.eden.com> At 02:47 PM 4/13/97 -0400, you wrote: >Tim Maroney wrote: > >> Blavatsky would not have approved of Crowley's rituals, due to their >> sexual element, but they don't seem especially shocking to people living >> at the end of the twentieth century. His rituals are theurgical magick >> intended to unite the magician with higher powers, and to make progress >> toward mystical goals, and they are still regularly practiced today. > >I don't know any details about Crowley's rituals and so won't talk about them >directly. Your comments, though, do suggest a related topic. > >The conventions of acceptable behavior are not a reliable gauge of right or >wrong. After our twentieth century experiment and consequences I think they'll >change again. Alice Bailey had some interesting comments about the laxity of >sexual morals. She said that sex *solely* for the sake of personal >gratification attracts less evolved souls to be born. In many cases the timing >for their reincarnation was upset giving the danger of an over-concentration >of such souls. Looking at the karma in today's parenting and the morals of >children today, I would say we have such an over-concentration now. I do not know for certain if Bailey or anyone else is right. But, historically, some of the well known geniuses were born out of wedlock. May be they are exceptions. Just a thought. MKR > >> As for Satanism, that's another point of contact between Blavatsky and >> Crowley -- not too surprising, since they both drew so heavily on Eliphas >> Levi, who did so much to justify "sympathy for the devil" among the >> nineteenth century occultists. Both denied the Christian Devil while >> advocating a positive, enlightened reinterpretation of the character as >> unfairly demonized. I'd be curious what you think of Blavatsky's >> teachings on the fallen angels, Satan/Lucifer, and Ialdabaoth from "Isis >> Unveiled" and "The Secret Doctrine". > >For one class, I listened to a lecture by Jeffrey Burton Russell on Lucifer. >He has probably studied more of the literature on Satan/Lucifer than anyone >else today. I have to say that after my paper for the course, I am convinced >that there is an entitized, intelligent, personalized body of evil caused by >the collective experimentation and willful perversion of mankind. There are >many who have experienced the terrifying visages of evil. Read, for example, >the biography of Padre Pio. His biography is quite fascinating, though >probably biased by the Catholic rendition of it. > >The idea of a personalized form of evil does not necessarily contradict the >ideas of HPB. In my take on her writings, she wanted to present the following >notions (heavily paraphrased in my own vernacular): > >1) Free will - even the Satanic ability to go against God - is the way we >learn. And together with the law of karma ultimately will assure the >realization of our innate Godhood. > >Comment: The harmful use of free will may serve as a temporary schoolroom to >perfect our discernment of transcendental Good (to be distinguished from >conventional good), but it still hurts ourselves and others! Calling the play >of conventional good and evil "nothing but" Maya is a similar euphemism. Even >imaginary pain hurts. > >2) The apparent evils in the world are part of the play of free will. > >Comment: It is difficult at times to say with certainly what "evil" is not >ultimately a good and what so-called "good" is not really evil. But we have >the responsibility to try - even if our judgements are sometimes wrong. > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 18:46:27 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: misunderstandings/errors Message-ID: <199704140002.UAA03879@ultra1.dreamscape.com> PS I think it's pretty crummy to tease anyone about what they look like. Even if it's only a longish nose they have, they don't like to be teased about it. (Nazis did that to Jews) People get selfconscious about their looks, when someone else says they're odd, especially young teenagers, who're just growing into their adult features, and aren't quite used to them. I think most Americans don't know the difference between what a Chinese person looks like and what a Vietnamese. I've been told that Chinese and Japanese look different, but I can't tell, because I've never met many of them. I'm wure I couldn't tell a Chinese and a Vietnamese apart either. Some people can't tell black people apart. I can, because I was around them a lot when I worked. So sometimes, you must forgive people, if they ask you about your background, if it's done nicely, and not in a mean spirit. They may just not know and may just be inquiring. I don't like Polish jokes either, for the same reason. Everyone thinks their own ethnicity is the greatest, and I think it should stay that way. I wouldn't be surprised if Doss' Indian heritage goes all the way back to the Mahabarata. The surgeon who operated on my arm recently was Dr. Sivakumar, Dance of Siva, and the Kumaras who brought mind to mankind. I know that I'm proud of my German Jewish heritage. I belonged to a small clique of Frankfurt Jews who prided themselves on having lived in the middle ages in the same little ghetto street as the Rothchilds who lateron became famous bankers. We were an ambitious, prosperous and cultured lot. When I get too enthusiastic about my ancestry, I call myself a patrician Frankfurter. (hot dogs, boloney, and sausages, were invented in Frankfurt. We had a whole city block of sausage makers downtown.) I think the American mosaic is built on all those diverse ethnicities. liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 00:33:59 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Satan Message-ID: FYI In the Book of Job [Bible, Old Testament] Satan is among the _Sons of God_ attending "Jehovah" or Yahweh [or YHWH], and *asks* permission to inflict a number of tests, increasing in severity, upon 'God's servant, Job.' He gets it. For those who didn't spot it yet, the word 'Satan' means 'adversary'. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 19:21:02 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: misunderstandings/errors Message-ID: <199704140037.UAA19452@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Thoa, I can think back to when the word "black" first appeared in people's vocabulary, and it seemed to me then, and now, that the African/Americans are the ones who used it first. The cry became "black is beautiful". I, like you, have always wondered why they wanted to call themselves "black", when they're really all shades of brown. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 23:45:40 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: misunderstandings/errors Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970414044540.006d4318@mail.eden.com> At 09:04 PM 4/13/97 -0400, you wrote: >PS >I think it's pretty crummy to tease anyone about what they look like. Even >if it's only a longish nose they have, they don't like to be teased about >it. (Nazis did that to Jews) People get selfconscious about their looks, >when someone else says they're odd, especially young teenagers, who're just >growing into their adult features, and aren't quite used to them. > >I think most Americans don't know the difference between what a Chinese >person looks like and what a Vietnamese. I've been told that Chinese and >Japanese look different, but I can't tell, because I've never met many of >them. I'm wure I couldn't tell a Chinese and a Vietnamese apart either. Some >people can't tell black people apart. I can, because I was around them a lot >when I worked. So sometimes, you must forgive people, if they ask you about >your background, if it's done nicely, and not in a mean spirit. They may >just not know and may just be inquiring. > >I don't like Polish jokes either, for the same reason. Everyone thinks their >own ethnicity is the greatest, and I think it should stay that way. I >wouldn't be surprised if Doss' Indian heritage goes all the way back to the >Mahabarata. The surgeon who operated on my arm recently was Dr. Sivakumar, >Dance of Siva, and the Kumaras who brought mind to mankind. I know that I'm >proud of my German Jewish heritage. I belonged to a small clique of >Frankfurt Jews who prided themselves on having lived in the middle ages in >the same little ghetto street as the Rothchilds who lateron became famous >bankers. We were an ambitious, prosperous and cultured lot. When I get too >enthusiastic about my ancestry, I call myself a patrician Frankfurter. (hot >dogs, boloney, and sausages, were invented in Frankfurt. We had a whole city >block of sausage makers downtown.) I think the American mosaic is built on >all those diverse ethnicities. > >liesel > Dear Liesel: Wonderful post. If we just keep in mind that we are all first and foremost human beings, all problems go away. Each one of us is important and unique in our own way. BTW, from the name, Sivakumar seems to suggest he is from South India, that is where Adyar, Madras is located. Inquire of him if you run into him. mkr From rholmstrom@voyageur.ca Sun Apr 14 22:25:18 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 22:25:18 GMT From: Robert Holmstrom Message-Id: <9604142225.AB25042@netra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI is not a Container, it's a network Alan: At 17:49 1996/04/12 -0500, you wrote: >>. . . Should not the TI be a source of Theosophical information, possibly >>Theosophical values, and maybe a provider of signposts on the way? In that >>way, it frees its members to search and to grow but does not "contain" them. >>Membership means only that one has accepted the requirements for membership >>but should not restrict anyone in any way. One should always be free to >>make one's own errors and to learn from them. One should be free to search >>any path one wishes, even CWL's if one has a hankering for mythopoeia. > >That's right! I'm glad that you agree. I found the series of messages tedious and leading to no point and to no decision. As I have very little time to deal with e-mail, I was hoping to bring the discussion to a head and persuade the group to move on to further topics. >>It seems to me the point of the three objects is that one must become free >>to search and actually search. Beyond that there is no dogma to wrap >>oneself in. Why should a prospective member then want to be wrapped in the >>TI? The grand argument about what "freedom" is meant by the word "freedom" >>seems pointless to me. Let each member take whatever meaning s/he walks in >>with and fly with it. If it is "restrictive", said member will either drop >>out or break through the limits. That is up to the individual, not the TI, >>imho. >> >Oh the joy of reading sense! > >Alan :-) It's my impression, perhaps right, perhaps wrong, that this list is intended for serious discussion, rather than comments about whether one agrees with something not quoted (how is that of any benefit to anyone???) or discussions of Wagner and Nazi Germany which lead to no decision and are to no discernible purpose. I unsubscribed from Theosophy-L because it was full ot too many waste-of-time postings. I would hope that this list will contain some more serious and pointed discussion of Theosophical and TI matters rather than side issues. IMHO, side issues belong either on another list or in direct e-mail between the correspondants. Please understand that I don't want to "throw a wet blanket" on the discussion in this list. I would just ask that side issues, such as whom one is fond of, be discussed elsewhere. I think this list needs a moderator. I nominate Alan. This discussion will, I hope, lead to a decision. Take care, ==<>== From rholmstrom@voyageur.ca Sun Apr 14 22:25:33 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 22:25:33 GMT From: Robert Holmstrom Message-Id: <9604142225.AC25042@netra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI is not a Container, it's a network Liesel: At 18:15 1996/04/12 -0500, you wrote: >Bob, > >I think TI is also a thing with which each one is able to fulfill their own >dharma, whatever that dharma may be, ie do your own theosophical thing, with >the support of others. With which I completely agree. Why not then let the description of the TI and its version of the three objects simply proclaim that point and cease the discussions of Wagner and Nazi Germany? Perhaps they belong in the Theosophy-History list, but surely not here. I raised the point because, with my very limited time for e-mail, I found the number of (to me) irrelevant or pointless posts getting pretty high. In my view, discussions should be reasonably relevant and lead to a decision. Then the thread should end, not proliferate into hundreds of side issues. Do you think, as I do, that this list needs a moderator to bring discussions to a head and perhaps call for a vote on decisions? BTW, are you the Liesel Deutsch who knows Stan Treloar, the former General Secretary of the TSinC? He's quite a character, and I wish he were on here. He'd cut through the chaff and bring discussions to a head pretty quick! (If one can stand his puns!) To practise what I preach, this last comment should be responded to directly to me at rholmstrom@voyageur.ca Take care, ==<>== From rholmstrom@voyageur.ca Sun Apr 14 22:25:44 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 22:25:44 GMT From: Robert Holmstrom Message-Id: <9604142225.AD25042@netra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: the Russians Liesel: At 19:38 1996/04/12 -0500, you wrote: > >I think we'll already help the Russians, if they can join in in our talking >back & forth, & can ask us questions if they want to. I think our >cosmopolitan format is something they'll appreciate. > >They may also have other needs, as I outlined to Alan, but it can really be >for all TI'ers to read. I think we can address any other needs as they come >up. Let's find out first what they want & need, before we organize something >they don't need. Has anyone made any contact with them, or is all this discussion purely hypothetical? Take care, ==<>== From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Apr 15 05:07:16 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:07:16 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960415001005.27ef3006@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI is not a Container, it's a network Most of the unmoderated (=censored) lists do have a lot of what some call "noise" messages. If for any reason one does not like or understand or does not want to see or read a message the famoust delete key is always there; I personally use it a lot. It is very very fast in Unix Shell Pine reader. There is another way to handle messages. Some of the mail programs have a feature called "filter" which can segregate message based on several criteria. For example I do not want to see the messages from a certain individual, then I can use filter so that all incoming messages from the individual can go straight to trash mailbox. The last thing one needs on any maillist is a moderator. Apart from the unpracticality of a moderator (=censor) much of the fun of these message base will be gone. It takes time to get used to uncensored maillists. At least it took some time for me when I started on echos on BBSs before Internet became popular with general public. So TRY hang in there. TRY Useing the delete key as often as you like. Say what you want. Soon you will get to like what is going on here. .....dosss At 11:24 PM 4/14/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alan: > >At 17:49 1996/04/12 -0500, you wrote: > >>>. . . Should not the TI be a source of Theosophical information, possibly >>>Theosophical values, and maybe a provider of signposts on the way? In that >>>way, it frees its members to search and to grow but does not "contain" them. >>>Membership means only that one has accepted the requirements for membership >>>but should not restrict anyone in any way. One should always be free to >>>make one's own errors and to learn from them. One should be free to search >>>any path one wishes, even CWL's if one has a hankering for mythopoeia. >> >>That's right! > >I'm glad that you agree. I found the series of messages tedious and leading >to no point and to no decision. As I have very little time to deal with >e-mail, I was hoping to bring the discussion to a head and persuade the >group to move on to further topics. > >>>It seems to me the point of the three objects is that one must become free >>>to search and actually search. Beyond that there is no dogma to wrap >>>oneself in. Why should a prospective member then want to be wrapped in the >>>TI? The grand argument about what "freedom" is meant by the word "freedom" >>>seems pointless to me. Let each member take whatever meaning s/he walks in >>>with and fly with it. If it is "restrictive", said member will either drop >>>out or break through the limits. That is up to the individual, not the TI, >>>imho. >>> >>Oh the joy of reading sense! >> >>Alan :-) > >It's my impression, perhaps right, perhaps wrong, that this list is intended >for serious discussion, rather than comments about whether one agrees with >something not quoted (how is that of any benefit to anyone???) or >discussions of Wagner and Nazi Germany which lead to no decision and are to >no discernible purpose. > >I unsubscribed from Theosophy-L because it was full ot too many >waste-of-time postings. I would hope that this list will contain some more >serious and pointed discussion of Theosophical and TI matters rather than >side issues. IMHO, side issues belong either on another list or in direct >e-mail between the correspondants. > >Please understand that I don't want to "throw a wet blanket" on the >discussion in this list. I would just ask that side issues, such as whom >one is fond of, be discussed elsewhere. > >I think this list needs a moderator. I nominate Alan. This discussion >will, I hope, lead to a decision. > >Take care, > >==<>== > > From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 15 05:18:13 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:18:13 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960415011810_375660570@mail02.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Vauban Alex, I wasn't trying to be shocking. My previous incarnation, before becoming a psionics expert, was as a military historian. The Vauban fortress is one of the most beautiful structures ever designed. If I had my way, we would have one in Wheaton. And shooting the pederastic Bishop might not have done him any good, but think how much better the TS would be. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 06:06:00 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 23:06 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI At 11:26 PM 4/14/96 -0500, you wrote: >Liesel: > >At 18:15 1996/04/12 -0500, you wrote: >>Bob, >> >>I think TI is also a thing with which each one is able to fulfill their own >>dharma, whatever that dharma may be, ie do your own theosophical thing, with >>the support of others. > >With which I completely agree. Why not then let the description of the TI >and its version of the three objects simply proclaim that point and cease >the discussions of Wagner and Nazi Germany? Perhaps they belong in the >Theosophy-History list, but surely not here. I raised the point because, >with my very limited time for e-mail, I found the number of (to me) >irrelevant or pointless posts getting pretty high. Bob: Irrelevant to what? Richard Wagner and the effects and causes of Nazi Germany are as relevant to a theosophical discussion group as HPB herself. If theosophy cannot be related to the actual occurances of life itself, what good is it? As to your time, I believe you too can push a delete button , I do. > >In my view, discussions should be reasonably relevant and lead to a >decision. Then the thread should end, not proliferate into hundreds of side >issues. A decision: Why, is this a court of law? We have people on this list with utterly dichotomous views of theosophy and many other things, to force decisions on each topic would be totally oppressive to all of us. I wnat to make my points, but I certainly have absolutely no desire to force others to accept them and I willclearly not permit anyone to force me to any decision at any time. As to a "thread proliferating into hudreds of side issues" why not? This isa neutral ground where people of various persuasions come together to discuss things in which they are mutually interested. If those interests find fascinating by roads, why should they not be followed? > >Do you think, as I do, that this list needs a moderator to bring discussions >to a head and perhaps call for a vote on decisions? It certainly does NOT. You bring in a "moderator" and most of the folks on this list will find other sandboxes! That kind of control is not what this list is about! alexis > >BTW, are you the Liesel Deutsch who knows Stan Treloar, the former General >Secretary of the TSinC? He's quite a character, and I wish he were on here. >He'd cut through the chaff and bring discussions to a head pretty quick! >(If one can stand his puns!) To practise what I preach, this last comment >should be responded to directly to me at rholmstrom@voyageur.ca > >Take care, > >==<>== > > From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 06:11:00 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 23:11 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "Moderator" At 11:24 PM 4/14/96 -0500, you wrote: > >I think this list needs a moderator. I nominate Alan. This discussion >will, I hope, lead to a decision. > >Take care, > >==<>== > >I love Alan, I admire Alan, I revere Alan, I respect Alan.....BUT NO MODERATOR, NOT HIM NOT ANYBODY! Alexis From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 15 15:36:54 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:36:54 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960415113653_375791320@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TI is not a Container, it's a network Bob, Much as we like Alan, if this list gets a moderator a lot of us will quit. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 15 15:37:00 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:37:00 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960415113658_375791351@mail02.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TI is not a Container, it's a network Now let me see, if I remember a short while ago some nutty judge in Canada forbade the publication of news about a murder trial so all of the radio and TV stations on the US side of the border made that story part of the daily broadcast which of course went into Canada and there was nothing his silly dishonour could do about it. We don't like it when people try to tell us what to talk about. That's the sort of thing her Radhaship wants to do. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker For the Gods sake, don't get us started on free speech again! We might kill each other and then who would we have to argue music with? From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 17:15:00 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 10:15 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:military Historry At 12:31 AM 4/15/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, >I wasn't trying to be shocking. My previous incarnation, before becoming a >psionics expert, was as a military historian. The Vauban fortress is one of >the most beautiful structures ever designed. If I had my way, we would have >one in Wheaton. > >And shooting the pederastic Bishop might not have done him any good, but >think how much better the TS would be. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: I didn't know that. In other words you've been recording the activities of my ancestors(both sides) that's what we folks do.....we do war! The reason (one of them) my Grandfather did't become a Theosophist was that he was a Field Marshal. My Dad was a West Point Graduate and served as a Colonel in the French Army during WWI (reasons apparently secret, but official) and served as Liason with the Brits during WWII. His brother Bernard was President of the Naval War College and a 4 star Admiral, my Dad was one of six brothers all of whom had distinguished military careers, their Father was a Brig. Gen in the Confederate Army, and His Brother a full General. I don't think I'd want a house designed by Vauban, though I understand he had a hand in Vaux le Vicompte which I adore. What do you think of Bob Holmgrens Idea that we have a "Moderator" on the list to "contol permissable topics" and call for a vote on "decisions"? I think it's an abomination. alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 17:43:00 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 10:43 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:censorship At 10:43 AM 4/15/96 -0500, you wrote: > >We don't like it when people try to tell us what to talk about. That's the >sort of thing her Radhaship wants to do. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker >For the Gods sake, don't get us started on free speech again! We might kill >each other and then who would we have to argue music with? > >Americans especially don't like it when non-American's try to tell us what to say. alexis From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 15 05:17:00 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:17:00 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960415011659_375660107@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Classic Humor from 'theos-l' Eldon, All of the statements in your post are true. Chuck the Infuriated Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 15 05:18:01 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:18:01 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960415011759_375660489@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Quatre legs Alan, Glad to hear you're out. Now they can save the room for me. Chuck the Apoplectic Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 15 05:18:07 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:18:07 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960415011806_375660547@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Being & Doing Jerry, The fact that Grey had this problem with being sort of Christian did not preclude him from being one hell of a good magician, after all, most of the magicians whose work we study considered themselves to be Christian and Eliphas Levi even considered himself to be a good Roman Catholic! I once wrote that to truly live one must be free of any sense of purpose because purpose is merely another form of slavery. It reduces life to an often fruitless search that distracts the person from the joys of good food, good liquor, bad women (or men for that matter) and annoying hunchbacks. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 15 05:18:15 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:18:15 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960415011814_375660600@mail04> Subject: Re: Blue Whales Alex, Grey wrote a lot of nonsense, true, but his Magickal Ritual Methods is still a very good book. I use it when I teach. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker Disciple of Captain Ahab From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 15 05:18:23 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:18:23 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <199604150518.BAA26469@emout06.mail.aol.com> Apparently-To: theos-l@vnet.net and approval. But if it makes them feel any better, newbies can also buy a hard hat and wear it while they read the list in case divine judgement gets called down on them for associating with us terrible blackguards. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 15 05:18:19 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:18:19 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960415011818_375660622@mail06> Subject: Re: O.K. Alex, Only one little problem, or rather two. 1: I am not Irish. 2: I am not a bard. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 15 05:18:25 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:18:25 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960415011824_375660676@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: To:Jerry Re: aroma Jerry, Of course HPB had an aroma. With her kidney troubles all the toxins in her body had to come out her sweat glands and they did not have deodorant in those days. Poor Countess Wachmeister did not even have a gas mask! Obviously it was an odor of sanctity. Or maybe deisel oil? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 05:18:00 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 22:18 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Joe Sixpack At 05:35 PM 4/14/96 -0500, you wrote: > > Joe Sixpack? I wasn't even able to explain it to a single >family member, who all consider me a black sheep for leaving >the Christian Science fold. > I still recall one evening when I was young, when my >grandparents came for a visit. My grandfather was in his early >80s at the time (he died at 90). He was a bit depressed, and >began talking about old age. He stated, loudly, that all old people >should be lined up and shot because they no longer contributed >anything to society. Now, it turns out that this idea was prevelant >with the American Indians, but my grandfather was German, >and spoke from his heart rather than from a philosophy. > So, you are right, Alexis, people don't understand the >difference between be and do. They think that life is doing, >and when there is no longer anything constructive to do, they >die. I was not able to help my grandfather (no one else could >either, except maybe my grandmother who told him to shut up). >I suspect that I will be unable to give much solice to Joe Sixpack >either. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > >Jerry: I didn't say "succeed" I said TRY! I have had much expereince in trying to get this across to "blue collar" folks, of course I can't put it to them the way you do to Richard Taylor, but, I talk to various people as I have learned those people needed to be talked to. This is a skill I had to learn while in the MIlitary. Once in a great while one causes Mr, Joe Sixpack to have an AH HA! experience, and then you go on slowly to build up from that experience to another one. It's certainly not "instant enlightenment" but it is a very slow "turning up the rheostat" As to your Grandfather, when has any prophet had honour in his or her own family? My own family considered HPB to be a major embarassment. alexis From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Apr 15 05:22:33 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:22:33 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960415002522.27ef17f4@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TS on the Internet Liesel: We will have to wait and see what comes out of all the interest in Internet. It would be very interesting to see how Internet is going to be used. For example while both Wheaton and the Library has e-mail addresses, none of the elected officers except perhaps one on the West Coast is on e-mail. The other day I read about a homeless man having a home page on Internet. That is how fast technology is spreading. So TSA has a long way to go before it is able to use Internet as an efficient and effective communication tool by the elected officers of TSA for its business with membership and others. Hope it is sooner than later. BTW, the prices are dropping. Here in San Antonio one can get unlimited PPP access for $10.00 (ten dollars) a month. So soon we can expect more and more of the TSA membership, especially the members at large having a e-mail address. ....doss ============================================================================ ===== At 11:04 AM 4/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis, > >John Algeo wants Wheaton to be on the Internet, & the Board is with him. > >Nick sent me 2 www addresses that are theosophical. I found them last night. >One of them is Rodolpho's, of which the address was given out wrong the 1st >time. >The 2 I found are > http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/Theosophy.html > http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/Theosophy/Overview.html > >As for Elisabeth, part of her being terribly busy seems to consist of >reading the internet. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > > but John Algeo? My expereinces with him thus far are nil, as he >does't respond to my letters, but I would be surprised if he couldn't see >how useful the Internet can be. > > From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 05:21:00 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 22:21 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: confusion At 07:41 PM 4/14/96 -0500, you wrote: > >As I understand it, "Morality" derives from "mores" = "customs" or >"conventions." This makes "morality " a movable feast, which, like >beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder. > >Therefore, quoth he, why are people wittering on about its pros and >cons? > >"Morality is as morality does" = Confuseus. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >"confuseus" that was a GReek scholar who studied at the Akademe? Or was it at Elis? alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 05:23:00 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 22:23 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Halcyon At 07:54 PM 4/14/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis: > >[writing to Jerry S] > >>>Jerry; It's Halcyon, and I've been told it's no longer extant. > >As far as I know Halcyon is still around. Perhaps 10 years ago >I went to a conference on theosophical history held there. >Its address is: > >The Temple of the People >Post Office Box 7095 >Halcyon, CA 93420-7095 >(805)489-2822 > >-- Eldon > >Why don't you try them Jerry? Ten years is a long time, they all could have died. But two people I trust told me it was kaput. From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 05:29:00 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 22:29 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Trouble? At 08:17 PM 4/14/96 -0500, you wrote: >In message , alexis dolgorukii > writes >>How do you propose to es\xplain it to "Joe Sixpack"? That's what >>theosophy is all about, I think, to explain abstract reality as best as >>possible to "Joe Sixpack". >> >>Alexis >>> >You looking for trouble, pal? - Joe Sixpack >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Actuallly Alan, I have been "apostle" to the masses for many years now. I actually get tiny results. alexis From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Mon Apr 15 05:36:00 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:36:00 +1200 From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Message-Id: <199604150536.RAA23733@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To: Bee Re: Don't Faint >Bee, >Who the dickens made you feel that you had to go on the defensive? I wonder >whether it was the same stupid person who told me the other day something >like he had a whip in his bedroom. As there are persons whose msgs I delete on arrival, I have not read that. If I read all the msg I would probably have a daily rise of blood pressure and that is not part of the plan I am pursuing at the moment. > >Don't mind people like that. Most of us want to reasonably discuss, well, at >least semi-reasonably ... and then we're friends again. I think we're all >learning as a group. I understand that but some of us have personalities that are not conflict oriented. I have spent most of my life fighting adversity of one sort or another so now that life is peaceful, enjoyable and satisfying, I don't go out of my way to invite conflict. I sometimes even wonder why I want to say anything anyway. Do I expound because I want to show how learned I think I am, do I want to impress others, do I want to impress myself, do I feel the need to change others by what I say, it could be all of them, none of them or some of them. I am still trying to work that out so while the sandpit is liable to get bombed, I will just ponder over some msg and keep me opinion to meself :-) I actually have plenty of them but they are probably only of interest to myself and sometime I don't know that I understand them too well yet anyway. And I am still into de Purucker and even the esoteric dialogues are proving to be most fascinating which is why I am not that sure of just what my opinions are yet. Makes for an interesting existence in my twilight years. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > > > Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 05:34:00 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 22:34 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Chuck At 09:51 PM 4/14/96 -0500, you wrote: >" I think his "jokes" are his way of taking the sting out of things he >needs to say." > >Alexis I think his jokes put more sting into situations & people. Maybe they >take out his sting, but why do we have to listen to that. > >Darn tooten right. I've been using my "delete" button, until someone called >to my attention that he was really going off the deep end. That's when I had >a look see. >He's alienating people. Who wants to tune in to theos-l to read garbage? > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > > >Liesel: Right now, is a very hard time in Chuck's life, between losing Cleo, and having Kidney Stones, and now his personal problem, I think it's clear that he is doing the human thing and "lashing out" where he normally would have been more diplomatic. From what I understand, his brand of whacky humour has long been his trademark. The only problem that arises is when people take his humour for the real thing. Chuck is a compassionate and feeling man, if wveryone would remember that, things would go more smoothly. It's a funny thing Leisel but usually truly compassionate people are also passionate in all ways. It's a fiery thing! alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 05:39:00 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 22:39 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: She herself At 09:56 PM 4/14/96 -0500, you wrote: >Bee, >Who the dickens made you feel that you had to go on the defensive? I wonder >whether it was the same stupid person who told me the other day something >like he had a whip in his bedroom. > >Don't mind people like that. Most of us want to reasonably discuss, well, at >least semi-reasonably ... and then we're friends again. I think we're all >learning as a group. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > >Liesel: I don't really think it was anything anyone on the board said to BEE personally, for as you rightly pointed out.."we discuss''''we argue...and then we're friends again". I think that in this case, it was Bee Brown herself, that put herself on the defensive. I know I was very careful to put on my "kid gloves" whenever I responded to one of her postings. I read all of the postings on here and I saw noone "flame" her. I think perhaps she's very over sensitive. I was a good deal more snsitive myself when I first "signed-om\n" but on this board one either develops a thick skin or resigns. I think Bee may have this problem a lot. alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 05:50:00 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 22:50 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: hypotheticists At 10:31 PM 4/14/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis, >I think what you're describing there is the difference between occultists & >mystics. >Those are, totally valid, different paths to the same goal, taken by people >with different temperaments. It is said that it's difficult for someone of 1 >perusasion to understand someone of the other persuasion. But maybe, if >we're aware of the fact that these 2 paths exist, we can be more tolerant of >each other. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > >Liesel: Sure there's a huge difference between "Occultists" and "Mystics" and both Jerry Schueler and myself happen to be both, but in differing proportions. But when I talk about "Brain-Based Hypotheticism" I am not talking about "Occultism". Occultism, while a great deal more intellectually based than mysticism, and I'm talking about the higher degrees of intelectuality (higher mind), they are still primarily existenial-experiential. When I say someone is pursuing what I call "Brain-Based Hypotheticality" I am referring to those who, it seems to me, get all of their knowledge out of the experiences of others rather than their own experiences. In other words, "booklearning" rather than experience based perceptions. In that case then, it's all just hypothetical supposition and speculation. Now there's nothing wrong with supposition and speculation, it's very useful and I do it all the time. What can be made to be wrong withit is when a person pretends to more than that. Alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 05:56:00 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 22:56 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Essence At 10:38 PM 4/14/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis, > >Jerry in his reply changed "aroma" to "essence". If you know the story of >Shweta Ketu, which deals with essence, it still makes my point. Maybe it >depends on whose religious truth you're talking about. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > >Leisel: I think that when we speak of the "essence" of an individuals life, we are speaking of something entirely different that any possible meaning of Aroma. The "essence" of a life experience is everything that was ESSENTIAL to that life experience distilled to the highest level of intensity. Most of everyopne's life experience is extraneous and irrelevant, it's what isn't irrelevant that is the "essence" of a life. And that is "forwarded" to the manifesting entity, or Perispirit, or Mondad, or Reincarnating Jiva. As to "Religious Truth" there's no such thing because there's no such thing as a "True Religion"..."There is no religion higher than truth". That motto is the most vitally important aspect of theosophy. alexis From Richtay@aol.com Mon Apr 15 07:10:50 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 03:10:50 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960415031049_191326532@mail04> Subject: Re: Gnostics vs. "Founding materialists" Jerry writes, > The Gnostics consider Jehovah (the creator) > to be Satan and hate him, and so on You are speaking here of the more Jewish Gnostics, grouped under the term "Sethians" because of their mythical descent from Adam's third son Seth. Valentinians and the more Christian Gnostics never used the word "Jehovah" and had no great hate of the creator deities. The Nag Hammadi Library gives ample evidence for this (*The Gospel of Truth*, etc. on the Valentinian side compared to *Hypostasis of the Archons* and its vengeance on the creator deity in the Sethian side) > HPB hints that this is so, that > by gaining esoteric knowledge, all things are possible. Today we know > that this kind of determinism simply isn't true. I don't know who the "we" is you are speaking for, possibly "all scientists alove today"? But "we" don't know that it isn't true that salvation can be by gnosis o JNANA, and "we" aren't all convinced the Western notions on quantum mechanics are entirely true. Einstein and many other great scientists, being fully acquainted with quantum theories and claims, never accepted them. This includes many systems dynamics theorists today, including Fritjof Capra and Amit Goswami. > > The teaching that the law of karma is a remorseless unending > chain of cause and effect is pure determinism. Alexis says that he doesn't > believe in karma this way. Neither do I. If I am "grotesquely misinterpreting" > HPB here, then so be it Yup, that's misinterpretation. Karma wold only be deterministic if no new causes could be set in motion. But that is not the Theosophical doctrine, and that isn't the Buddhist, Jain, or Hindu doctrine either. Karma is not merely the inevitable results of PAST actions, but the nearly INFINITE potentiality of present and future actions. While we are indeed doomed to suffer or enjoy based on previous decisions, we are also quite FREE to choose differently now and in the future. The mysterious power of VOWS is wrapped up in this doctrine, namely the great power one can tap into by calling on the higher Self to aid one in radically changing one's orientation and one's direction karmically. There is NOTHING "deterministic" about this, nor does it militate against Tibetan and other esoteric ideas about "distributing" merit or burning off old karma in sudden awakenings. All, ALL, is under law, but not all is pre-determined. Not even close. > Karma is not an > unbreakable chain going on forever, nor will it ever come to an end by > doing good deeds and cultivating moralistic attitudes Jerry, no one ever suggested (to my knowledge) what you are suggesting here. Karma is never "ended" by producing new actions, however harmonious and fair. Karma can only be ended by TOTAL AWAKENING, which is samadhi and nirvana, taking oneself totally outside the "stream of becoming" and entering into totally identification with the ABSOLUTE. This does not make karma false, it makes karma LAW for all worlds below absolute SPIRIT. On any plane where there is a being and the ability to perform action, there must karma also be. But there is a state or station or BE-ness beyond action and beings, and there also karma cannot reach. This is no secret teaching, Mr. Judge makes it perfectly clear in his *Ocean of Theosophy* in the chapters on Karma, and HPB mentions it quite often as well. There is nothing deterministic about karma, especially when one is on the path to absolute transcendence. From Richtay@aol.com Mon Apr 15 07:10:54 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 03:10:54 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960415031053_191326540@mail06> Subject: Re:Survival Jerry: The Temple of the People is located in Halcyon California. They have about 95 members. It is extant, I met the current leader and Spokesperson for the Masters last year at a conference in Ojai. The Point Loma group has less than ten members. They are separate from Pasadena, mostly because of a bitter dispute over the leadership position about 50 years ago, and slightly different takes on the philosophy. Point Loma still published many books, but their magazine The Eclectic Theosophist has sung its swan song. It is not clear whether ULT or Pasadena has more members, and each group has decided it doesn't care about numbers. We only care about planting seeds, not about converting the masses to our way of thinking all at once. It is said to be the work of millenia. I wouldn't care if Theosophy had 5 members, if they were doing good work, no? From Richtay@aol.com Mon Apr 15 07:11:12 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 03:11:12 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960415031110_191326613@mail06> Subject: Re:"Good Authority" Alexis, referring to the number of ULT associates, writes: > As I wasn't told not to say who told me I will; > > It was Jerry Hejka-Ekins and I guess he's as good an authority as you are. > Or is there anyone more authoritative than you and your nice shiney PhD? > Jerry HE and I are friends and both deeply dedicated to the philosophy. I have never sensed in him or me the need to mutually compare "authority." In fact, I feel a great deal of mutual respect and cooperation. The word "authority" was not my choice of words, but yours. If you'd like to find out whether it's 1,000, as you claim JHE states it, or 4 to 5,000, as I state it, why not call the Los Angeles ULT where the records are kept and inquire? PHONE (213) 748-7244 FAX (213) 748-0634 From Richtay@aol.com Mon Apr 15 07:11:16 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 03:11:16 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <199604150711.DAA05761@emout06.mail.aol.com> Apparently-To: theos-l@vnet.net ading got some attention. Am I missing something? I get the sense every now and then that certain members of the board assume that homosexuality is a great cause of concern and consternation to others. When I think of all the gay Theosophists I know, including -- GASP -- in the ULT, I really run into the dozens. Men and women, black and white, young and old. Bunches and bunches of them. And at least in ULT I can't recall the last person I even suspected of homophobia ... Is it a secret naughtiness that I should be informed of? Is there anything in the literature that suggests homosexuality is a perfidious crime? Or even a minor offense? Or even worthy of mention? From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Apr 15 13:12:15 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 08:12:15 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Mail Program with Filters Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII You may want to visit http://www.banyan.com. They have a new program/service called switchboard. In exchange for registering with it, you can get a free copy of their BeyondMail Program which has filtering capabilities. Beta is available for downloading and trying. The regular package is expected to sell for $29.00. It may be worth a try. The beta can also be downloaded from ftp.coordinate.com. ...doss From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 15 14:01:06 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:01:06 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604151505.LAA09166@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Occultists Alexis, Occult knowledge is of the order of knowing how to split an atom. Occultists are very practical people. They are busy probing into the mysteries of nature & the powers latent in human beings mostly because they wish to apply the wider knowledge to benefit humankind. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR ........................................................................... ..... >>What, pray tell, do Occultists have to do with blowing up NBagasaki? Harry >>Turman was no Occultist, and he did the right thing in light of the >>information he had at the time. You are old enough to know that both >>Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intended to spare lives in the long run and not >>take them. Are those Doctors that steal Ova Occultists? And you know as well >>as I that no open occultist will ever be consulted in the debate on the >>"ethical uses of recombinant DNA". Now Occultists clearly are far better >>off, as are the folks around them, when the occultist is ethical, but >>unfortunately Occultists have much less to do with practical realities than >>do occulists! >> >>alexis >> >> > > > From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 15 00:21:27 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:21:27 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Ycch! In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >But most of all it's "God" centered and >that cosmic Busybody is a figment of humanity's imagination. > >alexis Oh no I'm not! GOD (Ms). --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 15 15:36:07 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:36:07 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960415113606_375790981@mail04> Subject: Re: Morality Alan, The problem is that they want to poke out the eye of the other before taking log out of their own. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker Shop Steward Local 47, Villains, Scoundrels and Blasphemers Union From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 15 15:36:20 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:36:20 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960415113619_375791083@mail06> Subject: Re: HPB Alan, It must be at least four by now. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 15 15:36:45 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:36:45 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960415113644_375791271@emout04.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: To: Jerry Re; Gnostics Alan, Sometimes we have to destroy that which we respect. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 15 15:36:51 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:36:51 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960415113649_375791297@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Humor Alan, Your humility is a model for us all. "Non serviam!" Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 15 00:19:50 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:19:50 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: free at last! In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >We went house hunting again, >down to a decision between two properties, both of which we really like, and >now it's up to our banker! Denali very much favours one of them, but it's a >flat acre for him to dash wildly about on! We should have it all settled in >a week or two. > >alexis I hope all goes according to plan (probably Denali's). Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 17:21:00 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 10:21 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Re: aroma At 12:28 AM 4/15/96 -0500, you wrote: >Jerry, >Of course HPB had an aroma. With her kidney troubles all the toxins in her >body had to come out her sweat glands and they did not have deodorant in >those days. Poor Countess Wachmeister did not even have a gas mask! >Obviously it was an odor of sanctity. Or maybe deisel oil? > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > > >Chuck: You raise an interesting point. Actually it may be an important one. Suppose HPB didn't have a bad odor? What would that imply? No one has ever reported that she did, at least as far as I know. Of course people had different sensibilities in those non-deoderant days, and probably politeness might rule out public comment. But I don't thnk there were any private (diarys etc) comments on HPB being "stinky". I know my Grandfather never mentioned it. If Kidney problems aand all, she didn't smell bad, it certainly implies something "special" about her. The Countess was a Frenchwoman married to a Swede and neither of them have American "sensibilities", I think if HPB had an offensive odor, Constance would have at least mentioned it in passing, as something completely natural. Which, of course, it would have been, It's not smelling that's "unnatural". At least it's somethiing to think about. alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 17:23:00 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 10:23 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Well, now At 12:27 AM 4/15/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, >Only one little problem, or rather two. >1: I am not Irish. >2: I am not a bard. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Well, at least not now! alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 17:24:00 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 10:24 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: what happened At 12:26 AM 4/15/96 -0500, you wrote: >and approval. But if it makes them feel any better, newbies can >also buy a hard hat and wear it while they read the list in case divine >judgement gets called down on them for associating with us terrible >blackguards. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >What happened to the rest of this message? We don't have a moderator yet! alexis, one of the blackguards From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 17:26:00 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 10:26 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: !!!!!! At 12:25 AM 4/15/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alex, >Grey wrote a lot of nonsense, true, but his Magickal Ritual Methods is still >a very good book. I use it when I teach. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker >Disciple of Captain Ahab > >I hate to admit this, but I agree with you about his ritual stuff. It's the idiocy about the Sangreal I object to and his heavy Christian emphasis. alexis, sangreal in action From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 17:32:00 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 10:32 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:ULT At 02:15 AM 4/15/96 -0500, you wrote: > >If you'd like to find out whether it's 1,000, as you claim JHE states it, or >4 to 5,000, as I state it, why not call the Los Angeles ULT where the records >are kept and inquire? > >PHONE (213) 748-7244 FAX (213) 748-0634 > >Just FYI Jerry did so, and was told that membership information was not for public release. alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 17:36:00 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 10:36 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "eaten message" At 02:16 AM 4/15/96 -0500, you wrote: >ading got some attention. > >Am I missing something? I get the sense every now and then that certain >members of the board assume that homosexuality is a great cause of concern >and consternation to others. > >When I think of all the gay Theosophists I know, including -- GASP -- in the >ULT, I really run into the dozens. Men and women, black and white, young and >old. Bunches and bunches of them. And at least in ULT I can't recall the >last person I even suspected of homophobia ... > >Is it a secret naughtiness that I should be informed of? Is there anything >in the literature that suggests homosexuality is a perfidious crime? Or even >a minor offense? Or even worthy of mention? > >Rich: Part of the above message obviously got eaten by the internet. I am, of course pleased by what I got to read, but I have to tellyou that in the Adyar Version of Theosophy and it's American SectionHomophobia is alive, and very healthily so. Especially among those of the Esoteric Section. This I know not from hearsay but from very ugly personal expereince. alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 17:40:00 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 10:40 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: If at first.... At 10:10 AM 4/15/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis, > >Occult knowledge is of the order of knowing how to split an atom. Occultists >are very practical people. They are busy probing into the mysteries of >nature & the powers latent in human beings mostly because they wish to apply >the wider knowledge to benefit humankind. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > >........................................................................... >..... > >Liesel...I know what an "occultist" is, probably better than you, but you didn't answer my question which was: What does "Occultism" have to do with the "bombing of Nagasaki" or "stealing ova from unsuspecting women" those things are not done by "Occultists" but by Doctors, Scientists, and political leaders. All of those people need to be, or rather should be ethical, but your statement was a non sequitur. alexis > > >>>What, pray tell, do Occultists have to do with blowing up NBagasaki? Harry >>>Turman was no Occultist, and he did the right thing in light of the >>>information he had at the time. You are old enough to know that both >>>Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intended to spare lives in the long run and not >>>take them. Are those Doctors that steal Ova Occultists? And you know as well >>>as I that no open occultist will ever be consulted in the debate on the >>>"ethical uses of recombinant DNA". Now Occultists clearly are far better >>>off, as are the folks around them, when the occultist is ethical, but >>>unfortunately Occultists have much less to do with practical realities than >>>do occulists! >>> >>>alexis >>> >>> >> >> >> > > From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 17:41:00 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 10:41 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Ycch! At 10:37 AM 4/15/96 -0500, you wrote: >In message , alexis dolgorukii > writes >>But most of all it's "God" centered and >>that cosmic Busybody is a figment of humanity's imagination. >> >>alexis > >Oh no I'm not! > >GOD (Ms). >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Yoou are too, so there! a From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 15 17:59:00 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 10:59 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Denali At 11:05 AM 4/15/96 -0500, you wrote: >In message , alexis dolgorukii > writes >>We went house hunting again, >>down to a decision between two properties, both of which we really like, and >>now it's up to our banker! Denali very much favours one of them, but it's a >>flat acre for him to dash wildly about on! We should have it all settled in >>a week or two. >> >>alexis > >I hope all goes according to plan (probably Denali's). > >Alan :-) >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan: It was really funny. Denali ran around smelling the flowers gleefully (he loves to smell flowers) and rolling on the grass then he sat down under a lilac tree, crossed his paws, and got the most deleriously happy expression on his face. As if he was saying, I really like this place! Actually we do too, a totally usable flat acre with a year-round creek on one side, is very nice when you've been in the city far too long. The creek by the way is bordered by blackberry brambles and John bakes the absolutely best Blackberry muffins on the planet. There is a small second house on the property which is currently used as an art studio, and would clearly remain one. There's also a perfectly useless but terribly picturesqu barn.The other house is very nice too, built in 1995, and with the most wonderful Japanese style jacuzzi tub in the Master Bath, and has lot's of space for a library (about 50 feet of unobstructed wall space) so in either case we'll do. Seriously though I am anxious to get out into the country, too many interpenetrating auras in a big city. I'm a relatively advanced empath and so the anxieties and fears and angers of those in the city (especially this part of this city) are somewhat wearing to me. Also, the Shamanic work tends to intrude upon the neighbors, Even totally non-sensitive folks tend to be a bit bothered by the large numbers of spirits who attend a pair of advanced Shamans. But it's all covered by the third object. One of the places we viewed yesterday was in a truly incredible site. It was in a redwood grove with trees (some of them) as large as 8 feet in diameter and had two full acres in the forest with a waterfall and creek and rustic bridge...I absolutely loved it. BUT, the house was a little too small for my books and art work and it was so damp...damp and even mild arthritis are a bad combination, so we reluctantly disissed it. Also, Redwood trees make everything under them rather dark and even though it was a brilliantly sunny day and the house was literally all glass (that's why no place for art or books) it was dark. Artists need lots of light. I guess you can tell I'm ehtusiastic. alexis,future gardener From mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz Mon Apr 15 18:42:08 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 06:42:08 +1200 From: mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz (Murray A Stentiford) Message-Id: <199604151857.GAA36959@iprolink.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Proposed revisions Alan, Re: >Below is the revised version for the consideration of TI members, as >also mentioned on theos-l in a separate post. If you accept >this revision, which seeks to extend the potential outreach of TI >into the community at large, as well as the specifically >theosophical organisations, please send a "YES" or "NO" vote to >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thanks for re-sending this as a personal e-mail message. I hope you don't mind if I respond to it on the list as a whole. I hadn't seen the previous version because I have not been able to read theos-l for over a fortnight. That is because I've been putting my available time into setting up a new Internet connection and trying to unravel some technical problems with it. So I've stored many of the latest theos-l digests away on disk for future reference. Apologies to all, too, if I go over ground already well-covered. At least this will be a plagiarism-free zone. First, I subscribe wholeheartedly to what I perceive the intentions of this statement to be, as indeed of TI itself. However, I don't think the wording in a couple of places says clearly enough what is intended. The first of these is where it says "THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises free men and women who ...". To my mind, the word "free" used here 1 contains an implicit declaration that some people are free and others aren't, with a corresponding exclusion of those who are not free. Do we want to exclude somebody living in a dictatorship who would love to be a bit freer and belong to TI as well? 2 blurs the clarity of the statement by making it dependent on the wide range of differences of opinion on what freedom is, and how free people really are, etc etc. (Yes, I've seen some of the discussion on this in theos-roots & buds.) I think what "free" is meant to imply here is that members of TI 1 expect the decision to join TI to be made free of fear or undue influence, and 2 recognise the need and right of individuals to choose the paths on which they seek understanding, free of coercion. To address 1, I suggest that the opening paragraph be changed to read "THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises men and women who, of their own free choice, subscribe to the spirit .... etc." For 2, I suggest that the paragraph "No belief system is required - nor assumed to be held - by any member." be extended by making it read "No belief system is required - nor assumed to be held - by any member, in acknowledgement of their right to choose, without trace of coercion, the path on which they seek understanding." Now, my second point is about the phrase "To investigate unexplained laws of nature ..." in the 3rd object. With my science background, I have always felt uncomfortable with "unexplained laws of nature", and I think that words like "regularity" and "consistency", as Don DeGracia put it a while ago, do much better than "law", today. The use of "unexplained" also sits poorly with the current understandings and approach of science at large, as I see it, for the simple reason that we tend not to think in terms of final explanations anymore. A hundred years or so ago, people didn't realise nearly as well as they do now, that a "law" is more of a repeatedly-observed PATTERN of response or behaviour than a declaration that nature will always obey from now on. When a pattern does appear to repeat reliably, scientists allow themselves to infer that there's an underlying principle or process or relationship. Not only that, but there was an almost proprietary feeling about discovering a "law", not unlike the blithely-assumed right of visitors to another land to stick a flag in it and declare that it henceforth belonged to their home country. Today, science has a degree of humility born of seeing classical physics fail in the quantum arena, etc, and the realisation that a humanly-declared "law" of nature is basically a mental construct or pattern placed over a pattern observed in nature, and that a mismatch can be discovered between the two at any time. Then, the law either has to be scrapped, or seen as being useful in certain circumstances, like Newton's laws of motion. The word "explanation" seems now rather naive and obscure in its effect because, like "laws", an explanation is a humanly-constructed connection between observations on the one hand (and heaven knows, they can be fraught with distortion and incompleteness), and the ever-expanding world of theories on the other. So, for the 3rd object, I would suggest something like "To investigate realms of nature not yet within common knowledge, and unrealized human potential and abilities, with an underlying respect for all life. I think this sits a bit better, despite having 2 "ands" in it, and addresses also the aspect that a vast body of theosophy may be already known to a few, but that it's our job to help the evolutionary process on the planet where it's up to right now, not 120 years ago. Plus a hint of the fact that we're not trying to compete with science. These changes may seem minor in terms of wording, but I feel that they connect to issues which it is part of TI's work to address. Despite my keenness to see these suggestions accepted, I am willing to vote YES for the wording you sent, especially if you have already secured a large proportion of YESes, for the sake of seeing a cohesive forward step taken now rather than later. However, if that is the case, I would very much like to see them taken into account next time changes are being considered. So it's YES for now, and even more so YES if you can incorporate these ideas! Murray Member TI & TS in NZ PS: My new e-mail address is mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz I will still get e-mail sent to the old address, but want to keep that address for work-related messages as much as possible. From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Apr 15 20:25:45 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:25:45 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Newbees Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi We have had several messages on the issue of the tone and content of some of the messages here. For anyone who is new to maillists, it may be shocking. Newslist is a totally new type of medium and it takes time to most to get used to. I just read a message from listening-l which I thought was interesting and I have forwarded it here. Some may find it interesting. ....doss From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon Apr 15 20:30:01 1996 Date: 15 Apr 96 16:30:01 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Being & Doing Message-Id: <960415203001_76400.1474_HHL92-2@CompuServe.COM> Chuck: >Jerry, >The fact that Grey had this problem with being sort of Christian did not >preclude him from being one hell of a good magician, after all, most of the >magicians whose work we study considered themselves to be Christian and >Eliphas Levi even considered himself to be a good Roman Catholic! As was John Dee. I do have a few of Grey's books (Magickal Ritual Methods) and I am sure that he is ok as a magician. After all, we all are with Llewellyn so how could we be all wrong? Jerry S. Member, TI the Archons* and its vengeance on the creator >deity in the Sethian side) Right, Rich. To say "Gnoticism teaches" is like saying "Christianity teaches." >I don't know who the "we" is you are speaking for, possibly "all scientists >alove today"? But "we" don't know that it isn't true that salvation can be >by gnosis o JNANA, and "we" aren't all convinced the Western notions on >quantum mechanics are entirely true. Jnana equates to Gnosis only if it is able to go beyond the human mind. I am not so sure than Jnana can do this. My own opionion (which should be obvious from my discussions with Eldon) is that the intellectual-spiritual approach put forth by G de P is a very good start, but it won't take us as far as we really want to go. On the plus side, it is safe and probably the best approach for newbies or the masses (the Joe Sixpacks, as Alexis has it). On the negative side, it has its own dangers, that are every bit as valid as those found in psychism. Ego can be inflated just as much by intellect as by psychism. It is very much a Theosophical path, and I respect those who tread it, but I prefer direct experience (which is not without its own dangers). No, I am not referring to science, although chaos theory does seem to validate my position. Quantum theory was not easily accepted by most scientists, Rich. Many, many scientists tried their best to defeat it in some way, and prove it wrong. It stands today as the most demonstrable of all the scientific disciplines, and not one single scientist has been able to disprove it. However, I am referring only to the mechanics of it. When you get into theory and try to see what it all means, we have another story. There are at least 8 main possible worldviews based on quantum theory to date, and no one knows which is the right one. Einstein's view is only one of the 8. Anyway, I base my conviction on chaos and indeterminism soley on the doctrine of duality. According to this doctrine, order and chaos come into existence together, act together, and will die together. You can't have one without the other, and so on, with any duality. Chao has always been with us. Science is only now coming to grips with it (largely because of the computer). Well, it turns out that determinism and indeterminism are also two sides of a duality. The trouble with dualities is that everyone favors one side and tries to hide the other side under their rug. This only works for the short-term. Sooner or later, the other side rears its head. So, I see our world as both determinisitc (in the short-term) and indeterministic (in the long-term). What this means, is, that you may be able to predict the kind of life that you will have next time around by looking at this one, but this life will have little or no effect on our 10th or 100th birth from now (i.e., its effect will be insignificant). While it is true that a butterfly's wings will effect the weather, the fact is that this effect is too small to measure and thus for practical purposes is insignificant. >Yup, that's misinterpretation. Karma wold only be deterministic if no new >causes could be set in motion. But that is not the Theosophical doctrine, >and that isn't the Buddhist, Jain, or Hindu doctrine either I seem to recall Buddhist morality stories in which something would happen to someone, and Buddha would explain it all away by pointing out that 100 lifetimes ago, this individual did such and so. This is pure exoteric determinism. However, HPB's Inner Group Teachings clearly show that she was not a determinist. >The mysterious power of VOWS is wrapped up in this doctrine, namely the great >power one can tap into by calling on the higher Self to aid one in radically >changing one's orientation and one's direction karmically. The power of VOWS is magical, not mysterious. And yes, it is very real, and does work. > All, ALL, is under law, but not all is pre-determined. This is pretty much what I have come to realize, and is what I have been trying to say. Good discussion. Thanks. Jerry S. Member, Ti From Coherence@aol.com Mon Apr 15 22:01:30 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 18:01:30 -0400 From: Coherence@aol.com Message-Id: <960415180128_470504439@mail06> Subject: Re: Giggling (response to Jerry S.) I appreciated the candid discussion in your post on this topic and say confidently that the vast majority of it I agree with: > If you believe in karma, then you will be as ethical as you can, just to reduce your >own karma burden a bit. Here we run into a bit of a problem, and I have a feeling this is the point at which we get down to defining what is ethical/moral. I believe that at the core of the issue is a) intent and b) whether that intent is directed at action to procure something for oneself or for others. For me it gets back to selflessness. Regardless of local custom and "appearances" the matter ultimately gets back to helping others, and the true occultist, who knows what is right to do "spontaneously" has the benefit of others placed first. the lifting of everyone's karmic burden just a bit. That which is requested in order to be better able to help others is the ethical/moral high-road we should be traveling. >he idea in occultism is to do the "right" thing spontaneously as if you had no other >choice, rather than because someone else said it was the right thing to do or because >you gain merit by it or because you gain a better future life for it Completely agree. >It all boils down to whether it inflates your ego (then it is wrong, no matter how right it >may be) or deflates or ignores your ego (then it is right, no matter how wrong it may >be). For this reason, history shows us some very high initiates and Adepts whose >morals were very questionable by their local standards. Generally I would agree, except would alter it to state that if the reason for doing something was to make you feel good (inflate the ego) then it is probably wrong. Here again the emphasis is what I get out of the action, not how someone else benefits. Regarding the Adepts (and HPB) we are not in a position to judge their actions from an ethical standpoint, for by local standards, most often their actions would be deemed unethical, but we have a pretty good idea that they have the interests of others placed ahead of themselves. > It is not up to us to question whether HPB was morally upright when she trucked >through the countryside with a bunch of men. Nor about her smoking or cussing or >anything else. Now, as it turns out, we also should extend this courtesy to others, >outside the theosophical community, whose actions may seem black and degraded >to us, but whose heart and whose conscious motivations we cannot ever know. In >short, it seems to me that unless we can read the thoughts and emotions of others, >we should not judge them insofar as their morality is concerned. Completely agree. >I never meant to suggest that Western students, high or low, don't need ethics or >morals, but rather that they no longer need such warnings or morality lectures. I, for >one. rightly or wrongly, feel that I am aware of the consequences (the "price" as Alan >would say) of most of my actions and no longer need reminding. Are you sure that Western students don't need constant reminding that they should be putting the benefit of other first? (my def. of ethics) I remember reading that ANYONE at any time can fall from their place once their motive turns to selfish purposes. With the acquirement of knowledge and power, this danger seems all the greater, and a little reminder doesn't hurt. >If you constantly strive hard to "hold to the highest moral ideal" you will trip over your >own shoestrings at some point. This is something that beginners, those who just start >on the Path, may have to do, and have to worry over for a time. I would hope, Greg, >that you are past this point. It seems to me that if you are trying to hold to the highest moral ideal, then your attention is constantly on the alert for the cravings of the lower nature and that gradual (or blatant) creep of the selfishness that we have engendered over many lifetimes. Until these are conquered and controlled, this attention is required. Being alert to these is part of that process (which is my favorite) "Man, know thyself." As far as me being past that point, I appreciate your vote of confidence, but it is not clear to me that I am. I do hope that you will still correspond with me. > I mean only to say that they need to make the very best of their morals and ethics, >and then move on, letting ethics be spontaneous and not forced. One has to move to >the very highest of Kohlberg's moral stages in order to get anywhere in occultism. >One interesting peculiarity with Kohlberg's stages is that from the perspective of those >on the lower levels, those on the highest levels appear to have no morals at all. This is >because those who are on the lower levels are overly concerned with appearances. Completely agree. Again there is a vast difference between appearances and the inner motive. > So sometimes, Greg, ethics comes down to doing what you inwardly >feel is the right thing to do at the time, and choices are seldom easy. Once more, I agree. Through all this, points have been clarified. And I hope I am not negating all the positive ground we have covered by saying that I don't think HPB would giggle at the struggle encountered as the budding occultist strives learn to do what is right, not based on appearance or local custom, but that which is really right to do. Maybe here we start considering the path of action without regard for the results, being, by definition, beyond them. For again I would agree that we should not be concerned with the results of action, but this is dependent on the right performance of action. Thanks for you input. Greg H From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 15 15:57:52 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:57:52 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <8JVF+VAAIncxEwrZ@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: What's in a name? In-Reply-To: <960415031049_191326532@mail04> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960415031049_191326532@mail04>, Richtay@aol.com writes >Mr. Judge makes it perfectly clear in his *Ocean >of Theosophy* in the chapters on Karma, and HPB mentions it I am curious as to why I read "Mr. Judge" and "HPB" fairly frequently on this list - never "WQJ" and rarely "Mme. Blavatsky." To me, "Mr. Judge" sounds rather solemn. Leadbeater is usually CWL and Annie Besant is no longer "Dr. Besant" in everyday TS chat. How about, "Good ol' Bill Judge" for a change? Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 15 15:45:42 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:45:42 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: confusion In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >>"confuseus" that was a GReek scholar who studied at the Akademe? Or was it >at Elis? > > >alexis > - Renowned Brit. aka "The Idiot Philosopher" from "confuse" + "us." Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 15 15:41:41 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:41:41 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Quatre legs In-Reply-To: <960415011759_375660489@emout10.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960415011759_375660489@emout10.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >Glad to hear you're out. Now they can save the room for me. > >Chuck the Apoplectic Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker They have to put some new spikes in first - and fresh padding. It is rumored that 85 subscribers to theos-l are getting together to supply these items for free as soon as possible. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 15 22:37:28 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:37:28 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <2C$5cHAo+scxEwbw@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: To: Jerry Re; Gnostics In-Reply-To: <960415113644_375791271@emout04.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960415113644_375791271@emout04.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >Sometimes we have to destroy that which we respect. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker WE? Speak for yourself. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 15 22:35:59 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:35:59 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <0yW5ABAP9scxEw5O@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Morality In-Reply-To: <960415113606_375790981@mail04> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960415113606_375790981@mail04>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >The problem is that they want to poke out the eye of the other before taking >log out of their own. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Who do? I wonder if you are confusing "moral" with "self-righteous" - much of what you have been going on about would apply to the latter. It is not, however, news to any of us (I imagine) in this context. Even if not, and you choose not to follow or respect anyone else's customs - fine: so you told us, and now we know. EOF. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 15 16:00:14 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:00:14 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <9pGFGZAOKncxEwpG@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Naughtiness In-Reply-To: <199604150711.DAA05761@emout06.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604150711.DAA05761@emout06.mail.aol.com>, Richtay@aol.com writes >Is it a secret naughtiness that I should be informed of? Is there anything >in the literature that suggests homosexuality is a perfidious crime? Or even >a minor offense? Or even worthy of mention? I have heard - only hearsay, perhaps, but some experience tends to confirm it - that in the UK at least there is a high degree of homophobia in the E.S. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 15 23:05:17 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 19:05:17 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604160009.UAA17674@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: aroma Dear Chuck, I think in HPB's days they didn't have Diesel oil either. Liesel From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 15 15:46:51 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:46:51 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Trouble? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >>Actuallly Alan, I have been "apostle" to the masses for many years now. I >actually get tiny results. > >alexis Another joke gone down the pan ... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From nlporreco@bpa.gov Mon Apr 15 21:14:00 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 14:14:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: Re: TS on the Internet Message-Id: <3172EA5D@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 53 TEXT I am not sure, but I think the following home page is from Wheaton. It has hyper links to other Theosophical home pages. http://www.vnet.net/users/jem/homepage.html Also the next one is the home page of Rodolfo Don http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/MyPage.html Rodolfos' home page has links he has created to several other home pages of his making. Helpful Nick. > Date: Saturday, April 13, 1996 1:18PM > From: theos-l > Subject: Re: TS on the Internet At 11:05 AM 4/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >Alexis, > >John Algeo wants Wheaton to be on the Internet, & the Board is with him. > >Nick sent me 2 www addresses that are theosophical. I found them last night. >One of them is Rodolpho's, of which the address was given out wrong the 1st >time. >The 2 I found are > http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/Theosophy.html > http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/Theosophy/Overview.html > >As for Elisabeth, part of her being terribly busy seems to consist of >reading the internet. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > > >Liesel: I found Rudolpho's Web Page (that's what I went looking for in the first place). But he's not an Official Web Page of the TSA. I'll check out the second one. But what I was looking for were Web Sites which are an official theosophical site, ie.e connected to Wheaton. alexis From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 15 15:42:59 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:42:59 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: In-Reply-To: <199604150518.BAA26469@emout06.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604150518.BAA26469@emout06.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >newbies can >also buy a hard hat and wear it while they read the list in case divine >judgement gets called down on them for associating with us terrible >blackguards. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker I think if I were newbie I would go away - it's easier, and there are friendlier places. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From eldon@theosophy.com Tue Apr 16 00:40:56 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:40:56 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960416004056.0068b554@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Reply to JRC -- Same Old Arguments JRC: In your recent posting, you start off writing as through you were responding to the discussion on the term "blasphemy", but quickly come back to the same discussion we've had many times before. (One of these times, I'm sure we'll tire of the whole thing, and leave each other alone, pending any new, original ideas that either of us may have on the subject, and not just test the improved ability of our "sharper claws" to penetrate armor.) I've been not making it a point of taking on the psychic stuff, by either expressing my views on the subject in detail, nor by providing citations from the theosophical literature regarding it. But it seems like after a while, your resentment over my stray comments accumulates to the point where you feel an outburst against me is necessary, and I have to decide how to respond. You mention that I've taught you to "throw aside all notions of empathizing with the point of view of another, and to simply state my own perspective as forcefully as possible." That certainly was not something I either try to practice or teach others. I suppose that you may get the feeling that I've been that way in the past, because there have been times when you've posted things and gotten praise. There have been times when I've been the only person that attempts to contrast what you've said with a traditional theosophical view, which you're quick to dismiss as mere intellectual stuff. Perhaps because I tend to put most of what I say in my own words, you cannot dismiss it like you might dismiss some of the theosophical quotes that Bee has posted. Since I'm writing as my ideas and my views, you have to dismiss *me* to silence them. Your sensitivity to perceived rankings is likely due to your feeling rejected by traditional theosophical groups, because there's a natural reaction to stop listening when someone mentions they're psychic. This reaction by people in those groups, though, is wrong, because you are as capable of deep thought and original insights as anyone else. Not everything you say can be dismissed as subjective astral experiences, divorced from the actual reality of life. There is not really a scale here, with judgment of people being made. Psychic abilities do not put someone *lower* on a scale, not any more than they put someone *higher*. Spiritual and intellectual development is entirely independent of sensory powers and faculties acquired in a particular lifetime. There is no basis to judge a person with budding psychic powers, to either put them ahead of others in evolution nor to classify them as having recessive, Atlantean traits. I see you as seeing a scale here where there is none, and reacting to it by insisting upon a scale of your own, where you end up on the higher end. This scale, in Alexis' words, ranges from those with hypothetical truths versus those with perceptions based upon so-called higher senses. In your words, it would range from those that are merely intellectual to those with inner sight, where you equate "inner sight" with the psychic. You say that I continue to make "utterly condescending statements of any manifestation of inner abilities." I'd disagree. But I don't equate "inner abilities" with psychic abilities, and would consider Richard Ihle's helping of some high school student a better example of inner abilities than someone seeing the color blue in an aura. Alexis, like you, puts high regard in the psychic, so it's natural to find Alexis applauding you for your "honest and insightful" remarks. You both may find a problem when I talk about bringing others to Theosophy, saying I'd like to lead them to a higher form of understanding, because you've already stated your disagreement with its doctrines. Perhaps you'd find this viewpoint contemptuous of the beliefs of others. I'd find the contrary view contemptuous of the theosophical philosophy, putting it no better than someone's subjective viewpoint. As I look at people in the world, I expect to find many of awakening spirituality and insight where the psychic is either not there or does not play a dominant role in their lives. The appearance of extraordinary powers is not the sign of an awakened soul. The sign is in wisdom, intelligence, compassion, empathy, and a desire to unselfishly make the world a better place. Finally, you seem to have a problem with my wanting to respect peoples' appreciation of the sacred, regardless of their foolish beliefs, yet at the same time wanting to speak out for what I consider the truth, uninhibited by the neurotic reactions of people to the particular words I use to express myself in. You say that HPB went after people's sacred cows, and that in the search for truth, one should be free to pursue it without regard to people's feelings. I'd say that people's feelings are important, but their unjustified emotional reactions to things are not. I should, for instance, be able to express myself using the word "cat" without regard to someone's unexpected phobia of that word. Here there is no harm intended in the word and the reaction is clearly the listener's psychological problem. That is different than trouncing upon someone's beliefs because of not liking the beliefs, without regard to the effect upon their spiritual lives. You mention that an attack on people's beliefs is justified, because if the beliefs are based upon illusion the beliefs will be upset sooner or later anyway. That may be so, but I wouldn't prematurely rip open a baby flower bud or cut open a cocoon, just because "sooner or later..." On the other hand, I'd agree with this idea in another direction. I'd say that sooner or later people's false beliefs, beliefs based upon illusion, will be subject to challenge and the reality of life will make itself known. And precisely because of this, people will come to see the illusory nature of the psychic and will start to awaken to higher faculties of consciousness. Best Regards, -- Eldon From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 15 23:42:34 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 19:42:34 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604160046.UAA08552@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Alexis, Re: Chuck Dear Alexis, I'm sorry these things are happening to Chuck. I don't however think that this gives him a right to mess up theos-l ... and he has been, IMHO. People are complaining, because what he writes is just senseless venom. I don't think anyone has the right to impose himself like that on other people, who, I'm sure, being human beings, have their own problems. I know I do, but I try to keep them out of theos-l, because I don't think most of them belong here. The purpose of this list, seems to me, is to talk theosophy, all brands of it, not to vent one's spleen. I don't have any suggestions as to what Chuck could do instead. Maybe you do. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 15 23:16:46 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 00:16:46 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Proposed revisions In-Reply-To: <199604151857.GAA36959@iprolink.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604151857.GAA36959@iprolink.co.nz>, Murray A Stentiford writes >Alan, > >Re: > >>Below is the revised version for the consideration of TI members, as >>also mentioned on theos-l in a separate post. If you accept >>>snip<<< > >First, I subscribe wholeheartedly to what I perceive the intentions of this >statement to be, as indeed of TI itself. > >However, I don't think the wording in a couple of places says clearly enough >what is intended. The first of these is where it says > >"THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises free men and women who ...". >>>more snip<<< > >I think what "free" is meant to imply here is that members of TI > >1 expect the decision to join TI to be made free of fear or undue influence, > and > >2 recognise the need and right of individuals to choose the paths on which > they seek understanding, free of coercion. That is I think what we all most likely understand. > > >To address 1, I suggest that the opening paragraph be changed to read > >"THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises men and women who, of their own free choice, >subscribe to the spirit .... etc." .. and that the wording as offered means this anyway. > > >For 2, I suggest that the paragraph > >"No belief system is required - nor assumed to be held - by any member." > >be extended by making it read > >"No belief system is required - nor assumed to be held - by any member, >in acknowledgement of their right to choose, without trace of coercion, >the path on which they seek understanding." Is this not implicit in the statement to begin with? We could easily get overcome by an overdose of verbosity by trying to cross every "t" and dot every "i". > > >Now, my second point is about the phrase > >"To investigate unexplained laws of nature ..." in the 3rd object. > >With my science background, I have always felt uncomfortable with "unexplained >laws of nature", and I think that words like "regularity" and "consistency", >as Don DeGracia put it a while ago, do much better than "law", today. A recent correction, following discussion among members, alters "laws of nature" to "mysteries of nature" of which there is an abundance of the unexplained, which agrees quite well with your view below, I think? > >The use of "unexplained" also sits poorly with the current understandings >and approach of science at large, as I see it, for the simple reason that we >tend not to think in terms of final explanations anymore. > >A hundred years or so ago, people didn't realise nearly as well as they do now, >that a "law" is more of a repeatedly-observed PATTERN of response or behaviour >than a declaration that nature will always obey from now on. When a pattern >does appear to repeat reliably, scientists allow themselves to infer that >there's an underlying principle or process or relationship. > >Not only that, but there was an almost proprietary feeling about discovering a >"law", not unlike the blithely-assumed right of visitors to another land to >stick a flag in it and declare that it henceforth belonged to their home >country. > >Today, science has a degree of humility born of seeing classical physics fail >in the quantum arena, etc, and the realisation that a humanly-declared "law" >of nature is basically a mental construct or pattern placed over a pattern >observed in nature, and that a mismatch can be discovered between the two at >any time. Then, the law either has to be scrapped, or seen as being useful >in certain circumstances, like Newton's laws of motion. > >The word "explanation" seems now rather naive and obscure in its effect because, >like "laws", an explanation is a humanly-constructed connection between >observations on the one hand (and heaven knows, they can be fraught with >distortion and incompleteness), and the ever-expanding world of theories on >the other. Well, yes, any "explanation" will be subjective to whoever "discovers" or experiences it, and there is the never-ending problem concerning mutually acceptable definitions. > >So, for the 3rd object, I would suggest something like > >"To investigate realms of nature not yet within common knowledge, and >unrealized human potential and abilities, with an underlying respect for >all life. > >I think this sits a bit better, despite having 2 "ands" in it, and addresses >also the aspect that a vast body of theosophy may be already known to a few, >but that it's our job to help the evolutionary process on the planet where >it's up to right now, not 120 years ago. Plus a hint of the fact that we're >not trying to compete with science. Impossible! > >These changes may seem minor in terms of wording, but I feel that they connect >to issues which it is part of TI's work to address. > >Despite my keenness to see these suggestions accepted, I am willing to vote YES >for the wording you sent, especially if you have already secured a large >proportion of YESes, for the sake of seeing a cohesive forward step taken now >rather than later. However, if that is the case, I would very much like to see >them taken into account next time changes are being considered. >So it's YES for now, and even more so YES if you can incorporate these ideas! > >Murray >Member TI & TS in NZ So can we leave it till next time? You can bet there will be one! At the head of the TI statement we say "as expressed thus" - I see no reason why you or any other members could not add a rider to this effect at a local level - needs and expression vary from place to place, and from country to country. >PS: My new e-mail address is mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz Noted - I will amend the TI membership list. > > I will still get e-mail sent to the old address, but want to keep that > address for work-related messages as much as possible. > Your feedback is greatly appreciated. BTW - I am trying to get subscribers to post TI related messages to theos-buds, which has been little used in the past. This is partly to be kind to those who do (for reasons I do not comprehend, and no one tells me) wish to participate in TI. They can then, if they wish to avoid TI traffic, unsubscribe to theos-buds while remaining subscribed to theos-l. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 15 23:47:46 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 19:47:46 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604160052.UAA13544@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Alexis, Re: Occultists Alexis, Occultism isn't just book learning, it's applied all kinds of learning. If you & Jerry are both occultists & mystics, you must be very far advanced, because it is said that towards the end of the search, the 2 paths merge. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canad, HR From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 15 23:17:27 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 00:17:27 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: censorship In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >>Americans especially don't like it when non-American's try to tell us what >to say. > >alexis The same applies to people of all nations, I suspect. [Exits singing "Land of Hope and Glory]. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 15 16:13:09 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:13:09 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: "Moderator" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >>I love Alan, I admire Alan, I revere Alan, I respect Alan.....BUT >NO MODERATOR, NOT HIM NOT ANYBODY! > >Alexis > DITTO :-) Alan. Anyhow, the list is *already* maintained by John Mead as an unmoderated list in the interests of freedom of speech. For some, the delete key is useful - I use it a lot, and for others, there are a number of mail filter options around - I think my own net provider has a freebie version for use with its software. Like others, I ger pissed off with some of the things I read, but mea culpa - I probably piss other people off with some of the things I say - that's life on the net. (We are still allowed to say "piss" in England, even if it's illegal for Americans to read it). More Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 16 01:13:34 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:13:34 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: TI Introduction Mime-Version: 1.0 THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL - AN INTRODUCTION PART ONE "Theosophy" is a word deriving from two Greek words meaning "god" and "wisdom" respectively. It was brought into widespread use in the English-speaking world by a group of like-minded people who, under the inspiration of a Russian woman, Mme. Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, formed the first formal Theosophical Society in New York in 1875. The successors to this Society incorporated it in Madras, India, in 1905. The theme of all current theosophical organisations is essentially the same - that there is an underlying wisdom-teaching that has existed in the world for millenia under different guises, and continues to find expression in the world in our own day and age. From its early beginnings, the "theosophical movement" - as it is sometimes called - ran into problems of organisation, authority and hierarchy; divisions and schisms were well established by the early decades of the twentieth century. Notwithstanding the derivation of the term "theosophy" - which was adopted, and not invented, by the nineteenth century theosophists - belief in a personal god was never a requirement binding upon theosophists, though those who have such beliefs are not exluded. The idea of a non-personal god is not foreign to theosophical thought, but again, the question of belief is not an issue. Theosophists generally may be more likely to debate and discuss what is meant by "god" in the first place. This is because the theosophical societies developed from a commitment to three basic objects, which reached an accepted formal expression in 1896. The principal organisation which inherited the apparent intentions of the founders of 1875 is still the Adyar (Madras) based Theosophical Society, while those who chose to take a different path are to be found represented in The United Lodge of Theosophists and The Theosophical Society (Pasadena) - both of which are based in the U.S.A. There are also said to be other minor theosophical organisations subscribing to the same or a similar general ethos. THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL came into being in January, 1996, and was the culmination of a number of factors meeting for the first time as a result of the rapidly expanding "Information Superhighway" of computer technology and the global "Internet" which has come to house it. We shall eneavour to itemise the main themes inherent in this development. 1. The Theosophical Society was seen increasingly as authoritarian, autocratic, and hierarchical. With the rapid dissemination of information on a worldwide scale the grounds for such a view became all too apparent. At the international level, the President of the Society in India had, in recent years, it appears, expelled three national sections - which on a smaller scale is rather like the President of the United Nations unilaterally expelling three of its member countries. In the case of the T.S., this applied to Yugoslavia, Denmark, and Canada. In the U.S.A., similar problems arose with some of the Society's branches, or "Lodges" - and in particular a damaging lawsuit with its branch in Boston, Massachusets. The basic symptom underlying the Society's problems seemed (and still seems) to be its hierarchical power structure, which while nominally democratic, has proved to be very susceptible of manipulation, whether at international, national, or local levels. This has resulted, according to the view of many, in an unhealthy "control" of opinion and presentation by those in positions of authority and power at any given time. 2. The wording of the three objects of the founding society was perceived to be "frozen" in the language of the nineteenth century; any and all attemps to restate them in words more acceptable to modern ears and perceptions were rebuffed, often rudely, by those in authority - an increasingly older generation of people who seemed both unwilling and unable to move with the times. This latter has been an ongoing problem, and the Society has seen its support over the past hundred years dwindle to somewhere between ten and fifteen percent of its original enthusiastic membership, and this decline continues. 3. Having - however we look at it - moved into a genuinely "New Age" a number of theosophically-minded people, not all members of the Adyar or any formal organisation, sought to find a way to overcome the problems outlined above. First thoughts were obvious: a hierarchical power structure, by its very nature, encouraged and fostered the desire to exercise power over others, and therefore a revolutionary approach to theosophical study and work was required. The short answer to this was "consensus, not control." 4. If the noble ideals of the founders of modern theosophy were to survive into the next century, then the language of the three objects needed to be brought up to date to reflect that need, to prevent the theosophical movement from declining further into obscurity and finally into oblivion. Attempts over the years to reform the Society from within seem to have led only to further power struggles, which continue to this day, although the effort continues, and may yet bear fruit. As a consequence of the above considerations THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL was born, and is clearly in very early stages of its own development. However, we have managed to formulate a basic statement of purpose, which incorporates the changes - principally of attitude - which we feel needed to find expression, and most importantly, to provide a "home" in which all of us, seekers after truth at many levels and in many ways, could feel secure among friends and companions. In order to clarify this, we must turn first to the three objects in their original form, and contrast them with their counterparts in the Theosophy International statement of intent. This will be the subject of Part Two of this Introduction. Alan Bain, April, 1996. (The views of any of the members of Theosophy International are their own, and cannot be considered as any kind of "official" policy, for apart from the general statement of intent, Theosophy International does not need one). --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 16 05:00:14 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 01:00:14 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960416010012_272908010@mail02.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: censorship Alex, That is very true and there is still the little matter of Canada left over from the War of 1812. Now Bill needs a quick war to be sure of being re-elected and Canada does not have a very big army... JUST KIDDING Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 16 14:46:28 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 15:46:28 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <6V0EpBAEL7cxEwLD@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: No Moderator In-Reply-To: <199604160324.AA30164@zipper.zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604160324.AA30164@zipper.zip.com.au>, Michelle Donald writes >> I think this list needs a moderator. I nominate Alan. This discussion >> will, I hope, lead to a decision. We already know a moderator is not for theos lists. > >Or if not at least some netiquette guidelines, about conserving >bandwdith and increasing value to participants by: > >1) judicious quoting - not none - making some posts meaningless or >complete quote leaving in unecessary details. >2) on topic >3) more than I agree - this doesnt add to discussion unless a vote is >being called for >4)emailing direct rather than to the list where ones response is to >the individual rather than the group participating in the list. > >If you can think of more please feel free to add them... > >yours in fellowship > >Michelle Donald These are useful and serious points - I think some of us could take note and try to be more selective. The "Reply" button can be quick and easy to use, but the result may not always be useful to all readers. I know I get tempted by this, and sometimes alter a reply to go the an individual rather than the list. I could do it more often, I know, and am posting this reply to Michelle to the list for consideration by others. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Apr 17 14:56:02 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 10:56:02 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604171600.MAA06808@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: No Moderator That's a good list to start with. How about adding something to the effect that there should be some consideration of other human beings. The consideration would consist of the length & content of the messages, & also somehow would exclude hurtful personal remarks, ie taking into account that the people who read the message also have feelings. Liesel ............................................................................ >In message <199604160324.AA30164@zipper.zip.com.au>, Michelle Donald > writes >>> I think this list needs a moderator. I nominate Alan. This discussion >>> will, I hope, lead to a decision. > >We already know a moderator is not for theos lists. >> >>Or if not at least some netiquette guidelines, about conserving >>bandwdith and increasing value to participants by: >> >>1) judicious quoting - not none - making some posts meaningless or >>complete quote leaving in unecessary details. >>2) on topic >>3) more than I agree - this doesnt add to discussion unless a vote is >>being called for >>4)emailing direct rather than to the list where ones response is to >>the individual rather than the group participating in the list. >> >>If you can think of more please feel free to add them... >> >>yours in fellowship >> >>Michelle Donald > >These are useful and serious points - I think some of us could take note >and try to be more selective. The "Reply" button can be quick and easy >to use, but the result may not always be useful to all readers. I know >I get tempted by this, and sometimes alter a reply to go the an >individual rather than the list. I could do it more often, I know, and >am posting this reply to Michelle to the list for consideration by >others. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > > From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 17 19:27:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 12:27 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Reply? My views re: the absolute non need of moderators or decisions being well known. I will not beat a dead horse any longer. My views on the overuse of aoutations and citations also being well known (total disapproval) I willleave that corpse alone too. What I want to ask, as a almost total computer illiterate (to me they're useful typewriters) is: What does the reply button do? And while I'm asking how do I attach things that get where I want them to go? alexis From nlporreco@bpa.gov Wed Apr 17 20:03:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 13:03:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: Re: Reply? Message-Id: <31754E5F@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 43 TEXT The reply key sets up the TO: address, immediately to the person or address you are responding to. An example would be if you were reading someone's posting then hit the Reply Key. It would leave his posting intact as part of your letter and set up for you to reply with his address in the appropriate place and the subject repeated only with a RE: in front of it (RE:, of course standing for regarding). The attach function is a little more complicated. The reason for this first of all is, that even if you are successful the attachment may not be able to be read by another if : 1.) There internet provider and yours may not have compatible systems. 2.) They do not have the appropriate software for reading your attachment. An example of 2.) would be if you sent me an attachment of a letter written in Word for Windows ver. 6.0 and I did not have a word processor software package on my computer. To use the attachment key all you have to do is access the Attach icon, and then go to the appropriate place on your tree that is revealed and highlight the file you want attached. You need to have a file created and stored ahead of time and know where it is located. I hope the above is clearer then mud. Nick. > Date: Wednesday, April 17, 1996 3:30PM > From: theos-buds > Subject: Re: Reply? My views re: the absolute non need of moderators or decisions being well known. I will not beat a dead horse any longer. My views on the overuse of aoutations and citations also being well known (total disapproval) I willleave that corpse alone too. What I want to ask, as a almost total computer illiterate (to me they're useful typewriters) is: What does the reply button do? And while I'm asking how do I attach things that get where I want them to go? alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 17 19:22:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 12:22 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:1812 At 07:09 AM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >That is very true and there is still the little matter of Canada left over >from the War of 1812. Now Bill needs a quick war to be sure of being >re-elected and Canada does not have a very big army... >JUST KIDDING > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Hey man: Not only do they not have a big army, it isn't a very good one! They don't have our nintendo toys. My Dad's family was very big on annexing Canada from about 1776 to about 1813, they eventually settled for Texas and California....I have lots of Canadian pals (in Canada's Western areas) who want to be annexed and made into states no's 51 - 55. The area they represent runs through Saskatchewan, Alberta, B.C. Yukon, etc. Most of them can't see any reason for the seperation anyway. Do you realize what a powerhouse the U.S. and Canada (English Speaking Canada) would be as one country? NOT KIDDING alexis From michelle@zip.com.au Thu Apr 18 11:04:12 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 11:04:12 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Message-Id: <199604180040.AA11419@zipper.zip.com.au> Subject: Re: TI Introduction Priority: normal > Petrovna Blavatsky, formed the first formal Theosophical Society > in New York in 1875. The successors to this Society > incorporated it in Madras, India, in 1905. I dont see the need for this last sentence, could you please explain its purpose? > Theosophists and The Theosophical Society (Pasadena) - both of > which are based in the U.S.A. There are also said to be other > minor theosophical organisations subscribing to the same or a I find the use of the word minor a judgmental term and the deletion of this word from the sentence wouldnt detract from the meaning of the sentence. For who are any of us to say whether one organization is minor. BFN OOROO Michelle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - michelle@zip.com.au Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 18 01:01:31 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 02:01:31 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: "Brotherhood", Support and Mutual Aid In-Reply-To: <199604162330.AA01791@zipper.zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 A regular lurker writes: >It is easy but quite >unintentional for the regulars to not look outward and welcoming to >those who are not part of the regular crowd. > >In a group like TS where we are fostering brotherhood - as a dear >friend of mine in the NYTS says - its often the last place you'll >find it! And when one thinks about it we are usually aspiring towards >it (living in the future) rather than living that way in the present. Let's try and move "brotherhood" into the present and onto the list - like turn flames down to simmer, promoting the TI familial concept whereby, as I see it, we help and support each other. Nick Porreco kindly sent me a copy of the book I have been after re-obtaining for many years - Mutual Aid. Let's go for it! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From michelle@zip.com.au Tue Apr 16 13:34:02 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 13:34:02 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Message-Id: <199604160311.AA29097@zipper.zip.com.au> Subject: Re: Halcyon Priority: normal > >Why don't you try them Jerry? Ten years is a long time, they all could have > died. But two people I trust told me it was kaput. I saw two of the members from this branch of Tsy at the HPB Centenary, I think their names were George and Zelda. Within the last 6 weeks I received there magazine, it comes via sea mail so probably got sent at around Christmas time. Does this news come since then? BFN OOROO Michelle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - michelle@zip.com.au Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ From eldon@theosophy.com Tue Apr 16 03:28:13 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 20:28:13 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960416032813.0069e700@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: TSA On the Internet I had heard something about the Wheaton HQ of the T.S. getting on the Internet soon, but did not mention what I heard until I asked John Algeo if it would be ok to say something. JA> As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing confidential JA> about our plans. I've been telling anyone who asks me JA> what they are. JA> We have funding to start our Web site; we have JA> identified (and may have ordered--I don't mess with that) JA> the hardware we need; we are negotiating with a provider JA> for access; we are gathering data to put on the homepage. JA> We hope to be up and operating by the time of the Annual JA> Meeting in July. Everyone who is doing this, however, is JA> also doing a lot of other things, and we want to do it right. JA> You are free to give that information to anyone who asks. Since it's okay to talk about the computer project ... The technical information that I heard was that the computer would be a 166 mhz Pentium running Windows NT with a cisco router and a 56 kb ISDN line, later to grow to a T1 connection. -- Eldon From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 16 05:00:02 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 01:00:02 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960416010001_272907844@mail06> Subject: Re: !!!!!! Alex, The Xtian stuff I can endure. Some of the best magicians I work with are still Xtians, they even have their own e-mail list. As far as his Sangreal nonsense, I prefer a nice Gewurtztraminer or Liebraumilch myself. Chuck the Barbarian Magus MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker r From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Tue Apr 16 15:31:13 1996 Date: 16 Apr 96 11:31:13 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Proposed revisions Message-Id: <960416153112_76400.1474_HHL29-1@CompuServe.COM> Murray: >These changes may seem minor in terms of wording, but I feel that they connect >to issues which it is part of TI's work to address. Yes. Yes. Yes. I, for one, vote in favor of Murray's revisions. Jerry S. Member, TI From nlporreco@bpa.gov Tue Apr 16 16:06:00 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 09:06:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: Is Theosophy for the Few? Message-Id: <3173C50C@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 35 TEXT Eldon, Good point. Like John Algeos' video on initiation, John seems to think that the elysian (I hope this is spelled right) mysteries (the higher and lower) consisted of the same teaching. The people receiving them were looking at the same thing but receiving it at the level their development permitted. This is the best my memory can do of a tape I viewed over a year ago. Nick ---------- Nick: >I don't think her intention was only for the few. She may have realized >that at the time there were only a few that could take advantage of the >majority of what she had to say, but with time as others developed their >experience base and vocabulary they could more and more participate. I'd agree in part, and say that there are many levels to Theosophy, with something to offer people of all backgrounds. Like Judge says in the opening words of "The Ocean of Theosophy", Theosophy is like a great ocean, with depths to meet the needs of the most demanding students, yet with a shoreline that offers something to everyone who'd approach it. In our promoting of Theosophy, it's easy to concentrate on meeting the needs of deep-sea divers, and forget that there are waders, swimmers, and surfers at its shoreline, also with important needs. -- Eldon From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Tue Apr 16 16:18:50 1996 Date: 16 Apr 96 12:18:50 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Giggling (response to Greg) Message-Id: <960416161849_76400.1474_HHL101-3@CompuServe.COM> Greg: >Here we run into a bit of a problem, and I have a feeling this is the point >at which we get down to defining what is ethical/moral. I believe that at >the core of the issue is a) intent and b) whether that intent is directed at >action to procure something for oneself or for others. For me it gets back >to selflessness. Regardless of local custom and "appearances" the matter >ultimately gets back to helping others, and the true occultist, who knows >what is right to do "spontaneously" has the benefit of others placed first. >the lifting of everyone's karmic burden just a bit. That which is requested >in order to be better able to help others is the ethical/moral high-road we >should be traveling. HPB says that the *only* difference between black and white actions is our intent. The intent of Jesus, for example, was, I think, to help others. The fact that millions of people over the years have been killed and tortured in his name should not prevent him from trying. Assuming he could see into the future, and see how much suffering would be done in his name by misguided people, would he have tried anyway? Probably. Jesus went among tax collectors and prostitutes in order to help them, even though this was seen as social unacceptable behavior by his contemporaries. What is socially acceptable or unacceptable should not stand in our way of helping others. Hopefully they will not conflict, but if they do, we should always chose to help others in spite of appearance. > Regarding the Adepts (and HPB) we are not in a >position to judge their actions from an ethical standpoint, for by local >standards, most often their actions would be deemed unethical, but we have a >pretty good idea that they have the interests of others placed ahead of >themselves. Exactly. >Are you sure that Western students don't need constant reminding that they >should be putting the benefit of other first? I am not so sure, myself. But the students themselves seem to think they don't need it. For whatever reason, it is not strongly emphasized except in Theosophy. I wrote: >>If you constantly strive hard to "hold to the highest moral ideal" you will >>trip over your own shoestrings at some point. Let me rephrase this to say "If you constantly strive too hard..." We should all strive, but not overmuch. It is the excessive compulsive striving for moral perfection that is pathological. >I don't think HPB would giggle at the struggle encountered as the budding >occultist strives learn to do what is right, not based on appearance or local >custom, but that which is really right to do. Maybe here we start >considering the path of action without regard for the results, being, by >definition, beyond them. No, she would approve of the budding occultist. But she would giggle at the seasoned occultist who thinks he knows it all who is still overly concerned about such things. The whole idea here is to be able to get to the point where we act with compassion, spontaneously, and without thought of any reward. Of course, when we do finally get to this, we will be close to Adepts. Good discussion, Greg. Whether you agree with me or not, you do seem to understand what I am trying to say, which makes my efforts worthwhile. Thanks. Jerry S. From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 16 16:22:00 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 09:22 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Llewellyn At 06:22 AM 4/16/96 -0400, you wrote: >Chuck: >>Jerry, >>The fact that Grey had this problem with being sort of Christian did not >>preclude him from being one hell of a good magician, after all, most of the >>magicians whose work we study considered themselves to be Christian and >>Eliphas Levi even considered himself to be a good Roman Catholic! Ah, but did the Roman Catholics consider M. Constant a good Catholic? That's the question. > As was John Dee. I do have a few of Grey's books (Magickal Ritual >Methods) and I am sure that he is ok as a magician. After all, we all are with >Llewellyn so how could we be all wrong? > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > Jerry: Have you ever carefully read Llewellyn's Catalogue. I get it in the mail quite regularly and while it contains obvious giants like you and Chuck. I do think it demonstrates the necessity for "right discrimination".:-) alexis From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 16 16:44:00 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 09:44 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: re: ethics and morality >>>>>>>>>cut<<<<<< I cut the string before it got all tangled up. This is addressed to Greg Hoskins and Jerry Schueler: I'd really like to comment on your dual postings re: Ethics and Morality. First I'd like to point out that in every case I know of, both "morality" (religion based) and Ethics (Socially based) are entirely culturally specific. They are neither of them at all "Universals". Second: If one behaves well, i.e. is either "moral" or "ethical" or both, because one believes in Karma, then it is hardly either "selfless" or "disregarding of results". It seems to me that one should "behave well" because that is how one is, and it thusly requires no thought at all to do so. I don't think that "intent" is as important as Greg does. The reason? Think about Torquemada, Savanarola, and Hitler, I am certain each of those persons felt their intent was perfectly virtuous, and yet each one of them is responsible for untold harm. The old cliche about "hell is paved with good intentions" is one of the most true truisms. Now, as to Altruism, I submit that in order to be truly altruistic, it must be an intrinsic factor in a person's character. It seems to me that being altruistic by intention carries with it the strong implication that one is "striving" for some goal, and then the goal, which would be "altruism" becames part of a "goal oriented process" which is then hardly altruistic. Being naturally good is one thing, trying to be good is another thing altogether because it implies an awareness that the goal has yet to be reached. Morality, I have always believed is far too religion biased in any and every culture. Ethics on the other hand is the simplest of things, so simple that its defintion has become the oldest of cliches. "Do as you would be done by". A person should do good naturally without any thought at all because its "how they are" the minute one does good in order to do good, then it stops being antural. But so what? The result is identical. Therefore unlike Greg I am not so interested in intention as I am in results. alexis From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 16 16:51:00 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 09:51 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What's in a name? At 08:35 AM 4/16/96 -0400, you wrote: >I am curious as to why I read "Mr. Judge" and "HPB" fairly frequently on >this list - never "WQJ" and rarely "Mme. Blavatsky." > >To me, "Mr. Judge" sounds rather solemn. Leadbeater is usually CWL and >Annie Besant is no longer "Dr. Besant" in everyday TS chat. How about, >"Good ol' Bill Judge" for a change? > >Alan :-) >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > Alan: I always call him WQJ because it seems to be "the form". I never call her Mmme Blavatskaya because HPB was somebody else altogether. Now while I admire WQJ very much and think him very ill used indeed, I certainly, based on our knowledge of him, wouldn't ever call him "good ol' Bill Judge"..I'd be extremely surprised if anyone ever called him Bill....In fact, it's a shame, a really big shame,. but we don't know very much at all about the personal side of this immensely intelligent and talented man. What did his friends call him? alexis From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 16 17:03:00 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 10:03 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To: Jerry Re; Gnostics At 11:57 AM 4/16/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <960415113644_375791271@emout04.mail.aol.com>, >Drpsionic@aol.com writes >>Alan, >>Sometimes we have to destroy that which we respect. >> >>Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >>Heretic >>Troublemaker > >WE? Speak for yourself. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Destroy? Respect? I think it would be utterly impossible to destroy anything one respects. Now, its surely possible to lose one's respect for a formely respected thing and then want to destroy it out of disappointment and/or frustration. But if it is something one still repects one can only hope to improve not destroy. alexis From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 16 17:22:08 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 12:22:08 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Oprah Today (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi Here is something interesting. ....doss > Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 09:03:28 -0400 > From: Bigfootmm@aol.com > Subject: Oprah Today On Tuesday's Oprah Winfrey Show will be a discussion about mad cow disease. Howard Lyman will be there. He has been speaking around the country for about three years warning people about mad cow disease. He was a Montana rancher for some years and the guy knows his stuff. I know him personally and can tell you that his is a compelling story. I recommend that you tune in. Please note that he has been talking about it in this country for three years. The cows are coming home to roost. Know anyone with Alzheimer's? From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 16 16:52:00 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 09:52 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Ah so! At 09:41 AM 4/16/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message , alexis dolgorukii > writes >>>"confuseus" that was a GReek scholar who studied at the Akademe? Or was it >>at Elis? >> >> >>alexis >> >- Renowned Brit. aka "The Idiot Philosopher" from "confuse" + "us." > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Ah so! Well it would have to be British then. alexis From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 17 00:45:00 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 20:45:00 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960416204438_515393342@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: newsgroup Alan, I have been toying with the idea of setting up a theosophy newsgroup on the usenet. What do you think of the idea? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 17 00:45:29 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 20:45:29 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960416204355_515392672@mail04> Subject: Re: Being & Doing Jerry, Being with Llewellyn is not necessarily a virtue these days. But let's be honest, no one is going to have a system that appeals to everyone. I know that there are magicians out there who are scandalized by both of our work. And they aren't even on this list! By the way, what do you think of a theosophy newsgroup? This listserver is eating messages right and left. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Coherence@aol.com Tue Apr 16 22:42:30 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 18:42:30 -0400 From: Coherence@aol.com Message-Id: <960416184229_471377748@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Gnostics vs. "Founding materialists" In a message dated 96-04-13 07:47:26 EDT, you write: >materialistic >determinism views the cosmos as a closed system. In such a system, there is >no leeway for action and the view of Karma as expressed in the Key to >Theosophy is a perfect example of such a cosmology. This is a fascinating concept and one that I have held for some time. What I need to understand is if you mention this as a radical concept, because it seems obvious to me. (i.e. there can be nothing "outside of" the cosmos.) > So we have a problem in interpreting the thought of HPB, because she seems >to be advocating two mutually exclusive concepts, a universe where everything >is tightly close, in which case a strict behavioral code is essential to >spiritual progress on one hand (which would make the good Victorians in their >red flannel waistcoats very happy) and a system of duality in which matter is >temporary and the despised creation of the demiurge, existing to be either >put down or outraged as the path to spiritual liberation. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. My read on this is that the universe is a closed system, and matter the temporary appearance of "spirit" as such. The role of consciousness is to recognize that matter is only the temporary appearance of itself and to overcome the delusion by the recognition, accomplished by looking to the end of the spectrum that is spirit and not to the end that is matter. > If we assume that >HPB was a genuine mystic and, as she has also been interpreted, a genuine >magician, she was capable of soaring in her spirit far beyond the reaches of >her physical self and such illumination would have put her in a position to >see that the actions of a single lifetime count for nothing in the great >scheme of existence. It is simply too short. You can't say that a single lifetime accounts for nothing. Its like sorting and folding clean socks out of the dryer--one sock means nothing, but one by one, they all get folded. Or grains of sand--each one means little, but add them up and you have a beach or a desert. Each life serves its purpose and adds to the sum. The loss of one life does not significantly alter the final outcome because of the quantity, but the loss of too many and the beach is gone. Thanks for the thought-provoking comments. Greg H From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 17 04:44:10 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:44:10 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960417004409_471680411@mail02.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: What's in a name? Alan, Bill Judge sounds just fine to me. But then, who are we to judge? :-) Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 17 04:45:06 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:45:06 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960417004505_471680981@mail06> Subject: Re: Morality Alan, That is probably true, which is why I brought my debate with Rich Taylor to an end. It reaches a point where nothing is accomplished except to raise the blood pressure. By the way, Alex likes my idea of a theosophy newsgroup. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 17 04:45:13 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:45:13 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960417004512_471681039@mail02.mail.aol.com> Subject: summer stuff and Radha The Messenger arrived today, just before I learned my garage had been broken into.. There is some meaning there but I'm at a loss to figure it out. Anyway, Radha is scheduled to speak at least three times. Her topics will be, according to the paper, "Universal Ethics in Today's World," Is the Member's Freedom in Opposition to the Unity of the Society," and "The Yoga of Knowledge, Devotion and Action." I am going to have to lay in a good supply of valerian root. Chuck the Barbarian Who Repenteth Not MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 17 05:50:00 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 22:50 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: etc At 04:46 PM 4/16/96 -0400, you wrote: >I think if I were newbie I would go away - it's easier, and there are >friendlier places. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Perhaps "prickely" would be better than unfriendly. Actually Alan, when you consider that most of us remain friends after some really adamant arguments, it is friendlier than most. That's what being "grown up" is all about isn't it? Being able to disagree (even violently) about politics and religion, and remain friends at the end of it. I have better news tonight. I got really busy and found a new lender and things are going swimmingly again. We applied for the loan tonight, John's going to fax it to the Bank tomorrow. Learned a good lesson though. Never do business with friends. Speaking of friends, my friend Micheal Freestone ex of Guernsey will be arriving from Sidney in the Land of Oz on Thursday morning, having travleed some two thirds of the way round the world! It will be good to see him. He's a lovely computer person who is not the least interested in occultism or metaphysics but a good ffriend to both John and I. alexis. From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 16 23:19:46 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 18:19:46 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss krishnamurtimlglist Subject: Re: Oprah Today In-Reply-To: <960416090326_192115037@mail02.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I watched Oprah today, thanks for Bigfootmm. When Lyman, a former cattle rancher turned vegetarian, explained how dead cows are ground up and fed back to the cows, you could see the utter shock in the eyes of the audience including Oprah. There was one Dr. representing the cattlemans association who put up a pathetic presentation of how US beef is "safe" - ie. no problems have been identified so far. According to Lyman, Mad cow disease is waiting to hit USA. When it does hit, it is going to be worse than the Aids crisis. All the cruelty that goes with killing animals for food has to have some consequence. People listen to scare of serious illness and sickness. But if Mad cow disease hits, it may be too late to lament. Vegetarians need not worry. Ha Ha Ha. .....doss On Tue, 16 Apr 1996 Bigfootmm@aol.com wrote: > Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 09:03:28 -0400 > From: Bigfootmm@aol.com > To: krishnamurtimlglist > Subject: Oprah Today > > On Tuesday's Oprah Winfrey Show will be a discussion about mad cow disease. > Howard Lyman will be there. He has been speaking around the country for about > three years warning people about mad cow disease. He was a Montana rancher > for some years and the guy knows his stuff. > > I know him personally and can tell you that his is a compelling story. I > recommend that you tune in. Please note that he has been talking about it in > this country for three years. The cows are coming home to roost. Know anyone > with Alzheimer's? > > > From blafoun@azstarnet.com Wed Apr 17 00:55:42 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 17:55:42 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604170055.RAA22433@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: A Question or two to JRC JRC, I have been reading the recent exchange between you and Eldon. And I remember reading other exchanges between you and Eldon over the last year or so. In the extract below written by Eldon, he mentions the traditional Theosophical view on psychism. And I vaguely remember you stating many months ago on Theos-l that the warnings given in the source teachings of Theosophy on psychism and mediumship do not apply to what is happening today. IF (?) I have more or less stated your position, I would ask you the following: Could you state what you think the traditional Theosophical view is on psychism and supply the Theos-l audience with some citations from the early literature that illustrate this traditional stance? Furthermore, I would like to know why you discount this view. Both you and Eldon have this habit of writing sometimes in very general terms and I find it very hard to follow exactly what you are both talking about. Possibly you two could illustrate some of your differing viewpoints with detailed examples, case histories (something that the rest of us could sink our teeth into!). I personally am very much interested in psychic phenomena of all sorts. I follow very closely all the latest developments in parapsychology and I have done alot of study and research on the Spiritualism of the 19th century. I have even compiled in MSS two compilations: one entitled KRIYASHAKTI---CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS: The Psychology of the Visionary Experience (The Theosophical Perspective in the Writings of H.P. Blavatsky and the Adept-Teachers [1874-1891]); and the other one entitled THE PARANORMAL CASEBOOK: A Collection of Ostensible Paranormal Experiences. As soon as I can find it, I will also post on Theos-l a recently written article by David Lane on Eckankar, Visions and Psychic and Spiritual Experiences. Some of his major points may be of some interest to you and Eldon as well as others on Theos-l. Hoping that you and Eldon will take what I have said above as an encouragement to engage in a more constructive dialogue on a very important topic. Daniel Eldon recently wrote in part: >I've been not making it a point of taking on the psychic stuff, by either expressing my views on the subject in detail, nor by providing citations from the theosophical literature regarding it. But it seems like after a while, your resentment over my stray comments accumulates to the point where you feel an outburst against me is necessary, and I have to decide how to respond. >You mention that I've taught you to "throw aside all notions of empathizing with the point of view of another, and to simply state my own perspective as forcefully as possible." That certainly was not something I either try to practice or teach others. >I suppose that you may get the feeling that I've been that way in the past, because there have been times when you've posted things and gotten praise. There have been times when I've been the only person that attempts to contrast what you've said with a traditional theosophical view, which you're quick to dismiss as mere intellectual stuff. >Perhaps because I tend to put most of what I say in my own words, you cannot dismiss it like you might dismiss some of the theosophical quotes that Bee has posted. Since I'm writing as my ideas and my views, you have to dismiss *me* to silence them. From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Apr 17 12:07:03 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 07:07:03 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: TSA On the Internet In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960416032813.0069e700@mail.deltanet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:42:37 -0400 > From: Eldon B. Tucker > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: TSA On the Internet > >>>><<<<<<<>>>>> > Since it's okay to talk about the computer project ... > The technical information that I heard was that the computer > would be a 166 mhz Pentium running Windows NT with a cisco > router and a 56 kb ISDN line, later to grow to a T1 connection. > > -- Eldon Eldon: Thanks for taking interest to post the above here. For those of us computer hardware illiterates, 166MHZ Pentium is a computer I see advertized in local newspapers that one can walk into a store like Best Buy or Office Depot and walk out with. Windows NT - Like Windows everyone knows Cisco router - some hardware to deal with communication/tel line ISDN 56KB - usually called I Still Don't Know! T1 - again something todo with tel line. I will wait to see the www content. BTW, I believe that the www that JEM setup was done in a couple of *days* by DeGracia and John and *not* days or months. Both of them have other full-time occupations. So let us see how long TSA takes. ....doss From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Wed Apr 17 04:06:09 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:06:09 +1200 From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Message-Id: <199604170406.QAA04504@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Reply to JRC -- Same Old Arguments Eldon writes as below: I'd say that people's feelings are important, but their unjustified emotional reactions to things are not. I should, for instance, be able to express myself using the word "cat" without regard to someone's unexpected phobia of that word. Here there is no harm intended in the word and the reaction is clearly the listener's psychological problem. That is different than ""trouncing upon someone's beliefs because of not liking the beliefs, without regard to the effect upon their spiritual lives"". You mention that an attack on people's beliefs is justified, because if the beliefs are based upon illusion the beliefs will be upset sooner or later anyway. That may be so, but I wouldn't prematurely rip open a baby flower bud or cut open a cocoon, just because "sooner or later..." On the other hand, I'd agree with this idea in another direction. I'd say that sooner or later people's false beliefs, beliefs based upon illusion, will be subject to challenge and the reality of life will make itself known. Bee writes: I am plagiarizing Eldons post to express my similar attitude especially in the "" "" bit. The trouncing bit is what has deterred me from saying any more. In the past I used to give a quote as it expressed what I was thinking better than I could and it meant that, that particular quote stood for an idea I was expressing not for the enlightenment of the list as such. Some times a quote had a meaning that I found illusive and by posting it here I thought I might have gained an insight into it from someone's experience or knowledge. I don't mind if someone points out an error of thinking I may be expressing as long as they don't 'rip open the rose bud' in the process. I have heard from lurkers privately who express the same feelings and if we don't speak to each other reasonably and kindly then there will only be a very few left to talk on theos-l and that would be sad. My cats have a carpeted post for sharpening their claws and it gets into a real mess and has to have a new cover on it periodically. It saves my furniture though. I wonder if there isn't a list somewhere for sharpening mental claws too. Peace to us all. Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Apr 17 15:33:16 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 10:33:16 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Reply to JRC -- Same Old Arguments In-Reply-To: <199604170406.QAA04504@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi, everybody: The current state of membership in all the TS groups not increasing all over the world and perhaps dwindling. While some of us think that quality is more important than quantity, it is a fact that we should try to expose more and more persons to Theosophy in the hope that out of this exposure some good will mushroom and make the world a little better for it. If you go back and look at the early correspondence you will find that the First Object of the TS is of primary concern to the "Founders". Internet may be last chance we all have to bring Theosophy to the masses. The exposure of more people to Theosophy is likely to to bring more help to the Humanity than all the technical theoretical material however impressive and important that latter are. When the new subscribers read the mail in the maillist, the atmosphere should be such that it is inviting rather than frightening. New subscribers do not know or understand what is going on. They may have come here looking for knowledge or information or help. Scaring them away does no good to Theosophy. Let us all try and help everybody so that everyone feels invited to discuss any idea or opinion however off the wall, stupid, dumb, they may be. In due course of time, everyone outgrows such ideas or opinions, if in fact they are erroneous. It brings to my mind the way one of the great charismatic leaders used to handle situations. Frequently people would come and present an idea or plan which is perhaps not the best. However this person would go along and sooner or later the person who presented the idea or plan outgrows and recognizes that the idea or plan was not the best. Many may disagree with my thougts above. It does not personally matter to me so long as we are able to bring more Internetters to Theosophy. ...doss On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, Bee Brown wrote: > Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 10:56:24 -0400 > From: Bee Brown > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Reply to JRC -- Same Old Arguments > > Eldon writes as below: > > I'd say that people's feelings are important, but their > unjustified emotional reactions to things are not. I should, for > instance, be able to express myself using the word "cat" without > regard to someone's unexpected phobia of that word. Here there is > no harm intended in the word and the reaction is clearly the > listener's psychological problem. That is different than > > ""trouncing upon someone's beliefs because of not liking the beliefs, without > regard to the effect upon their spiritual lives"". > > You mention that an attack on people's beliefs is justified, > because if the beliefs are based upon illusion the beliefs will be > upset sooner or later anyway. That may be so, but I wouldn't > prematurely rip open a baby flower bud or cut open a cocoon, just > because "sooner or later..." > > On the other hand, I'd agree with this idea in another direction. > I'd say that sooner or later people's false beliefs, beliefs based > upon illusion, will be subject to challenge and the reality of > life will make itself known. > > Bee writes: I am plagiarizing Eldons post to express my similar attitude > especially in the "" "" bit. The trouncing bit is what has deterred me > from saying any more. In the past I used to give a quote as it expressed > what I was thinking better than I could and it meant that, that particular > quote stood for an idea I was expressing not for the enlightenment of the > list as such. Some times a quote had a meaning that I found illusive and by > posting it here I thought I might have gained an insight into it from > someone's experience or knowledge. I don't mind if someone points out an > error of thinking I may be expressing as long as they don't 'rip open the > rose bud' in the process. I have heard from lurkers privately who express > the same feelings and if we don't speak to each other reasonably and kindly > then there will only be a very few left to talk on theos-l and that would be > sad. My cats have a carpeted post for sharpening their claws and it gets > into a real mess and has to have a new cover on it periodically. It saves my > furniture though. I wonder if there isn't a list somewhere for sharpening > mental claws too. > Peace to us all. > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L > > From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Apr 17 16:26:25 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 11:26:25 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Oprah news (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 10:03:22 -0400 > From: Bigfootmm@aol.com GARDENCHEF@aol.com >Subject: Oprah news Winfrey: No More Beef Oprah Winfrey is taking on the beef industry. The talk show host says she won't eat any more hamburgers because of fears about ``mad cow'' disease. Winfrey said on her show yesterday she was shocked after a guest said meat and bone meal made from cattle was routinely fed to other cows to boost their meat and milk production. ``It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger,'' Winfrey said. The camera showed members of the studio audience gasping in surprise as vegetarian activist Howard Lyman explained how cattle parts were rendered and fed to other cattle. From nlporreco@bpa.gov Wed Apr 17 17:12:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 10:12:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: Re: Reply to JRC -- Same Old Arguments Message-Id: <317526A6@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 111 TEXT Doss, good point, I think that you, Eldon and Bee are all on the same harmonious frequency. The true show of an evolved being is compassion, love and selflessness for the sake of these qualities not for the ego or to have your feet kissed. Shanti, Nick > Date: Wednesday, April 17, 1996 11:38AM > From: theos-l > Subject: Re: Reply to JRC -- Same Old Arguments Hi, everybody: The current state of membership in all the TS groups not increasing all over the world and perhaps dwindling. While some of us think that quality is more important than quantity, it is a fact that we should try to expose more and more persons to Theosophy in the hope that out of this exposure some good will mushroom and make the world a little better for it. If you go back and look at the early correspondence you will find that the First Object of the TS is of primary concern to the "Founders". Internet may be last chance we all have to bring Theosophy to the masses. The exposure of more people to Theosophy is likely to to bring more help to the Humanity than all the technical theoretical material however impressive and important that latter are. When the new subscribers read the mail in the maillist, the atmosphere should be such that it is inviting rather than frightening. New subscribers do not know or understand what is going on. They may have come here looking for knowledge or information or help. Scaring them away does no good to Theosophy. Let us all try and help everybody so that everyone feels invited to discuss any idea or opinion however off the wall, stupid, dumb, they may be. In due course of time, everyone outgrows such ideas or opinions, if in fact they are erroneous. It brings to my mind the way one of the great charismatic leaders used to handle situations. Frequently people would come and present an idea or plan which is perhaps not the best. However this person would go along and sooner or later the person who presented the idea or plan outgrows and recognizes that the idea or plan was not the best. Many may disagree with my thougts above. It does not personally matter to me so long as we are able to bring more Internetters to Theosophy. ...doss On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, Bee Brown wrote: > Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 10:56:24 -0400 > From: Bee Brown > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Reply to JRC -- Same Old Arguments > > Eldon writes as below: > > I'd say that people's feelings are important, but their > unjustified emotional reactions to things are not. I should, for > instance, be able to express myself using the word "cat" without > regard to someone's unexpected phobia of that word. Here there is > no harm intended in the word and the reaction is clearly the > listener's psychological problem. That is different than > > ""trouncing upon someone's beliefs because of not liking the beliefs, without > regard to the effect upon their spiritual lives"". > > You mention that an attack on people's beliefs is justified, > because if the beliefs are based upon illusion the beliefs will be > upset sooner or later anyway. That may be so, but I wouldn't > prematurely rip open a baby flower bud or cut open a cocoon, just > because "sooner or later..." > > On the other hand, I'd agree with this idea in another direction. > I'd say that sooner or later people's false beliefs, beliefs based > upon illusion, will be subject to challenge and the reality of > life will make itself known. > > Bee writes: I am plagiarizing Eldons post to express my similar attitude > especially in the "" "" bit. The trouncing bit is what has deterred me > from saying any more. In the past I used to give a quote as it expressed > what I was thinking better than I could and it meant that, that particular > quote stood for an idea I was expressing not for the enlightenment of the > list as such. Some times a quote had a meaning that I found illusive and by > posting it here I thought I might have gained an insight into it from > someone's experience or knowledge. I don't mind if someone points out an > error of thinking I may be expressing as long as they don't 'rip open the > rose bud' in the process. I have heard from lurkers privately who express > the same feelings and if we don't speak to each other reasonably and kindly > then there will only be a very few left to talk on theos-l and that would be > sad. My cats have a carpeted post for sharpening their claws and it gets > into a real mess and has to have a new cover on it periodically. It saves my > furniture though. I wonder if there isn't a list somewhere for sharpening > mental claws too. > Peace to us all. > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Apr 17 16:40:12 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:40:12 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604171744.NAA02344@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: TS Moscow My correspondent in Westeren Europe just sent me the Fax# of the TS in Moscow. The phone rates vary with the time of day. For details, please check with your phone company, also for the exact prefix numbers to go in front of what I'm going to give you. Russia 095 Moscow 205-22-28 Liesel From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 17 18:47:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 11:47 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_829767039==_" Subject: Re:wishes X-Attachments: C:\WPWIN\THEOSLIS; --=====================_829767039==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:06 AM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >Dear Alexis, > > I'm sorry these things are happening to Chuck. > >I don't however think that this gives him a right to mess up theos-l ... and >he has been, IMHO. People are complaining, because what he writes is just >senseless venom. I don't think anyone has the right to impose himself like >that on other people, who, I'm sure, being human beings, have their own >problems. I know I do, but I try to keep them out of theos-l, because I >don't think most of them belong here. The purpose of this list, seems to me, >is to talk theosophy, all brands of it, not to vent one's spleen. I don't >have any suggestions as to what Chuck could do instead. Maybe you do. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR Liesel: I wish I did. But I don't. When I haven't got the vaguest idea what someone else should do, and believe me that's very rare, I just sit quietly till I do, or the problem goes away by itself. In this instance I think Chuck is doing the wrong thing, but with him it's clearly a "free speech issue", therefore anything I say to him will only make it worse. I agree with you, this board is to discuss varying ideas and conceptions on theosophy, that's a big spread of ideas. The most important part of it is not to get down into personalities. I know how hard that is for some people to do. So those who don't must, hard as it is, try to just pretend certain things weren't said. It's the only way to avoid grief. Despite the gentleman from Canda's ideas, I don't think we need a moderator, and we certainly don't need or even want "decisions" we only want to make our divers points clear to people who don't share them. I'm attaching something I wrote on the subject of the list...I hope it works > > --=====================_829767039==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="THEOSLIS" THOUGHTS ON THEOS-LIST There has been a lot of discussion on the purpose of a list like this, and I thought I'd like to give my own notions on the subject. I have been engaged in secular political activism on behalf of human rights since 1954, and in secular politics for even longer. I have been engaged in metaphysical studies and activities since 1969, and so I am fairly familiar with the varieties of human inter-action. One fo the worxst effects I have experienced, both in political activities and in metaphysical activities, is the tendency for people to speak and inter-act only with those who totally agree with them. This is entirely incestuous, and causes nothing but trouble for those involved. It does so because the people so "encapsulated" never have to hear any opinion other than their own (or their leaders) and absolutely never have to so arrange their thinking so to be able to explain their views to others. Far too many people in the over-all Metaphysical-Occult Community (and it's hardly limited to Theosophists) are totally disinterested in what's happening in the world we all live in. Far too many people in political sub-sets never talk to anyone but themselves and are totally unaware that some people may think differently than they do. Far too many Theosophists have no knowledge of other metaphysical-occult activities in the world, and when they do, they are far too contemptuous of anyone who doesn't agree with them. This is all harmful to the growth of knowledge and understanding. That is the great service performed by this list. It permits people of entirely dichotomous views, of entirely antagonistic views, to discuss those views in an entirely "safe" and "neutral" setting. Everyone, of every faction, learns something from this inter-action. This inter-action cannot take place if people refuse to deal with those who disagree with them strongly. This inter-action cannot take place if one faction dismisses the other as "Blasphemers". It cannot take place if both sides regard the other as "revisionsits" or "traditionalists". We are, I presume, all people who are, for some or another reason, attracted to, and dedicated to, theosophy. It is obvious to me that there are people who are subscribers to this list who believe me hostile to theosophy as they know it, and I, in turn, regard those people as people who are misguided in their views of what theosophy actually is. But this list permnits us both to interact and to explain to one another why we believe as we do, and what we believe. As far as I am concerned, and as far as my understanding of theosophy goes, I think there are almost no topics that cannot be discussed and in fact dissected from a basic theosophical viewpoint. And that certainly includes speculation as to why a truly evil person can write transcendental music, and where the "creative muse" comes from. In fact, it can be argued that such a discussion is appropriate under all three "Objects". In my point of view that makes me, and those who think as I do, an "orthodox" or "Traditional" theosophist. Other's view of me is as entirely "revisionist", I of course, view them as revisionist. That's why this list serves such an excellent purpose. It provides a venue for us to "excercise our differences" safely. It's a case of "I say Tomahto and you say tomayto", we'll never know what each of us say if we don't communicate. And Theos-List is a perfect venue for communicating. I wish, in a way, that we could entice some non-theosophist occultists metaphysicians onto this board so that their opinions too could be added to the Theosophical "hopper". I have been involved in the non-theosophical metaphysical/occult community since putting on the "Science and Spirit Exposition in 1973, and becoming Involved in a Group called "The Meeting of the Ways" at about the same time. Being exposed to "Guru Groups", Wiccans, Pagans, Anthroposophists, Asatru Fellowship folks" and the people of the Odhinnic Brotherhoods, has given me a breath of view, and a perspective thatI believe is extremely positive. Atleast I know that Theosophy isn't everything, or the only thing, but to me, it's freedom and its nature as an investigative attitude, make it by far the most useful thing. That's what this list is really about, it let's people of really different perspectives have an opportunity to broaden that perspective. There isn't anyone on this list I haven't disagreed with occasionally, there are some with whom I have disagreed frequently, but there's no one on this that I have never agreed with. I've learned from them and I hope they've been equally open and learned from me. That, I believe is what communicating is all about. That and the fact that, if you're aiming at real communications, there should be no forbidden subjects. Alexis dolgorukii --=====================_829767039==_-- From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 17 18:53:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 11:53 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: newsgroup At 06:53 AM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alan, >I have been toying with the idea of setting up a theosophy newsgroup on the >usenet. What do you think of the idea? > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: as of Thrusday morning, when Micheal arrives from sydney, I'm going to have two resident "computer geniuses". John has evidenced some interest and want's further definitions. He does say it's a fairly complicated and possibly expensive rpoject....please clarify. alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 17 19:01:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 12:01 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: President Jimmy At 06:56 AM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alan, >Bill Judge sounds just fine to me. But then, who are we to judge? :-) > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Alan: A look at WQJ's face and stature tells me he probably wouldn't have liked being called either "Bill" or "Billy", after all we're not dealing with Jimmy Carter here. We're also dealing with Victorians who were I do believe a lot stuffier than we are. alexis From blafoun@azstarnet.com Wed Apr 17 19:03:52 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:03:52 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604171903.MAA03954@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Netiquette guidelines and the future of Theos-l, etc. It's good to see some suggestions for netiquette on Theos-l from Michelle, Liesel and Alan. I would also suggest that we be more aware of what we post of Theos-l, etc. One problem I see is the large number of daily postings by a few individuals. One night at 9 pm I checked my Theos-l mail. Then only 10 hours later I checked my mail again and found more than 40 messages from Theos-l. Of these messages 18 had been posted by one individual and 22 had been posted by another person! This may be an extreme example but... A friend of mine who is involved in alot of Usenet groups tells me that some of these groups limit you to 3 to 5 postings per day. I am not suggesting that some limit be enforced, but each of us might be a little more aware of the number we send and try to be considerate of others. I am on a commercial service where I pay $20 a month for unlimited internet access. But many of you probably pay by the hour and reading tons of messages may be expensive (not to mention time-consuming). Also there is the common practice to quote from three or four previous messages and then add one or two lines of comment. One has to read through all the previous stuff just to find that someone says at the end: "I agree", etc. 6 or 7 people have told me privately that they had stopped subscribing to Theos-l because there is just too much inane chit-chat, one and two-liners, etc. Maybe John Mead could have a separate forum called Theos-chitchat? Or maybe serious discussion could be posted on roots, news or buds and theos-l could be reserved for chit-chat, etc. Therefore, those who are bored by such chitchat could unsubscribe to Theos-l and people who want to have serious, indepth discussions on Theosophy could subscribe, post and read on buds, news or roots? We do have four separate lists and most postings are on Theos-l. Therefore, the other 3 forums are unused for all practical purposes. HINT HINT Some discussion and critical comments have also occurred on Theos-l concerning the no growth or drop in membership in the various Theosophical groups, yet the number of subscribers to Theos-l has not grown in the last year or so. In fact 2 or 3 weeks ago, the total number of subscribers was less than 90. And I remember 6 to 12 months ago, when that total was (I believe) over 100. What's going on here? Also the vast majority of subscribers to Theos-l are LURKERS. Now that's okay if they want to be lurkers. But I am curious why such a high percentage of subscribers never post or seldom ever post anything to Theos-l? PLEASE LURKERS PLEASE TELL US IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE WHY YOU DON'T JOIN IN. Again, could John Mead clarify what relationship Theos-l, buds, news and roots have to the Theosophical Society in America (Wheaton). I was under the impression that these Internet forums were sponsored by the TSA but now I am told that this is no longer the case. Again, to the LURKERS, please share what you know about Theosophy with the rest of us. Post a review of a good book on Theosophy, psychic phenomena, Gnosticism, shamanism, magic, kabala, etc. etc. If you have found a book of great value, SHARE it with the rest of us. What's going on in other parts of the world with Theosophy? Are there events or lectures, etc. going on in Australia, New Zealand, England, Finland? Would someone living in one of those countries post from time to time what's going on in your country? Can anyone who attended any of the Judge Centennial Events in Ojai, Pasadena, Wheaton or Coulterville post a summary of what happened? The Internet is here but I still don't believe we Theosophists are taking full advantage of it. We are not even taking full advantage of the Theos-l, etc. forums! No wonder most of the world knows little it anything about Theosophy!! I will probably get flamed for some of the above remarks but I am trying to be honest with my comments. I am not trying to criticize anyone. Just giving (hopefully) some food for thought. Daniel P.S. BEE, could you do a short review of that new book from Adyar on Discipleship as found in THE MAHATMA LETTERS? Wheaton TPH and the Quest Bookshop in New York did not have the book and knew nothing about the book when I talked to them about a month ago. Liesel's, Alan's, and Michelle's previous comments on this subject are appended below: >That's a good list to start with. > >How about adding something to the effect that there should be some >consideration of other human beings. The consideration would consist of the >length & content of the messages, & also somehow would exclude hurtful >personal remarks, ie taking into account that the people who read the >message also have feelings. > >Liesel >............................................................................ > >>In message <199604160324.AA30164@zipper.zip.com.au>, Michelle Donald >> writes >>>> I think this list needs a moderator. I nominate Alan. This discussion >>>> will, I hope, lead to a decision. >> >>We already know a moderator is not for theos lists. >>> >>>Or if not at least some netiquette guidelines, about conserving >>>bandwdith and increasing value to participants by: >>> >>>1) judicious quoting - not none - making some posts meaningless or >>>complete quote leaving in unecessary details. >>>2) on topic >>>3) more than I agree - this doesnt add to discussion unless a vote is >>>being called for >>>4)emailing direct rather than to the list where ones response is to >>>the individual rather than the group participating in the list. >>> >>>If you can think of more please feel free to add them... >>> >>>yours in fellowship >>> >>>Michelle Donald >> >>These are useful and serious points - I think some of us could take note >>and try to be more selective. The "Reply" button can be quick and easy >>to use, but the result may not always be useful to all readers. I know >>I get tempted by this, and sometimes alter a reply to go the an >>individual rather than the list. I could do it more often, I know, and >>am posting this reply to Michelle to the list for consideration by >>others. >> >>Alan >>--------- >>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html >> >> > > > From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 17 18:31:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 11:31 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Eleusinian At 06:47 AM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >Eldon, >Good point. Like John Algeos' video on initiation, John seems to think that > >the elysian (I hope this is spelled right) mysteries (the higher and lower) > >consisted of the same teaching. The people receiving them were looking at >the same thing but receiving it at the level their development permitted. > This is the best my memory can do of a tape I viewed over a year ago. > >Nick > ---------- > > >Nick: It's Eleusinian, after the City of Eleusis, and John Algeo is incorrect. There were Public Mysteries, which were sort of Dramatic presentations of certain esoteric truths at the simplest level and these were for everyone. There were festivals call The Eleusinia at which almost everyone among the citizenry (in Greece a highly limited class) could participate. Secondly there was a higher level mystery at which only prospective Mystae were permitted, and lastly there were the inner mysteries in which only fully initiated mystae could participate. Each of these levels was different, the "demonstrations" were entirely different, and the results were entirely different. alexis > From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 17 18:32:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 11:32 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: !!!!!! At 06:44 AM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >The Xtian stuff I can endure. Some of the best magicians I work with are >still Xtians, they even have their own e-mail list. As far as his Sangreal >nonsense, I prefer a nice Gewurtztraminer or Liebraumilch myself. > >Chuck the Barbarian Magus MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker >r > >I just don't like xtians. alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 17 18:35:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 11:35 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: za leetle choke At 06:12 AM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message , alexis dolgorukii > writes >>>Actuallly Alan, I have been "apostle" to the masses for many years now. I >>actually get tiny results. >> >>alexis > >Another joke gone down the pan ... > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > OOps! Sorry didn't intend to quash your punchline. It's all that Kraut genetics...I get far too serious.Ask Chuck, he sometimes dispairs of me. alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 17 18:39:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 11:39 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TS on the Internet At 06:10 AM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: > >I am not sure, but I think the following home page is from Wheaton. It has >hyper links to other >Theosophical home pages. > >http://www.vnet.net/users/jem/homepage.html > > >Also the next one is the home page of Rodolfo Don > >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/MyPage.html > > Rodolfos' home page has links he has created to several other home >pages of his making. > > > >Helpful Nick. >Subject: Re: TS on the Internet >Date: Saturday, April 13, 1996 1:18PM Nick: Thanks lots. I do think Eldon's posting takes care of the question. Wheaton is obviously going to "dive in" to the internet. That's nice equipment (a lot like mine). I am glad of this as it obviously doesn't go along with Adyar's resistance to the 21st century. alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 17 19:13:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 12:13 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:theosophy & psychism Daniel: I have some comments on this genral topic. One it seems to me that the history of the theosophical movement is rife with the "thrid object" and it's many manifestations. I think it is post Krishnamurti dabacle Theosophy that fears unrestrained psychism, and for very good reasons. But HPB's wartnings agains "mediumship" were points well made, and well put. However, it is a great mistake to confuse psycism and mediumship. As HPB regularly pointed out "Mediumship" is unconscious and uncontrollable by the medium, whereas conscious psychism is a totally controllable activity" this is the distinction she was trying to make. She never warned agains paranormal activity, how could she? And I am sure you could provide numberless citations of her making the distinction between the two types of activity. What I think we see today, in the official theosophical disapproval of anything but the intellectual discussion os psychism is based on fear. Fear that the uncontrollable psychic activities (and unprovable) of the CWL era (which runs all the way down to our own times in the persons of Jinarajadasa, Arundale, and Taimini, might once again take the TS down roads it no longer thinks it wise to travel. One can easily see why. To me, it's a mistake, and it tends to denigrate the thrid object and ignore most modern paranormal research. But I don't think that the TS's fear of spychism is basic, only that it's realtively recent. alexis dolgorukii From RIhle@aol.com Wed Apr 17 20:41:08 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:41:08 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960417164023_472124336@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: MESSENGER #14 Now, while many of us have been very busy determining who is smug, blasphemous, condescending, etc., it probably should not go unnoticed that the Big TS Machine, Algeo Section, just keeps rolling along toward its objectives. The latest edition of THE MESSENGER provides us (no apparant by-line again) with "Chapter 10" of ~Theosophy in a New Key~which I believe has been recently accepted for TPH publication. My prediction--and I would like this noted--is that this book is not intended to be merely one among many, but will sooner or later become "quasi-official" in that it will be sent out as part of "new members" materials or something similar. --Just watch. Anyway, in the last installment, we learned that the "inner side" to Object Three was really *Aim Three*--"to bring together a group of people who are informed about the principles of the Wisdom Tradition, who have begun the work of self-transformation, and WHO ARE DEDICATED TO COOPERATING WITH THE ELDERS AND ASSISTING THEIR WORK [capitals added]." In Chapter 10 we learn about the "capital *T*." First, let me say I am not at all dismayed that a recent post has added me to the "Eldon and Rich T. team." Eldon is a fine gentleman, and I would be proud to stand with him any day no matter how much we disagree. We *do*, however, continue to disagree on this *T* thing, and I think Chapter #10 shows why I am so concerned with it. I previously offered a definition of "generic" *theosophy*: "knowledge which has its base in, or at least originally derives from, transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight [or higher perception]" I previously offered the definition of capitalized *Theosophy*: "specific doctrines, primarily those found in THE SECRET DOCTRINE and a few other related writings." I previously asked the question, "In *The Theosophical Society*, does the *Theosophical* refer to the first or second definition? Eldon, as I remember, elaborated many good points, but he never (correct me if I am wrong) specifically answered this question. But this is a crucial question. Setting aside the shaky dichotomy of "perception vs. brain-based" orientations etc., it is my opinion that the second definition is simply not broad enough to include the wide-ranging perspectives of the majority of us on this list--I simply don't see that Shamans, Magicians, Psychogeneticists, or indeed anyone with a new theosophical idea at all can logically call himself or herself a Theosophist (member of the Theosophical Society) if the official name implies such a doctrinal delimitation. John Algeo, or whoever the "we" is who seems to speak for the Society in ~New Key~, however, seems to have no problem with this. First, he or she generally alludes to *generic theosophy* as "certain ideas, practices, and attitudes" found in variety of places (to be fair, there is a pitiful dictionary reference offered which refers to it in terms of "mystical redemption" etc.). Second, he or she cites the entry in the HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion to define capitalized *Theosophy* as: "The primary tenets presented in Blavatsky's modern compendiums of Theosophy [. . .]." Then, later on, what almost seems like a BIG TRICK reveals itself in the answer to Question Eight: "Theosophy is not mentioned in the Objects, but THE NAME OF THE ORGANIZATION [capitals added] is after all the 'Theosophical Society,' and that implies that it has something to do with Theosophy [capital *T*, which has just been defined as specific doctrine]. [. . .] There is no 'official' Theosophy, but there is clearly a body of ideas and PRACTICES [capitals added] called Theosophy. [. . .]" It now seems that we not only have ideas but *practices* which are official enough to get the capital *T*. To me this provides the basis for utilizing the full resources of the Society not only for the promulgation of specific doctrines (but not others) but perhaps even also certain "training programs" as well--e.g., the "The Masters of the Mind's Eye Program" (E.S. Tech. #5). Oh well, I suppose I better not get too exorcised about all this because if I were in a position to speak for the Society in my version of the ~New Key~, I would likewise probably be using all the "subtlety" at my disposal to get the official name of the organization to reflect my own definition for capitalized *Theosophy*: "The ineffable Universal of which *theosophy* is the attempted articulation." (--I'd give in, however, and let Eldon and others call the "Core Teachings" *The Principal Theosophical Philosophy* if they wanted to.) The Big TS Machine . . . it just seems to keep rolling no matter who is smug, blasphemous, or condescending. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Apr 17 20:54:17 1996 Date: 17 Apr 96 16:54:17 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: re: ethics and morality Message-Id: <960417205416_76400.1474_HHL120-4@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: >First I'd like to point out that in every case I know of, both "morality" >(religion based) and Ethics (Socially based) are entirely culturally >specific. They are neither of them at all "Universals". Alexis, I agree with you. However, we are in the minority on this one. >Second: If one behaves well, i.e. is either "moral" or "ethical" or both, >because one believes in Karma, then it is hardly either "selfless" or >"disregarding of results". It seems to me that one should "behave well" >because that is how one is, and it thusly requires no thought at all to do so. This is the point I have been trying to make for about 3 years now. >I don't think that "intent" is as important as Greg does. The reason? Think >about Torquemada, Savanarola, and Hitler, I am certain each of those persons >felt their intent was perfectly virtuous, and yet each one of them is >responsible for untold harm. The old cliche about "hell is paved with good >intentions" is one of the most true truisms. Hitler's intent was to help the majority at the expense of the minority. Perhaps a better way is to first consider "...if it harm none." >Being naturally good is one thing, trying to be good is another thing >altogether because it implies an awareness that the goal has yet to be reached. Right. This is the difference between the higher and lower stages of Kohlberg's moral developmental stages. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Apr 17 20:54:12 1996 Date: 17 Apr 96 16:54:12 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Being & Doing Message-Id: <960417205411_76400.1474_HHL120-2@CompuServe.COM> Chuck: Subject: Re: Gnostics vs. "Founding materialists" Message-Id: <960417205413_76400.1474_HHL120-3@CompuServe.COM> > What >I need to understand is if you mention this as a radical concept, because it >seems obvious to me. (i.e. there can be nothing "outside of" the cosmos.) What about all of the other cosmoses? Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Apr 17 20:54:20 1996 Date: 17 Apr 96 16:54:20 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Psychism vs Intellectual-Spiritual Message-Id: <960417205419_76400.1474_HHL120-5@CompuServe.COM> >As soon as I can find it, I will also post on Theos-l a recently written >article by David Lane on Eckankar, Visions and Psychic and Spiritual >Experiences. Some of his major points may be of some interest to you >and Eldon as well as others on Theos-l. > >Hoping that you and Eldon will take what I have said above as an >encouragement to engage >in a more constructive dialogue on a very important topic. >Daniel Daniel, I agree. This is a good idea. I can see good and bad with both views. One of the major "danger warnings" that I get from people about Enochian (i.e., Ritual) Magic is that it can change the personality. This scares a lot of people. But, when you get down to it, Eldon's intellectual-spiritual approach must necessarily also change the personality too. Now, in both cases, the change should be for the better. But the idea of changing one's personality, even a minor amount, is threatening to many people. This is only one of many areas that need to be discussed: What are truly the dangers? can they be minimized? Is it worth it? Is there such a thing as a "safe" path, considering the fact that we are trying to become better people, and thus deliberately changing our personalities? Should such changes be slow or sudden? Jerry S. Member, TI From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 17 18:51:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 11:51 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re Re: Occultists At 06:05 AM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis, > >Occultism isn't just book learning, it's applied all kinds of learning. > >If you & Jerry are both occultists & mystics, you must be very far advanced, >because it is said that towards the end of the search, the 2 paths merge. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canad, HR > >Well I don't know about "advanced" and I can't speak for Jerry but this I know, for me the paths have merged totally. Iam a ceremonial magician, an occultist (if the two can actually be seperated - though I seperate them into ceremonial magic=practice and Occultism= theory) and a very senior Shaman and shaman clearly = mystic.What it may mean I cannot say. alexis From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Apr 17 21:58:27 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:58:27 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Reply to JRC -- Same Old Arguments In-Reply-To: <317526A6@mortar.bpa.gov> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Nick: Theosophy has helped me to make life a little better for me as well as those with whom I come into contact. From this perspective, I think Theosophy can benefit everyone and should reach anyone whatever their level of education or intelligence is. So I hope we can use Internet as a medium to reach everyone so that it can make a difference in their life. It is my earnest hope and wish that we can see this happen in our life time. ....doss On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, Porreco, Nick - CPMQ wrote: > Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 13:09:27 -0400 > From: Porreco, Nick - CPMQ > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Reply to JRC -- Same Old Arguments > > > Doss, good point, I think that you, Eldon and Bee are all on the same > harmonious frequency. The true show of an evolved being is compassion, love > and selflessness for the sake of these qualities not for the ego or to have > your feet kissed. > > Shanti, > Nick > ---------- > From: theos-l > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Reply to JRC -- Same Old Arguments > Date: Wednesday, April 17, 1996 11:38AM > > Hi, everybody: > > The current state of membership in all the TS groups not increasing all > over the world and perhaps dwindling. While some of us think that quality > is more important than quantity, it is a fact that we should try to > expose more and more persons to Theosophy in the hope that out of this > exposure some good will mushroom and make the world a little better for > it. If you go back and look at the early correspondence you will find > that the First Object of the TS is of primary concern to the "Founders". > > Internet may be last chance we all have to bring Theosophy to the masses. > The exposure of more people to Theosophy is likely to to bring more help > to the Humanity than all the technical theoretical material however > impressive and important that latter are. > > When the new subscribers read the mail in the maillist, the atmosphere > should be such that it is inviting rather than frightening. New > subscribers do not know or understand what is going on. They may have > come here looking for knowledge or information or help. Scaring them away > does no good to Theosophy. > > Let us all try and help everybody so that everyone feels invited to > discuss any idea or opinion however off the wall, stupid, dumb, they may > be. In due course of time, everyone outgrows such ideas or opinions, if > in fact they are erroneous. > > It brings to my mind the way one of the great charismatic leaders used to > handle situations. Frequently people would come and present an idea or > plan which is perhaps not the best. However this person would go along > and sooner or later the person who presented the idea or plan outgrows > and recognizes that the idea or plan was not the best. > > Many may disagree with my thougts above. It does not personally matter to > me so long as we are able to bring more Internetters to Theosophy. > > ...doss > > > > > On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, Bee Brown wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 10:56:24 -0400 > > From: Bee Brown > > To: Multiple recipients of list > > Subject: Re: Reply to JRC -- Same Old Arguments > > > > Eldon writes as below: > > > > I'd say that people's feelings are important, but their > > unjustified emotional reactions to things are not. I should, for > > instance, be able to express myself using the word "cat" without > > regard to someone's unexpected phobia of that word. Here there is > > no harm intended in the word and the reaction is clearly the > > listener's psychological problem. That is different than > > > > ""trouncing upon someone's beliefs because of not liking the beliefs, > without > > regard to the effect upon their spiritual lives"". > > > > You mention that an attack on people's beliefs is justified, > > because if the beliefs are based upon illusion the beliefs will be > > upset sooner or later anyway. That may be so, but I wouldn't > > prematurely rip open a baby flower bud or cut open a cocoon, just > > because "sooner or later..." > > > > On the other hand, I'd agree with this idea in another direction. > > I'd say that sooner or later people's false beliefs, beliefs based > > upon illusion, will be subject to challenge and the reality of > > life will make itself known. > > > > Bee writes: I am plagiarizing Eldons post to express my similar attitude > > especially in the "" "" bit. The trouncing bit is what has deterred me > > from saying any more. In the past I used to give a quote as it expressed > > what I was thinking better than I could and it meant that, that particular > > quote stood for an idea I was expressing not for the enlightenment of the > > list as such. Some times a quote had a meaning that I found illusive and > by > > posting it here I thought I might have gained an insight into it from > > someone's experience or knowledge. I don't mind if someone points out an > > error of thinking I may be expressing as long as they don't 'rip open the > > rose bud' in the process. I have heard from lurkers privately who express > > the same feelings and if we don't speak to each other reasonably and > kindly > > then there will only be a very few left to talk on theos-l and that would > be > > sad. My cats have a carpeted post for sharpening their claws and it gets > > into a real mess and has to have a new cover on it periodically. It saves > my > > furniture though. I wonder if there isn't a list somewhere for sharpening > > mental claws too. > > Peace to us all. > > Bee Brown > > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > > Theos Int & L > > > > > From nlporreco@bpa.gov Wed Apr 17 22:06:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 15:06:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: Re: Eleusinian Message-Id: <31756B2E@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 47 TEXT Alex, Thanks for the info, however before I make up my mind either way, may I ask how you come by your info. Inquisitive Nick. > Date: Wednesday, April 17, 1996 3:50PM > From: theos-l > Subject: Re: Eleusinian At 06:47 AM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >Eldon, >Good point. Like John Algeos' video on initiation, John seems to think that > >the elysian (I hope this is spelled right) mysteries (the higher and lower) > >consisted of the same teaching. The people receiving them were looking at >the same thing but receiving it at the level their development permitted. > This is the best my memory can do of a tape I viewed over a year ago. > >Nick > ---------- > > >Nick: It's Eleusinian, after the City of Eleusis, and John Algeo is incorrect. There were Public Mysteries, which were sort of Dramatic presentations of certain esoteric truths at the simplest level and these were for everyone. There were festivals call The Eleusinia at which almost everyone among the citizenry (in Greece a highly limited class) could participate. Secondly there was a higher level mystery at which only prospective Mystae were permitted, and lastly there were the inner mysteries in which only fully initiated mystae could participate. Each of these levels was different, the "demonstrations" were entirely different, and the results were entirely different. alexis > From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Wed Apr 17 20:38:53 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:38:53 +1200 From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Message-Id: <199604172038.IAA12178@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: re: ethics and morality >>>>>>>>>>cut<<<<<< >I cut the string before it got all tangled up. > >This is addressed to Greg Hoskins and Jerry Schueler: > >I'd really like to comment on your dual postings re: Ethics and Morality. > >First I'd like to point out that in every case I know of, both "morality" >(religion based) and Ethics (Socially based) are entirely culturally >specific. They are neither of them at all "Universals". > >Second: If one behaves well, i.e. is either "moral" or "ethical" or both, >because one believes in Karma, then it is hardly either "selfless" or >"disregarding of results". It seems to me that one should "behave well" >because that is how one is, and it thusly requires no thought at all to do so. Would there not be a time before a person becomes naturally selfless where intention is the way to get there? I have always understood that all the various religions and philosophies were an attempt by different avenues to teach some sort of ethics in the hope of creating brotherhood among self seeking humanity. There is still a large portion of humanity that believe in I'm ok Jack and that is all that matters. > >I don't think that "intent" is as important as Greg does. The reason? Think >about Torquemada, Savanarola, and Hitler, I am certain each of those persons >felt their intent was perfectly virtuous, and yet each one of them is >responsible for untold harm. The old cliche about "hell is paved with good >intentions" is one of the most true truisms. Maybe some of them are sitting in a hot place wondering what went wrong with their intentions. Some of those may have surcomed to their power positions and lost sight of their intentions. Getting power does funny things to people as I am sure we have all witnessed. > >Now, as to Altruism, I submit that in order to be truly altruistic, it must >be an intrinsic factor in a person's character. It seems to me that being >altruistic by intention carries with it the strong implication that one is >"striving" for some goal, and then the goal, which would be "altruism" >becames part of a "goal oriented process" which is then hardly altruistic. >Being naturally good is one thing, trying to be good is another thing >altogether because it implies an awareness that the goal has yet to be reached. Being naturally good is, of course, the ultimate but spiritually good seems more selfless perhaps. I assume that threading the 'path' is having intentions to become a better person and thereby arrive at a place outside of all these methods, intentions and whatevers used to get there. I agree that it has to come from the heart naturally or else doing good run into trouble. > >Morality, I have always believed is far too religion biased in any and every >culture. Ethics on the other hand is the simplest of things, so simple that >its defintion has become the oldest of cliches. "Do as you would be done by". > >A person should do good naturally without any thought at all because its >"how they are" the minute one does good in order to do good, then it stops >being antural. But so what? The result is identical. Therefore unlike Greg I >am not so interested in intention as I am in results. As I understand it, the result is influenced by the intention, if there is one, and so the forces put into being that is called the result may not generate other 'good' forces from it if there is no selfless component to the original cause of that result. Oh dear, that is a convoluted sentence. Never mind I am sure you know what I mean. > >alexis > > > Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Wed Apr 17 22:41:11 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:41:11 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Reply to JRC -- Same Old Arguments In-Reply-To: <317526A6@mortar.bpa.gov> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, Porreco, Nick - CPMQ wrote: > > Doss, good point, I think that you, Eldon and Bee are all on the same > harmonious frequency. The true show of an evolved being is compassion, love > and selflessness for the sake of these qualities not for the ego or to have > your feet kissed. > > Shanti, > Nick > ---------- Nick ... Easy it is for people to speak fine words of compassion, love truth and beauty - easier still to preach them as what we ought to all do. Who could argue? But if saying the words worked we'd have achieved world peace milennia ago (-:). Problem is, the preachers rarely practice the words any better than those they preach to (though the act of preaching does get one's "feet kissed"). -JRC From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Apr 17 23:05:19 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:05:19 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960417180813.283fc18e@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Netiquette guidelines and the future of Theos-l, etc. At 03:11 PM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >It's good to see some suggestions for netiquette on Theos-l from Michelle, >Liesel and Alan. I would also suggest that we be more aware of what >we post of Theos-l, etc. > >One problem I see is the large number of daily postings by a few individuals. >One night at 9 pm I checked my Theos-l mail. Then only 10 hours later I >checked my >mail again and found more than 40 messages from Theos-l. Of these messages >18 had been posted by one individual and 22 had been posted by another >person! This >may be an extreme example but... > MKR: I think how many messages anyone posts is their business. If someone has the time and interest to write messages and post them, so much the better. If I have the interest and time to spend all night long and post 400 messages, then why should I be discouraged by anyone. Again if someone does not want to read my messages there are two options that I use (1) hit the delete key liberally and frequently - it kills the message instantly (2) use filters - a filter feature can segregate messages based on one or more criteria and you can even set it up such that a message can be directed directly to "Trash" mailbox. >A friend of mine who is involved in alot of Usenet groups tells me that some >of these >groups limit you to 3 to 5 postings per day. I am not suggesting that some >limit be >enforced, but each of us might be a little more aware of the number we send >and try to >be considerate of others. I am on a commercial service where I pay $20 a >month for >unlimited internet access. But many of you probably pay by the hour and >reading tons >of messages may be expensive (not to mention time-consuming). > MKR: With such a small number of subscribers and such a small number of active message posters, I think *any* limit on the number of messages will be very inappropriate and undesirable. Already we do not have much participation and any effort on this issue will be very detrimental. The commercial Internet access prices are plummeting. Currently in my city one can get unlimited PPP access for $10.00 (ten) per month with a sign up fee of $10.00. Anyone spending more money should try shopping around and they may find a better deal they can use. Of course what anyone wants to do is their business. I just wanted to share the current market pricing information. >Also there is the common practice to quote from three or four previous >messages and then >add one or two lines of comment. One has to read through all the previous >stuff just >to find that someone says at the end: "I agree", etc. > >6 or 7 people have told me privately that they had stopped subscribing to >Theos-l because >there is just too much inane chit-chat, one and two-liners, etc. Maybe MKR: If someone wants to unsubscibe because of the above, then my comment above on delete/filter may help. >John Mead could have a separate forum called Theos-chitchat? Or maybe serious >discussion could be posted on roots, news or buds and theos-l could be >reserved for >chit-chat, etc. Therefore, those who are bored by such chitchat could >unsubscribe to >Theos-l and people who want to have serious, indepth discussions on >Theosophy could >subscribe, post and read on buds, news or roots? We do have four separate >lists and >most postings are on Theos-l. Therefore, the other 3 forums are unused for >all practical >purposes. HINT HINT > >Some discussion and critical comments have also occurred on Theos-l >concerning the no growth or drop in membership in the various Theosophical >groups, yet the number of subscribers to Theos-l has not grown in the last >year or so. In fact 2 or 3 weeks ago, the total number of subscribers was >less than 90. And I remember 6 to 12 months ago, when that total was (I >believe) over 100. What's going on here? > MKR: A very good question. One of the problems we face is that not much publicity is given to theos-l in the official publications of the various TS organizations. It is not just enough to publish the info on theos-l just in one issue. Unless it is repeatedly published in each issue, it does not help. Even I had a hard time to find out about theos-l since I did not ask very precise questions. I found out the old traditional way - word of mouth thru grapevine. It is a very sorry state of affairs. >Also the vast majority of subscribers to Theos-l are LURKERS. Now that's >okay if they >want to be lurkers. But I am curious why such a high percentage of >subscribers never >post or seldom ever post anything to Theos-l? PLEASE LURKERS PLEASE TELL US IN >PUBLIC OR PRIVATE WHY YOU DON'T JOIN IN. > MKR: I would like to hear from lurkers. Lurkers should be welcomed and made feel comfortable that they will not be either challenged or ridiculed for anything they post. Only then will the lurkers come out. >Again, could John Mead clarify what relationship Theos-l, buds, news and >roots have to >the Theosophical Society in America (Wheaton). I was under the impression >that these >Internet forums were sponsored by the TSA but now I am told that this is no >longer the case. > MKR: When I signed up for theos-xxxx, one of the first things I got clarified about any financial or other administrative direct/indirect support the John gets from TSA. The answer was NONE, NONE, NONE. It is the result of John's interest and enthusiasm that he has provided a forum for all of us. He has earned a great amount of good Karma. We should all be very grateful for what he has done for all of us. The total independence of this list from all TS organizations has gives it the kind of independence that we all have seen. If any organization provides any kind of support, you can be sure sooner or later there will be attempts to directly or indirectly censor what is going on. Glad we have such an open forum due to its independence. >Again, to the LURKERS, please share what you know about Theosophy with the >rest of >us. Post a review of a good book on Theosophy, psychic phenomena, >Gnosticism, shamanism, magic, kabala, etc. etc. If you have found a book of >great value, SHARE it with the rest of us. What's going on in other parts >of the world with Theosophy? Are there events or lectures, etc. going on in >Australia, New Zealand, England, Finland? Would someone living in one of >those countries post from time to time what's going on in your country? MKR: Very good and positive questions. Feedback from various countries will be very valuable. It may also provide us with opportunities to see if some of us could help the activities in other countries in any way. I would be waiting to hear what is going on in rest of the world. > >Can anyone who attended any of the Judge Centennial Events in Ojai, >Pasadena, Wheaton or >Coulterville post a summary of what happened? > >The Internet is here but I still don't believe we Theosophists are taking >full advantage of >it. We are not even taking full advantage of the Theos-l, etc. forums! No >wonder most of the >world knows little it anything about Theosophy!! > >I will probably get flamed for some of the above remarks but I am trying to >be honest with my comments. I am not trying to criticize anyone. Just >giving (hopefully) some food for thought. > >Daniel MKR: I am glad to see your msg which is timely. After all we are all trying to make theos-l help more people to get exposed to Theosophy. So any and all opinions and comments from every one - including lurkers are welcome. Let get all the inputs and make this list very effective and useful. > >P.S. BEE, could you do a short review of that new book from Adyar on >Discipleship as >found in THE MAHATMA LETTERS? Wheaton TPH and the Quest Bookshop in New York >did not have the book and knew nothing about the book when I talked to them >about a month ago. > MKR: It is rather interesting that it is available in NZ but not in US. Any possible explanation from anyone? ....Doss >Liesel's, Alan's, and Michelle's previous comments on this subject are >appended below: > >>That's a good list to start with. >> >>How about adding something to the effect that there should be some >>consideration of other human beings. The consideration would consist of the >>length & content of the messages, & also somehow would exclude hurtful >>personal remarks, ie taking into account that the people who read the >>message also have feelings. >> >>Liesel >>............................................................................ >> >>>In message <199604160324.AA30164@zipper.zip.com.au>, Michelle Donald >>> writes >>>>> I think this list needs a moderator. I nominate Alan. This discussion >>>>> will, I hope, lead to a decision. >>> >>>We already know a moderator is not for theos lists. >>>> >>>>Or if not at least some netiquette guidelines, about conserving >>>>bandwdith and increasing value to participants by: >>>> >>>>1) judicious quoting - not none - making some posts meaningless or >>>>complete quote leaving in unecessary details. >>>>2) on topic >>>>3) more than I agree - this doesnt add to discussion unless a vote is >>>>being called for >>>>4)emailing direct rather than to the list where ones response is to >>>>the individual rather than the group participating in the list. >>>> >>>>If you can think of more please feel free to add them... >>>> >>>>yours in fellowship >>>> >>>>Michelle Donald >>> >>>These are useful and serious points - I think some of us could take note >>>and try to be more selective. The "Reply" button can be quick and easy >>>to use, but the result may not always be useful to all readers. I know >>>I get tempted by this, and sometimes alter a reply to go the an >>>individual rather than the list. I could do it more often, I know, and >>>am posting this reply to Michelle to the list for consideration by >>>others. >>> >>>Alan >>>--------- >>>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >>>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >>>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >>>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html >>> >>> >> >> >> > > From nlporreco@bpa.gov Wed Apr 17 23:16:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 16:16:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: Re: Reply to JRC -- Same Old Arguments Message-Id: <31757B6F@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 48 TEXT JRC, Easier it is to say nothing. If the process of conveying ones opinion is preaching to your eyes, then why communicate. What we do in our lives can only be seen by those around us and judged by none, for in judging we usually are expressing our own inadequacies. Yes its true that my own words may betray me but as the three objects I mentioned are an ideal, they are my objective and I did not say I had reached them. For example, I feel that Love in the highest since is the realization of unity and as such a true reflection of Reality. And as to my feet, you wouldn't want to kiss them, believe me. Shanti, Nick. > Date: Wednesday, April 17, 1996 6:45PM > From: theos-l > Subject: Re: Reply to JRC -- Same Old Arguments On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, Porreco, Nick - CPMQ wrote: > > Doss, good point, I think that you, Eldon and Bee are all on the same > harmonious frequency. The true show of an evolved being is compassion, love > and selflessness for the sake of these qualities not for the ego or to have > your feet kissed. > > Shanti, > Nick > ---------- Nick ... Easy it is for people to speak fine words of compassion, love truth and beauty - easier still to preach them as what we ought to all do. Who could argue? But if saying the words worked we'd have achieved world peace milennia ago (-:). Problem is, the preachers rarely practice the words any better than those they preach to (though the act of preaching does get one's "feet kissed"). -JRC From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 18 01:06:25 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 02:06:25 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Proposed revisions In-Reply-To: <960416153112_76400.1474_HHL29-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960416153112_76400.1474_HHL29-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >Murray: >>These changes may seem minor in terms of wording, but I feel that they connect >>to issues which it is part of TI's work to address. > > Yes. Yes. Yes. I, for one, vote in favor of Murray's revisions. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > There is growing support for this - a bit more feedback would be welcome. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu Apr 18 01:16:04 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 21:16:04 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604180220.WAA22901@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Aromas & HPB Speaking of whether HPB smelled or not, I wonder whether HPB had a shadow. Anyone know anything enlightening about that? Liesel From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu Apr 18 02:46:38 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 19:46:38 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604180246.TAA03061@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: David Lane's Thoughts on Inner Visions Here is what I promised in a previous post: David Lane's thoughts and reflections on Visions and Inner Experiences. Daniel Caldwell > Date: 4 Apr 1996 03:15:30 GMT > From: dlane@weber.ucsd.edu (David Lane) > Subject: The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, Blabla Mohenjo, and Bill Couch The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, Bill Couch, and Blabla Mohenjo is Appearing at the Astral Starlite Tonite What immediately strikes one about purported inner visions is the amazing plasiticity of the encounters--literally anyone can see anybody at anytime..... From Blabla Mohenjo (one of the Vairagi Masters)[an Eckankar Master] to Babaji (of Yogananda fame) to Jesus (that allegedly real person who died some 2000 years ago). Now this reminds me of one my all-time favorite characters, The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man (apologies if my spelling of this fantastic creature is off), who made a delightful appearance in the first Ghostbusters film. What happens if one sees him on the inner regions? Are we then to suggest that he "really" exists? Or, are we to say that the imagine-nation (one of the few places apparently with no boundaries, especially rational zones) allows for innumerable characters to live and breathe which have no empirical or super-empirical referent? I think this is central to our ongoing discussions about inner masters and their historicity (world citizens? or merely part of the voting population on Tuza?) because it seems that we are confusing two very important issues: image produced characters which are an admixture of what we read, see, smell, and believe (hey, i just saw a pink unicorn playing with pee wee herman upon a pyramid in Elvis' deli at Plato's cave next to silly putty's newspaper stand) and images which are more or less reflections of what appears relatively stable and permanent in the here and now. For instance: we can argue about the "love" of Jesus and debate endlessly about it (and never come up with a "best" answer). Why? Because we are stuck to speculation that has no fundamental or empirical referent. However, if we argued about how to start a car, our debate would more or less resolve itself by pointing to the key and pointing to how to turn it. Now i realize that my postmodern friends are going to tell me that that stuff is "relative" or "decontextualized" too. But, quite frankly, when triple A shows up and you need a jump start, postmodern "textual" readings just collapse.... Or else you end up staying at Ralphs all night long...... But i digress, when we debate these inner visions, we are essentially talking non-sense. And, as such, anyone's vision is about as good as another's.... Stay Puft? Virgin Mary? Yaubl [another Eckankar Master]? Unless, of course, there are some outer and inner criterion upon which we can have common agreement. This post is not meant to be an answer, but merely a starting point. Here's my question: how can we differentiate an inner vision of a Marshmallow man from a religious vision of our chosen guru? Is there a difference? If so, why? If not, why not? Here's the catch: the parameters by which we answer this question, i would suggest, should be at least pointing in the direction of how we start cars every morning. In other words, it should have some point at which we do it right, do it wrong, or just don't do it at all. Unless we do that, then of course we can simply lubricate all the more and never ever differentiate.... Which is okay, until the vision you have rapes or molests or kills you...... So here's the question in a simplified form: how does one know that an inner vision is "real"? (at least more real or more useful than one of Bill Couch dressed up as a dessert..... Bill Couch, by the way, was the stunt man who played the Stay Puft Marshmallow man.... He is also a good surfer) -- ---- dlane@weber.ucsd.edu email for PGP Public Key From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu Apr 18 01:50:48 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 21:50:48 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604180255.WAA24420@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Theosophy on the internet http://www.vnet.net/users/jem/homepage.html This home page with jem = John e Meade, and vnet.net must be put out by the manager of theos-l. Wheaton uses netcom.com, not vnet.net John Meade, please confirm. Liesel From TheosLodge@aol.com Mon Apr 15 22:24:10 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 18:24:10 -0400 From: TheosLodge@aol.com Message-Id: <960415182409_514402054@mail02.mail.aol.com> Subject: Fwd: Scientific Spirituality > From: bpramana@rad.net.id (Bambang Pramana) > Date: 96-04-07 04:04:38 EDT I was brought up in a Theosophical family, and I would call myself a Theosophist, thoug not an "orthodox" one. I do not consider the Theosophical teaching as dogmas, but ideas which are still to be developed in-line with the scientific advancement. In 1992 I have come to realize what I would call "The Ultimate Unification Theory", which is the basic axioms of nature. The origin of my inspiration was from The Secret Doctrine, especially the Proem describing the mundane cross. I have given lectures about it in some Theosophical lodges, in Australia and Indonesia, and also at the Fifth International Conference on Thinking in Townsville Australia. Recently, I created a Web-page and put it on the Internet. It is called "Scientific Spirituality" at http://www.indocon/com/metascience. Please visit the site, and if you don't mind, I would appreciate it very much you announcing the site amongs your members. I would also appreciate some comments from other Theosophists. Love & peace. B. Pramana From nlporreco@bpa.gov Wed Apr 17 16:30:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 09:30:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: RE: Fwd: Scientific Spirituality Message-Id: <31751C91@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 46 TEXT To anyone trying to access this site, it would be helpful to try http://www.indocon.com/metascience/welcome.htm. The url given by B. Pramana has an error. Nick. > Date: Wednesday, April 17, 1996 7:12AM > From: theos-news > Subject: Fwd: Scientific Spirituality > From: bpramana@rad.net.id (Bambang Pramana) > Date: 96-04-07 04:04:38 EDT I was brought up in a Theosophical family, and I would call myself a Theosophist, thoug not an "orthodox" one. I do not consider the Theosophical teaching as dogmas, but ideas which are still to be developed in-line with the scientific advancement. In 1992 I have come to realize what I would call "The Ultimate Unification Theory", which is the basic axioms of nature. The origin of my inspiration was from The Secret Doctrine, especially the Proem describing the mundane cross. I have given lectures about it in some Theosophical lodges, in Australia and Indonesia, and also at the Fifth International Conference on Thinking in Townsville Australia. Recently, I created a Web-page and put it on the Internet. It is called "Scientific Spirituality" at http://www.indocon/com/metascience. Please visit the site, and if you don't mind, I would appreciate it very much you announcing the site amongs your members. I would also appreciate some comments from other Theosophists. Love & peace. B. Pramana From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 04:32:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 21:32 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: attatchments At 04:00 PM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<< >The attach function is a little more complicated. The reason for this first >of all is, that even if you are successful the attachment may not be able to >be read by another if : >1.) There internet provider and yours may not have compatible systems. >2.) They do not have the appropriate software for reading your attachment. >An example of 2.) would be if you sent me an attachment of a letter written >in Word for Windows ver. 6.0 and I did not have a word processor software >package on my computer. > >To use the attachment key all you have to do is access the Attach icon, and >then go to the appropriate place on your tree that is revealed and highlight >the file you want attached. You need to have a file created and stored >ahead of time and know where it is located. O.K. I Have Word Perfect 6.2 (and am waiting patiently for 7.0) in tandem with Windows 95, I have many "save as" options and when I want to send an attachment I save as ASCII(text), the problem seems to be that sometimes I get it where I want it. For example my short essay on the universe and Intelligence's role in it...everyone appears to have gotten that. I recently attached a longer piece I wrote regarding This List and it's function. Alan Bain liked it and suggested I send it to the list at alrge. I have tried to do so, but I have no idea if anyone got it. Am I missing some step in the process? > >I hope the above is clearer then mud. > >Nick. > ---------- Nick: Clearer than mud it surely was. Couple of questions: "Tree"? How would I send such a thing to the list in general rather than specific individuals? alexis From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 18 04:49:13 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:49:13 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960418004913_274742394@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: No Moderator The problem with moderated lists is that the moderator tends to become very overworked and unpleasant to deal with. At that point he either gives up in disgust and things get very confused or he becomes a little tin god and wrecks everything. I cannot imagine anyone I dislike enough on this list, no matter how mad I may get at them occasionally, to wish such a fate on. Now if one of my relatives were to sign up...:-) Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 18 04:49:17 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:49:17 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960418004916_274742439@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TI Introduction Alan, Very nice. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 05:14:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 22:14 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: hurtful remarks At 12:03 PM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >That's a good list to start with. > >How about adding something to the effect that there should be some >consideration of other human beings. The consideration would consist of the >length & content of the messages, & also somehow would exclude hurtful >personal remarks, ie taking into account that the people who read the >message also have feelings. > >Liesel >............................................................................ >Liesel: One would hope a shared humanity would preclude hurtful remarks, I've been on the receiving end of a few myself and I agree with you, they do hurt. I wish I knew how to prevent tht sort of thing wiothout being authoritarian. Maybe some of these very intelligent folks on this board will come up with a equitable solution. alexis From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 18 11:46:02 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 07:46:02 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960418074601_193525852@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: 1812 Alex, I know whereof you speak. It is generally assumed among political types that by the end of the next century such a union will probably occur and the free-trade agreement was a prelude to it, much as the German trade agreements in the mid 1800's were a prelude to the German state. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu Apr 18 20:12:51 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 16:12:51 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604182117.RAA26349@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: attatchments Alexis, I never got your essay on ontelligence's role in the universe. I'd like to see it. Also, come to think of it, you never told me how you liked "Mindset". Does that mean you didn't? Liesel ....................................................................... >At 04:00 PM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<< >>The attach function is a little more complicated. The reason for this first >>of all is, that even if you are successful the attachment may not be able to >>be read by another if : >>1.) There internet provider and yours may not have compatible systems. >>2.) They do not have the appropriate software for reading your attachment. >>An example of 2.) would be if you sent me an attachment of a letter written >>in Word for Windows ver. 6.0 and I did not have a word processor software >>package on my computer. >> >>To use the attachment key all you have to do is access the Attach icon, and >>then go to the appropriate place on your tree that is revealed and highlight >>the file you want attached. You need to have a file created and stored >>ahead of time and know where it is located. > >O.K. I Have Word Perfect 6.2 (and am waiting patiently for 7.0) in tandem >with Windows 95, I have many "save as" options and when I want to send an >attachment I save as ASCII(text), the problem seems to be that sometimes I >get it where I want it. For example my short essay on the universe and >Intelligence's role in it...everyone appears to have gotten that. I recently >attached a longer piece I wrote regarding This List and it's function. Alan >Bain liked it and suggested I send it to the list at alrge. I have tried to >do so, but I have no idea if anyone got it. Am I missing some step in the >process? > >> >>I hope the above is clearer then mud. > >> >>Nick. >> ---------- > Nick: Clearer than mud it surely was. Couple of questions: "Tree"? How >would I send such a thing to the list in general rather than specific >individuals? > >alexis > > > From mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz Thu Apr 18 19:35:33 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 07:35:33 +1200 From: mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz (Murray A Stentiford) Message-Id: <199604181951.HAA52892@iprolink.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Proposed revisions Thanks for the reply, Alan. Just a few responses in turn. >>Re: >> >>>Below is the revised version for the consideration of TI members, as >>>also mentioned on theos-l in a separate post. >>Now, my second point is about the phrase >> >>"To investigate unexplained laws of nature ..." in the 3rd object. >> >>With my science background, I have always felt uncomfortable with "unexplained >>laws of nature", and I think that words like "regularity" and "consistency", >>as Don DeGracia put it a while ago, do much better than "law", today. > >A recent correction, following discussion among members, alters "laws of >nature" to "mysteries of nature" of which there is an abundance of the >unexplained, which agrees quite well with your view below, I think? Mysteries is a nice term. It would fit into my suggested wording thus: "To investigate the mysteries of nature, and unrealized human potential and abilities, with an underlying respect for all life." Reads rather well, I reckon. >So can we leave it till next time? You can bet there will be one! Let's see what further comment there is from others. >Your feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks. And be glad I haven't had the time to write more! :-) Murray Member TI & TS in NZ From michelle@zip.com.au Fri Apr 19 09:46:42 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 09:46:42 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Message-Id: <199604182323.AA18586@zipper.zip.com.au> Subject: Re: Proposed revisions Priority: normal Hi All > Mysteries is a nice term. It would fit into my suggested wording thus: > > "To investigate the mysteries of nature, and unrealized human potential and > abilities, with an underlying respect for all life." I know my grammar isnt the best - so I expect a rebuttle on this, BUT would the sentence be more correct with a 'the' inserted between and and unrealized human potenial. > Thanks. And be glad I haven't had the time to write more! :-) te he he I sure know what that can mean, one time when Murray had a report to write he came to stay one night and ending up staying more than a week! BFN OOROO Michelle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - michelle@zip.com.au Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 18 23:07:52 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 00:07:52 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Revised TI Statement Mime-Version: 1.0 Dear TI members (and others who have joined the debate): Following the request for a vote, and the warm welcome and further feedback relating to Murray's comments, I am posting below a slightly altered version which seeks to take his observations into account - almost verbatim as suggested. I also hope this may help others view TI more favorably with a view to joining us :-) --- Alan. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises men and women who, of their own free choice, subscribe to the spirit of the three objects first formulated by the Theosophical Society, but in a more up-to-date form based on suggestions by members of the internet community, and expressed thus: 1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family, without distinction of sex, 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 mysteries of nature and unrealized human potential and abilities, with an underlying respect for all life. THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is a voluntary 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. All have the right to choose, without trace of coercion, the path by which they seek understanding. 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. We hope to be of service, and to share what we have in amity with other theosophical, occult, and esoteric organizations, as also with like-minded individuals. To join, send an e-mail message asking to be registered to TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk or give your name and other details you wish to share to whoever introduced you to Theosophy International. ---------------------------------------------------------------- "TI" has members in eight countries. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 19:48:00 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 12:48 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:union At 08:03 AM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I know whereof you speak. It is generally assumed among political types that >by the end of the next century such a union will probably occur and the >free-trade agreement was a prelude to it, much as the German trade agreements >in the mid 1800's were a prelude to the German state. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >That's surely true, and it's also possible that there will be a reincarnation of the HolyRoman Empire inEurope too. alexis From nlporreco@bpa.gov Fri Apr 19 01:17:00 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 18:17:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: RE: Re:union Message-Id: <3176E9BA@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 32 TEXT Alex, I have heard it speculated that the Moslem, Christian unrest today is a revisit of the group karma created during the Crusades. What are your thoughts? Nick. > Date: Thursday, April 18, 1996 7:52PM > From: theos-buds > Subject: Re:union At 08:03 AM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I know whereof you speak. It is generally assumed among political types that >by the end of the next century such a union will probably occur and the >free-trade agreement was a prelude to it, much as the German trade agreements >in the mid 1800's were a prelude to the German state. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >That's surely true, and it's also possible that there will be a reincarnation of the HolyRoman Empire inEurope too. alexis From malkin@gil.net Fri Apr 19 03:44:03 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:44:03 -0400 From: Ken Malkin Message-Id: <31770C03.5AD@gil.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Is there life out there? Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, read the dribble that is being cross polinated on this valuable asset. All personal nonsense has turned off many people. Childs play at this level is just goulish! The world goes on in a formoid manner until we understand that only "Thought forms" change it. I'm real tired of all the silly stuff. How about, great intellect being expressed, not form, foolish, fellowship? Ken Malkin From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 18 04:47:55 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:47:55 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960418004754_274741418@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: To Alan re speaking Alan, Believe it or not, if you have never been in the position of respecting something very highly and yet having to demolish it because the circumstances or the facts require it, I envy you. I have had to obliterate so many beliefs in my life that I find it safer to believe nothing and just go with the evidence. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 18 04:49:08 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:49:08 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960418004906_274742310@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: newbies with thick skins Alan, True, not everyone has the hide of a rhinoceros. But if you are going to hang out with Theosophists, it sure helps. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 18 04:49:10 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:49:10 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960418004910_274742359@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Gnostics vs. "Founding materialists" Greg, And thank you for the thought-provoking response. This is a subject that gets blood boiling on all sides, touching as it does the bases not only of the TS, but the way we choose to live as well. Perhaps it is time we stopped shouting at each other and just thought for a while. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 04:53:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 21:53 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Netiquette At 03:11 PM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >It's good to see some suggestions for netiquette on Theos-l from Michelle, >Liesel and Alan. I would also suggest that we be more aware of what >we post of Theos-l, etc. Daniel: I don't know what or why other people do things so I cannot presume to speak for them. But I do know what I do, and why I do it. I respond to every message which is directed to me, and/or which mentions me directly. Somewhat more rarely there is a string to which I want to add my 2 cents, and I do so. I am always careful to "clear away the deadwood" as I was taught by Nicholas Weeks when I first joined the board. I always delete any message I wrote myself as I really don't need to read what I wrote. There are many people on this board with whom I enjoy conversing, I try to avoid the two line posting, but if one is addressed to me, it seems it would be impolite to ignore it. I know I would react less than positively to any attempt to limit anyone's "freedom of speech" by limiting the number of postings one is permitted. Most access providers now have a 20.00 per month unlimited access fee, I myself pay 19.95 for unlimited access. The few providers that are more expensive may provides servies their subscribers value more than a less expensive use fee. But that's their own decision. I don't feel responsible for their budgets as I don;t expect them to worry about mine. As to "lurkers", everyone in theis world is different. This is an internet list, I have run, and do run, several groups for metaphysical and shamanic discussion etc. We have lurkers there too. Some folks "lurk" others are more forward. I do think that people come out wehn they are ready to do so. Perhaps the "lurkers" want to get a "feel" of what's going on before risking their ideas in public. It is, I believe, their right to do so. This list is for discussion and sharing, but some people would like to assemble their thinking first. Some of them, after"lurking" for a bit, may actually be afraid someone will demand their "sources and authorities" every time they venture a personal opinion. With folks like you, Eldon, Richard Taylor, Jerry scheuler,and myself aboard, this list is a scary place for beginners and maybe it should be. Perhaps we should provide a "Welcome Newcomers" thing like Buds and Roots. As to numbers, well I don't knopw why people have left the board and I don't think anyone does. This list is, I think quite a special place, and perhaps some people are uncomfortable with it, that of course is their perogative. But most of the people on this baord are happy with the format, and so it's that kind of person we need to attract. alexis dolgorukii From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 04:56:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 21:56 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TS Moscow At 01:52 PM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >My correspondent in Westeren Europe just sent me the Fax# of the TS in >Moscow. The phone rates vary with the time of day. For details, please check >with your phone company, also for the exact prefix numbers to go in front of >what I'm going to give you. > Russia 095 Moscow 205-22-28 > >Liesel > >They have a FAX? Wow! Well I don't, they're just going to have to get an old fashioned letter from me! John of course, has infinite faxing apability but I don't think the phone company wants to pay for Faxes to Moscow. So, I'm still in need of a street address and a person to whom to send it. alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 05:19:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 22:19 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Eleusinian At 06:07 PM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Alex, > >Thanks for the info, however before I make up my mind either way, may I ask >how you come by your info. > >Inquisitive Nick. >Subject: Re: Eleusinian >Date: Wednesday, April 17, 1996 3:50PM > >At 06:47 AM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >> >> >>Eldon, >>Good point. Like John Algeos' video on initiation, John seems to think >that >> >>the elysian (I hope this is spelled right) mysteries (the higher and >lower) >> >>consisted of the same teaching. The people receiving them were looking at >>the same thing but receiving it at the level their development permitted. >> This is the best my memory can do of a tape I viewed over a year ago. >> >>Nick >> ---------- >> >> >>Nick: > >It's Eleusinian, after the City of Eleusis, and John Algeo is incorrect. >There were Public Mysteries, which were sort of Dramatic presentations of >certain esoteric truths at the simplest level and these were for everyone. >There were festivals call The Eleusinia at which almost everyone among the >citizenry (in Greece a highly limited class) could participate. Secondly >there was a higher level mystery at which only prospective Mystae were >permitted, and lastly there were the inner mysteries in which only fully >initiated mystae could participate. Each of these levels was different, the >"demonstrations" were entirely different, and the results were entirely >different. > >alexis >> > > From michelle@zip.com.au Thu Apr 18 15:50:44 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:50:44 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Subject: List purpose and Theos Newsgroup Message-Id: <199604180527.AA12682@zipper.zip.com.au> I am sorry not to be able to quote from the earlier messages unfortunately the digest is so large I cant reply with quoting! My mailer cant handle the size of the digest any more as the average size of each message has grown. The suggested ideas for types of posting made by Daniel are a good idea - I will put a message together when I have finished reading a current series of books re the initiate. Let's hope others have ideas sparked by this posting - Thank you Daniel. MKR suggests using the delete key - this to me is an unfortunate compromise which I hope we all dont have to use on a regular basis. It is a poor example of Brotherhood if we have to use this on a regular basis. I think Chuck suggested a newsgroup - I am wondering what benefits can be found in this form of Internet communiation compared to mailing lists and what purpose is seen by having a newsgroup. The delivery time for one thing is much slower with days being the delivery time to many sites as newsgroups travel around the net being passed on from server to server rather than as mailing lists does to all from one server. As a result there are many disadvantages in on going discussions in a newsgroup forum. On the other hand it is a more public forum. It could be used as a public forum for questions and answers maybe. What other ideas are there for a TS newsgroup purpose? Someone commented in what appeared to be frustration, that they had only heard about this list via word of mouth. Personally I heard about this mailing list from TSA in a newsletter some years ago, John put an annoucement in. Finding that old issue was one of the first things I did last July when finally joining the Internet. I believe the same info was reprinted in the local Tin A magazine sometime ago, I hear on the grapevine that an article about TI might be appearing in T in A soon. I'll keep the list posted in Theos-News when I hear more. . BFN OOROO Michelle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - michelle@zip.com.au Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ From michelle@zip.com.au Thu Apr 18 15:50:42 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:50:42 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Subject: Lurkers Message-Id: <199604180527.AA12677@zipper.zip.com.au> Why lurkers dont join in... If we look at this mailing list as an electronic meeting then just as at physical meetings not all people participate by speaking. I can think of a number of reasons why this is so, such as: 1) the point has been well covered by others 2) time has run out and the topic has moved on 3) at some meetings a few take over alienating others 4) some prefer to listen and distill the info in their own time not necessarily on the spot or in public 5) dont feel confident in speaking up 6) arent interested in that topic etc etc. Something many of us do is assume others do things for the reason we do - however not all people join lists to participate via postings, I'm sure some do as a way to keep informed. BFN OOROO Michelle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - michelle@zip.com.au Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ From michelle@zip.com.au Thu Apr 18 15:50:39 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:50:39 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Subject: Theos-L Netiquette Message-Id: <199604180527.AA12688@zipper.zip.com.au> Dear all Having read a few responses re postings in this list I would like to add a few more items to the suggested netiquette on this list. While I agree personally with Leisel sentiments about the tone of postings I feel that tone, is up to each individual and it is not appropriate to be part of netiquette guidelines. Please bear in mind that netiquette is about conserving bandwidth and increasing value to participants (the Internet's version of "Brotherhood") by: 1) judicious quoting - not none - making some posts meaningless or completly quoting leaving in unecessary details. 2) that messages are on topic 3) that messages are of value containing more than I agree - this doesnt add to discussion unless a vote is being called. 4)emailing direct rather than to the list, where ones response is to the individual rather than the group participating in the list. 5) Please do not reply in the list to a message posted that is personal or off topic - this only perpetuates the thread. 6) If you start a message with an individual list members name, please think carefully about the value of this message to the list as a whole and how this can result in an elite inner group which can act as a barrier to others within the list. in fellowship BFN OOROO Michelle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - michelle@zip.com.au Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 05:24:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 22:24 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Information At 06:07 PM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Alex, > >Thanks for the info, however before I make up my mind either way, may I ask >how you come by your info. > >Inquisitive Nick. >Subject: Re: Eleusinian >Date: Wednesday, April 17, 1996 3:50PM > >Dear Inquisitive Nick: I'll be very happy to tell you. I started reading when I was about 3 years old, I am now 60 years old, I have been reading steadily, (in 4 languages) ever since, most of what I have read in the last 40 years or so has had to do with Theology, philosophy, and Metaphysics. I also have total recall, so in the course of those many years of serious study, I have picked up information about the "Mysteries" from an immense number of sources. If one looks, the information is readily available. Anyway, that's what I have to tell you. alexis From Richtay@aol.com Thu Apr 18 05:30:42 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:30:42 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960418013039_516469320@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re:theosophy & psychism Alexis wrote, "As HPB regularly pointed out "Mediumship" is unconscious and uncontrollable by the medium, whereas conscious psychism is a totally controllable activity" this is the distinction she was trying to make. " No, that's not it. HPB makes many, many distinctions, and here two of them are relevant. She did indeed distinguish mediumship as passive and dangerous, but it's opposite is not psychism, rather ADEPTSHIP. Not "adept" as in "quite good as something like music" but as in, "Mahatma." The other distinction she made which is relevant here is to put down psychism, time and time again, in favor of NOETIC experience. Cf. HPB "Psychic and Noetic Action" in her collected Articles, available from the Theosophy Co. L.A. in 3 vols. Psychism is centered in the astral and kama manas, while noetic actio involves the Ego, namely Buddhi-manas. This is an old discussion and I won't hash it out again here. Suffice it to say that HPB's position is clear, and anyone is free to disagree with her if they choose. From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Thu Apr 18 05:34:10 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 17:34:10 +1200 From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Message-Id: <199604180534.RAA00214@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:theosophy & psychism >Daniel: > >I have some comments on this genral topic. > >One it seems to me that the history of the theosophical movement is rife >with the "thrid object" and it's many manifestations. I think it is post >Krishnamurti dabacle Theosophy that fears unrestrained psychism, and for >very good reasons. But HPB's wartnings agains "mediumship" were points well >made, and well put. However, it is a great mistake to confuse psycism and >mediumship. As HPB regularly pointed out "Mediumship" is unconscious and >uncontrollable by the medium, whereas conscious psychism is a totally >controllable activity" this is the distinction she was trying to make. She >never warned agains paranormal activity, how could she? And I am sure you >could provide numberless citations of her making the distinction between the >two types of activity. > >What I think we see today, in the official theosophical disapproval of >anything but the intellectual discussion os psychism is based on fear. Fear >that the uncontrollable psychic activities (and unprovable) of the CWL era >(which runs all the way down to our own times in the persons of >Jinarajadasa, Arundale, and Taimini, might once again take the TS down roads >it no longer thinks it wise to travel. One can easily see why. To me, it's a >mistake, and it tends to denigrate the thrid object and ignore most modern >paranormal research. But I don't think that the TS's fear of spychism is >basic, only that it's realtively recent. > >alexis dolgorukii > If I may butt in here, I would like to say a little about this in relation to NZ and the recent reminder by our own Nat Pres to be more Theosophical. I was able to talk to him over lunch when he came to Wanganui to give a talk the other day. I expressed my concern at what I perceived as a 'tightening of the belt' and I was disturbed by it. He gave me some background of other lodges that did not have a basic Theosophical core in their membership so that the lodge was a forum for other than Theosophical knowledge. There is a danger that if a President of a lodge is not strong enough to counter the wild side of some 'new age' beliefs then the lodge doesn't represent Theosophy anymore. He said that if a lodge had Theosophy over its door, it should not mislead the public by 'doing' non-theosophy as its main feature and that is where the fine line comes into play. We have a lodge in recess here and a courtcase pending because a guy who tended to be disruptive and claimed a direct line to Jesus wanted to steer the lodge away from Theosophy and take up his teachings and follow him. The more theosophical members got upset and a split occurred that nesitated involvement of Head Office and much unpleasantness has ensued over the past year and has cost a lot of money. I get the impression that it isn't psychism as such that is the main problem but the fact that it is identified with the 'new age' nowadays and there are some weird and wonderful groups under that umbrella that try to use a lodge and a ready made membership to spread their message. Many of these people are very enthusiastic and get emotional if others so not immediately agree with them. Theosophists do not like to be told that they are following a dead path and that this new one that is being pushed will solve all their problems. I know of people who, as a group have shifted around and done some strange things because a channelled entity told them to. They arrived in a town and became interested in the local lodge and tried to convince the members that the 'end was nigh' etc. Fortunately they lost interest when noone took any notice of them but that doesn't always happen. Maybe as stories like that get around, Theosophy feels the need to protect what has been it's rationale for so many years and there are many varied attempts to do that which we see as fearful behaviour because we may not know what occurred to bring it about. Going to Exec meetings with other NZ presidents give insight into the diverse personalities that are more or less in charge of theosophy as some of them have very small memberships who tend to leave it to the one who will do the work and that is often the president. We have begun again the Sunday mornings where presidents can get together and help each other to solve any problems they have. These follow on from Exec meetings in Auckland on the Saturday and happen quarterly with the first one in end May. I personally know quite a few NZ members who are into psychism and noone give them a hard time. Not everybody embraces it either but it is a matter of live and let live over here. These are just some of my thoughts on it. I have just started reading the first of Olcotts Diary Leaves and was HPB a rascal, was she ever. She even got her nuisance elemental to hem the new towels that Olcott bought. I wonder if I could find one of them, would be very handy Peace and harmony to us all. > Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Thu Apr 18 01:38:30 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 19:38:30 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Reply to JRC -- Same Old Arguments In-Reply-To: <31757B6F@mortar.bpa.gov> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, Porreco, Nick - CPMQ wrote: > > Easier it is to say nothing. If the process of conveying ones opinion is > preaching to your eyes, then why communicate. Actually, I wasn't referring to you, or what you wrote, as preaching. I believe, however, that there is an odd problem in Theosophical circles: The charge that people are not being "compassionate", or are acting in an "unbrotherly fashion" is often used in the same way critics of the government are called "unAmerican", or Christians call one another "unloving" or "unChristian" - as a means of defending a status quo and marginalizing any criticism. If the fact that our headquarters, for instance, used *our* money to sue one of our own branches over an ideological dispute distrubs me, and I write a post sharply critisizing such activity, and Doss very agressively pursues a campaign attempting to make HQ fully accountable ... we will both be called, by anyone who is a supporters of HQ, "needing to be compassionate", and lectured about our lack of it. I guess I sort of think all the discussion about "we should be resprctful and compassionate" that takes place in general terms is pretty much meaningless - I mean, its all very well and good to say, but few here accept the categorizations of their activities by others. Who *doesn't* think they are acting with compassion? Eldon speaks wonderful words about how we should respect the views of others and strive for compassion, but once a month or so takes a purely gratutitous, dismissive and condescending shot at "psychic" powers, for no apparent reason, and often not even vaguely related to the issue at hand. If I periodically answer that (and *I've* never *started* it), I'm hardly inclined to listen to him responding by saying *I* ought to be more "respectful" of the opinions of others. Regards, -JRC From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 05:41:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 22:41 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: re: hear hear At 06:39 PM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>cut<<<<<< >>>>>cut again<<<<< > >Would there not be a time before a person becomes naturally selfless where >intention is the way to get there? I have always understood that all the >various religions and philosophies were an attempt by different avenues to >teach some sort of ethics in the hope of creating brotherhood among self >seeking humanity. There is still a large portion of humanity that believe in >I'm ok Jack and that is all that matters. That's perfectly true. Aristotle said" One should practice to seem what one wishes to actually be, and then by practice and the experience of an entire life, one becomes what one seems". Actually that is a paraphrase rather than a direct quote. However, the goal is to be altruistic without any thought at all. >> >Maybe some of them are sitting in a hot place wondering what went wrong with >their intentions. Some of those may have surcomed to their power positions >and lost sight of their intentions. Getting power does funny things to >people as I am sure we have all witnessed. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", of course Lord Acton was completely right. But many people do seek power for its own sake an, it seems to me, thereby knowingly reach for corruption at the same time, >> > >Being naturally good is, of course, the ultimate but spiritually good seems >more selfless perhaps. I assume that threading the 'path' is having >intentions to become a better person and thereby arrive at a place outside >of all these methods, intentions and whatevers used to get there. I agree >that it has to come from the heart naturally or else doing good run into >trouble. Right you are! >> > >As I understand it, the result is influenced by the intention, if there is >one, and so the forces put into being that is called the result may not >generate other 'good' forces from it if there is no selfless component to >the original cause of that result. >Oh dear, that is a convoluted sentence. Never mind I am sure you know what I >mean. Well it's a convoluted problem. For instance, if you feed a starving person from less than altruistic motivation they still get fed. People who do good things from less than perfect intentions, still do "good things" the people they benefit are still benefitted, but the "doer" benefits less spiritually than they do publically. "When you give alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth, that the Father who seeth thee privily, will reward thee for all to see". alexis dolgorukii >> >>alexis >> >> >> >Bee Brown >Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. >Theos Int & L > > From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 05:48:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 22:48 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Cosmii????? At 05:05 PM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >> What >>I need to understand is if you mention this as a radical concept, because it >>seems obvious to me. (i.e. there can be nothing "outside of" the cosmos.) > > What about all of the other cosmoses? > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > >Jerry: Hooray! That's just what I was wondering. If the "Big Bangs" are serial, and I believe they are, then each "bang" creates a Cosmos, unique unto itself. Obviously the various Cosmoi interpenetrate in some way, but is there a rigid cosmic parameter "outside" of which things cannot be? I don't think so. In any case, we must ask what is the venue in which the "big bang" occurs? The "Big Bang" occurs in a locus, it creates a cosmos, that Cosmos then, is created inside of a venue. There fore how can we think that there is nothing outside of the Cosmos! alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 05:57:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 22:57 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: re: ethics and morality At 05:00 PM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>cut<<<<<< > Alexis, I agree with you. However, we are in the minority >on this one. Jerry, That's clearly true. But it doesn't mean we're the one's who are mistaken. > >>>>>>>>cut<<<<<< > This is the point I have been trying to make for about 3 years now. Now you have an ally and we'll try together for three or more years till we finally get someone else to agree with us. > >>>>>>cut<<<<<< > Hitler's intent was to help the majority at the expense of the minority. >Perhaps a better way is to first consider "...if it harm none." It certainly is a "better way to consider", but, of course, Hitler didn't really care about "harming none", of course his first task was to utterly dehumanize those who he intended to harm. He succeeded. But as I continually have said since about 1945 when I first visited a Concentration Camp, all the Germans, who were Hitler's contemporaries, are almost equally guilty. Some for active collaboration but most for passive acquiesence. "An it harm none" is one of the twomost important things Aleister Crowley ever taught, it's a shame it gets ignored all too frequently while his nonsense doesn't. > > Right. This is the difference between the higher and lower stages >of Kohlberg's moral developmental stages. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > >alexis dolgorukii, member TI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 06:03:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 23:03 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "safety" At 05:07 PM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >May I be permnitted to emphasize something which I am sure Jerry Scheuler knows full well but I fear many other people like Eldon forget. "Life" is not even a slightly safe path. We, all of us take risks every moment of every day of our lives. It is the learning and understanding and awareness that develops from those risks and their results that contribute to the evolutionary growth of the intelligence that is sentience, and the intensification of awareness that makes sentience more alive. To avoid the development of one's psyche because it's dangerous, is to try to avoid "growing up" and makes of life, a waste of time. alexis dolgorukii, member TI, FTSA > > From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 06:09:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 23:09 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Surprise!!! At 04:43 PM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >Now, while many of us have been very busy determining who is smug, >blasphemous, condescending, etc., it probably should not go unnoticed that >the Big TS Machine, Algeo Section, just keeps rolling along toward its >objectives. Richard, it may astonish and amaze you to know that, except for the apparently compulsive bitchiness in the above paragraph, I agree with your comments below almost 100%. Especially regarding your definitions of "theosophy" and "THEOSOPHY", we may disagree on the efficacy of the SD and in our interpretations of Buddhism, but what you said below is, as they used to say, "right-on"! alexis dolgorukii > >The latest edition of THE MESSENGER provides us (no apparant by-line again) >with "Chapter 10" of ~Theosophy in a New Key~which I believe has been >recently accepted for TPH publication. My prediction--and I would like this >noted--is that this book is not intended to be merely one among many, but >will sooner or later become "quasi-official" in that it will be sent out as >part of "new members" materials or something similar. --Just watch. > >Anyway, in the last installment, we learned that the "inner side" to Object >Three was really *Aim Three*--"to bring together a group of people who are >informed about the principles of the Wisdom Tradition, who have begun the >work of self-transformation, and WHO ARE DEDICATED TO COOPERATING WITH THE >ELDERS AND ASSISTING THEIR WORK [capitals added]." In Chapter 10 we learn >about the "capital *T*." > >First, let me say I am not at all dismayed that a recent post has added me to >the "Eldon and Rich T. team." Eldon is a fine gentleman, and I would be >proud to stand with him any day no matter how much we disagree. We *do*, >however, continue to disagree on this *T* thing, and I think Chapter #10 >shows why I am so concerned with it. > >I previously offered a definition of "generic" *theosophy*: "knowledge which >has its base in, or at least originally derives from, transcendental, >mystical, or intuitive insight [or higher perception]" > >I previously offered the definition of capitalized *Theosophy*: "specific >doctrines, primarily those found in THE SECRET DOCTRINE and a few other >related writings." > >I previously asked the question, "In *The Theosophical Society*, does the >*Theosophical* refer to the first or second definition? > >Eldon, as I remember, elaborated many good points, but he never (correct me >if I am wrong) specifically answered this question. > >But this is a crucial question. Setting aside the shaky dichotomy of >"perception vs. brain-based" orientations etc., it is my opinion that the >second definition is simply not broad enough to include the wide-ranging >perspectives of the majority of us on this list--I simply don't see that >Shamans, Magicians, Psychogeneticists, or indeed anyone with a new >theosophical idea at all can logically call himself or herself a Theosophist >(member of the Theosophical Society) if the official name implies such a >doctrinal delimitation. > >John Algeo, or whoever the "we" is who seems to speak for the Society in ~New >Key~, however, seems to have no problem with this. First, he or she >generally alludes to *generic theosophy* as "certain ideas, practices, and >attitudes" found in variety of places (to be fair, there is a pitiful >dictionary reference offered which refers to it in terms of "mystical >redemption" etc.). Second, he or she cites the entry in the HarperCollins >Dictionary of Religion to define capitalized *Theosophy* as: "The primary >tenets presented in Blavatsky's modern compendiums of Theosophy [. . .]." > >Then, later on, what almost seems like a BIG TRICK reveals itself in the >answer to Question Eight: > >"Theosophy is not mentioned in the Objects, but THE NAME OF THE ORGANIZATION >[capitals added] is after all the 'Theosophical Society,' and that implies >that it has something to do with Theosophy [capital *T*, which has just been >defined as specific doctrine]. [. . .] There is no 'official' Theosophy, but >there is clearly a body of ideas and PRACTICES [capitals added] called >Theosophy. [. . .]" > >It now seems that we not only have ideas but *practices* which are official >enough to get the capital *T*. To me this provides the basis for utilizing >the full resources of the Society not only for the promulgation of specific >doctrines (but not others) but perhaps even also certain "training programs" >as well--e.g., the "The Masters of the Mind's Eye Program" (E.S. Tech. #5). > >Oh well, I suppose I better not get too exorcised about all this because if I >were in a position to speak for the Society in my version of the ~New Key~, I >would likewise probably be using all the "subtlety" at my disposal to get the >official name of the organization to reflect my own definition for >capitalized *Theosophy*: "The ineffable Universal of which *theosophy* is >the attempted articulation." > > (--I'd give in, however, and let Eldon and others call the "Core Teachings" >*The Principal Theosophical Philosophy* if they wanted to.) > >The Big TS Machine . . . it just seems to keep rolling no matter who is smug, >blasphemous, or condescending. . . . > > >Godspeed, > >Richard Ihle > > > > From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 06:22:00 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 23:22 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Aromas & HPB At 10:27 PM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >Speaking of whether HPB smelled or not, I wonder whether HPB had a shadow. >Anyone know anything enlightening about that? > >Liesel > >Liesel: Considering she had Bright's Disease, and considering that they didn't have dialysis in those days the toxins probably did cause a less tha pleasant odour, but that is hardly derogatory to HPB. It wasn't her fault. They didn't have deoderants either and so people walked around in a miasma of perfumes and colognes, can you imagine a room full of those people, in the heavy multilayered clothing they wore winter and summer? As to having a shadow, of course she did, she had a body didn't she? Actually as she was frequently photographed, we know she had a body. Remember, according to the really silly superstition, it's only people who have "sold their souls to Satan" who lose their shadows and their mirror images as well. No mirror image...no photograph. Anyway I hardly think HPB was a disciple of Satan. It's really very hard to be a disicple of someone who doesn't exist. alexis From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Thu Apr 18 08:43:13 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 20:43:13 +1200 From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Message-Id: <199604180843.UAA06814@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Cosmii????? >At 05:05 PM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >>> What >>>I need to understand is if you mention this as a radical concept, because it >>>seems obvious to me. (i.e. there can be nothing "outside of" the cosmos.) >> >> What about all of the other cosmoses? >> >> Jerry S. >> Member, TI >> >>Jerry: > >Hooray! > >That's just what I was wondering. If the "Big Bangs" are serial, and I >believe they are, then each "bang" creates a Cosmos, unique unto itself. >Obviously the various Cosmoi interpenetrate in some way, but is there a >rigid cosmic parameter "outside" of which things cannot be? I don't think >so. In any case, we must ask what is the venue in which the "big bang" >occurs? The "Big Bang" occurs in a locus, it creates a cosmos, that Cosmos >then, is created inside of a venue. There fore how can we think that there >is nothing outside of the Cosmos! > >alexis > This is an interesting question. As I understand it, there can be nothing outside the cosmos because 'All that Is' is the Cosmos and 'All that Is' would not be that if it could be outside itself. The Cosmos could be thought of as an evolving thing also therefore it is forever expanding and there are no limits to it. The Cosmos is full of Universes that may be said to have arrived via the big bang. As above so below, and as we are never ending so are all other things but all other things are expressions of the Cosmos. I read an interesting thing on Eternal being equated with unchanging and if that was the case nothing was eternal because everything was changing and evolving for ever. I guess it depends on how one understands it. > Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz Thu Apr 18 09:58:54 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:58:54 +1200 From: mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz (Murray A Stentiford) Message-Id: <199604181015.WAA03425@iprolink.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Netiquette guidelines and the future of Theos-l, etc. Replying to MK Ramadoss: >>It's good to see some suggestions for netiquette on Theos-l from Michelle, >>Liesel and Alan. I would also suggest that we be more aware of what >>we post of Theos-l, etc. >> >>One problem I see is the large number of daily postings by a few individuals. > >MKR: I think how many messages anyone posts is their business. It certainly is their business, but it is not just *their* business. Others who wish to take part in the life of the list are inevitably affected by the cumulative effect of these little decisions. Connections ... unity .. applied theosophy ...? >If someone >has the time and interest to write messages and post them, so much the >better. If I have the interest and time to spend all night long and post 400 >messages, then why should I be discouraged by anyone. If somebody sent in 400 messages overnight, it would annoy and discourage many others. Some kind of reasonable mean has to be struck between the needs of the list members, a bit like an orchestra where, if one section is too loud, it spoils the overall balance of the music. At the same time, we can accept that some can write more than others, whether for reasons of knowledge, enthusiasm, or just plain time. >Again if someone does >not want to read my messages there are two options that I use (1) hit the >delete key liberally and frequently - it kills the message instantly (2) use >filters - a filter feature can segregate messages based on one or more >criteria and you can even set it up such that a message can be directed >directly to "Trash" mailbox. These things help, but don't reduce the problem to nothing. It does not take zero time to deal with a message, even with the most fleeting glance, and the effect builds up when there are many. We don't all have filters in our e-mail programs, either. Besides, I don't *want* to filter out anybody automatically, though once or twice over the last year it has been tempting! >MKR: With such a small number of subscribers and such a small number of >active message posters, I think *any* limit on the number of messages will >be very inappropriate and undesirable. One of the main limits on my writing - I would like to do more - is the time it takes to keep up with the reading. An externally-imposed limit is, of course, rather odious and spoils the feeling of free cooperation, but a decision by each member to keep in sync with the needs of others is an act of consideration and can only boost the morale of the group. >The commercial Internet access prices are plummeting. Currently in my city >one can get unlimited PPP access for $10.00 (ten) per month with a sign up >fee of $10.00. Anyone spending more money should try shopping around and >they may find a better deal they can use. Of course what anyone wants to do >is their business. I just wanted to share the current market pricing >information. That's fine. Time is the other facet of the overall cost, of course. Plus the data storage space if you want to keep your own archives. >>Also there is the common practice to quote from three or four previous >>messages and then >>add one or two lines of comment. > >MKR: If someone wants to unsubscibe because of the above, then my comment >above on delete/filter may help. I'd rather that *writers* used their delete key to prune quotes and multiple quotes to the minimum needed to remind others what the thread is about, or to make it clear exactly what is being answered. It's what I try to do. >MKR: I would like to hear from lurkers. Lurkers should be welcomed and made >feel comfortable that they will not be either challenged or ridiculed for >anything they post. Only then will the lurkers come out. I agree very much. There are many people who feel diffident or don't think they know much but who have an interesting slant on things, or experiences that would interest others. BE ENCOURAGED, YOU LURKERS! Murray Member TI & TS in NZ From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Apr 18 11:44:14 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 06:44:14 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Oprah Today Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII As a followup to the program on Mad Cow Disease in Oprah's program, do you know the Chicago Commodities Exchange reacted and the price of cattle moved down? So some one is feeling that there is going to be concern with consuming meat. From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 18 11:44:52 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 07:44:52 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960418074451_193525460@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: President Jimmy Alex, Calling Victorians stuffy is like calling Barney purple. Bill Judge would not have liked it a bit, which of course for me makes the temptation almost overwhelming. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 18 11:45:54 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 07:45:54 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960418074553_193525790@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: theosophy & psychism Alex, There was also a terribly embarrassing incident involving Anna Bogus (sorry about that) Bonus Kingsford. She decided, while under the undue influence of too much Laudanum, that she was appointed by her spirit friends to psychically kill Louis Pasteur. The press got their hands on it, Louis Pasteur caught a light cold and HPB was mortified as Anna Kingsford was a high mucky muck in the London Lodge at the time and it made the whole TS look like a pack of loony drug addicts. Then there was the whole matter of the relationship between the TS and the Order of the Golden Dawn which went south and made the official TS very suspicious of Magick, in spite of the fact that the shrine room that HPB ordered for the London Lodge was designed to perform ritual magick, being modeled on the chamber Eliphas Levi described in his conjuration of the shade of Appolonious of Tyana. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 18 11:46:08 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 07:46:08 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960418074607_193525898@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Being & Doing Jerry, I can use the AOL to get on newsgroups now, so I don't know when you switched but I normally use Netcom for my internet stuff because I save tons of money that way. A newsgroup about theosophy would have to be much more general than just alt.ti. It would be alt.theosophy and Alex says his computer guru is going to look into it. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Apr 18 11:52:49 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 06:52:49 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Netiquette guidelines and the future of Theos-l, etc. In-Reply-To: <199604181015.WAA03425@iprolink.co.nz> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Murray A Stentiford wrote: >>>>>>>>>> big clip <<<<<<<<<<<<< > > BE ENCOURAGED, YOU LURKERS! > > > Murray > Member TI & TS in NZ Hi everybody Murray's points are well taken. So long as all of us keep focused on the long term objectives such as 1. Making Theosophy accessible to more people 2. Making this list very inviting to all newbees and lurkers 3. Making everyone feel very comfortable no matter what their views and opinions are. 4. Increase the maillist subscriber population world wide 5. Keep everybody informed about all the things that are taking place around the Theosophy world 6. Add any other objective you think is to be added here I think we would have helped Theosophy. As for myself, look for all the support I can give. ...doss From Coherence@aol.com Thu Apr 18 13:14:36 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 09:14:36 -0400 From: Coherence@aol.com Message-Id: <960418091435_274999587@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Giggling (response to Jerry S) In a message dated 96-04-17 07:04:51 EDT, you write: >No, she would approve of the budding occultist. But she would >giggle at the seasoned occultist who thinks he knows it all who is still >overly concerned about such things. The whole idea here is to be able >to get to the point where we act with compassion, spontaneously, and >without thought of any reward. Of course, when we do finally get to this, >we will be close to Adepts. > >Good discussion, Greg. Whether you agree with me or not, you do >seem to understand what I am trying to say, which makes my efforts >worthwhile. Thanks. > > Jerry S. Yes, this has been a good discussion, and at the bottom of it, Patience has untied the knot, and I do think we agree. It seems to me, based on the above para., that the difference was in the perspective of the issue. You seem to be coming from a point of possessing a certain amount of knowledge and "arrival" whereas, I was looking at the situation more from the bottom up, so to speak. Based on my moral failures (opportunities rather?), I assume I have a long way to go before that "right automatic action" occurs, and therefore, I do continually pose the question "What is it right to do, and are my motives the best?" Our study group is moving through the Bhagavad Gita just now, and we just completed Chapter 5 of the WQJ edition and his notes. If you are up for a recommendation, Judge's notes on Chapter 5 are excellent and directly relate to this issue. My best Greg H From Coherence@aol.com Thu Apr 18 13:15:50 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 09:15:50 -0400 From: Coherence@aol.com Message-Id: <960418091550_275000275@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: ethics and morality In a message dated 96-04-17 07:05:13 EDT, you write: >First I'd like to point out that in every case I know of, both "morality" >(religion based) and Ethics (Socially based) are entirely culturally >specific. They are neither of them at all "Universals". This does not mean that a Universal ethic does not exist. >Second: If one behaves well, i.e. is either "moral" or "ethical" or both, >because one believes in Karma, then it is hardly either "selfless" or >"disregarding of results". It seems to me that one should "behave well" >because that is how one is, and it thusly requires no thought at all to do so. Agreed. >Think about Torquemada, Savanarola, and Hitler, I am certain each of those persons >felt their intent was perfectly virtuous, and yet each one of them is >responsible for untold harm. They apparently thought wrong, and their intent was obviously not Universal in nature. >The old cliche about "hell is paved with good >intentions" is one of the most true truisms Four points: 1) Most people fail to know what a "good intention" really is. 2) If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, can you imagine the road paved with bad intentions? 3) I have a feeling that this cliche refers to people who have good intentions but do nothing with them, do not act on them. 4) A good intention does not mean that no mistakes will be made. A good intention (defined correctly), however, in my belief, lessens the impact of the mistake. > It seems to me that being >altruistic by intention carries with it the strong implication that one is >"striving" for some goal, and then the goal, which would be "altruism" >becames part of a "goal oriented process" which is then hardly altruistic I don't follow your premises to your conclusion. Believing as I do what we are told in Big T, we are at the point where the way is "up or down". To set a goal, to visualize an ideal indicates that there is the recognition that there is something to strive for, and we can choose what direction that will be in. But no sooner is each goal reached when we realize that there is the next goal, and the next and the next. Like steps. Like our days. Following those steps, one day at a time, leads us on. I see nothing more admirable than to set altruism as a goal or an ideal, as opposed to its opposite, and the fact that it is a process should not be a problem for you of all people, as that is your definition of theosophy. We have set behaviours in motion which need to be altered. If we are to reach people with theosophy, we first point the direction, then show them that right thought, right motive, right action can be LEARNED. It (altruism, the feeling of Universal Brotherhood) is not spontaneous in the masses of people. To say that it should be immediately eliminates the vast majority because in them, it is not, and if you are not willing to teach them, they will be lost for long periods. >Being naturally good is one thing, trying to be good is another thing >altogether because it implies an awareness that the goal has yet to be reached. And what could be more admirable or rewarding than seeing that light go on in someone where they finally become AWARE that their goal is yet to be reached or that there is a better alternative to their wretched lives? The despair of life for most people comes from not being aware of what the right goal should be, that which should be strived for, fought for along with the realization that ALL can reach it, of their own volition and efforts, and not subject to the whim of a vengeful God. Intent, motive, the thought that is the basis for and precedes all action, is everything, because it is intent that colors the action. I believe that we are beyond results, for if there is a concern in the result, we are bound by the action. Let the result come however it may, content that our motive was correct, i.e. universal. If we make a mistake, we learn. If good comes, then, as it should be. To counter with a cliche, another truest of truisms, "It's not winning or loosing, but how you play the game." Greg H (sounding like Eldon) From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Thu Apr 18 13:54:31 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 07:54:31 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re:theosophy & psychism In-Reply-To: <960418013039_516469320@emout13.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 18 Apr 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > > Suffice it to say that HPB's position is clear, and anyone is free to > disagree with her if they choose. Yes, but "Jesus'" position is quite clear in the bible also - so why do so many different Christian sects and denominations argue with each other ... and use the very same bible to support their very different perspectives? One can enter the corpus of HPB's writings and find support for a very wide variety of different perspectives.And (as the old argument that I won't get into either goes) ... while she said a bunch of stuff about Adeptship, she also possessed, took the trouble to develop, and used, a considerable arsenal of "psychic" abilities. -JRC From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 14:11:00 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 07:11 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:HPB & psychism At 01:44 AM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis wrote, > >"As HPB regularly pointed out "Mediumship" is unconscious and >uncontrollable by the medium, whereas conscious psychism is a totally >controllable activity" this is the distinction she was trying to make. " > > You state your position very forcefully, as usual. But I don't accept it. I've read the literature too, and we have an entirely different "take" on it. If as you imply, HPB had made a distinction ONLY between Mediumship and Adepthood, and if I believed her position was that only a "Mahatma" was or could be an adpet, I wouldn't be an active theosophist, for you see that would mean HPB was totally in error about a very important subject. I don't think she was, but I know you are. alexis From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu Apr 18 15:49:57 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:49:57 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604181549.IAA06579@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:theosophy & psychism JRC writes: >One can enter the corpus of HPB's writings and find support for a very >wide variety of different perspectives.And (as the old argument that I >won't get into either goes) ... while she said a bunch of stuff about >Adeptship, she also possessed, took the trouble to develop, and used, a >considerable arsenal of "psychic" abilities. JRC, could you give us three or four examples of quotes from HPB that support different perspectives [on the psychic??]? What is your point when you write: > while she said a bunch of stuff about >Adeptship, she also possessed, took the trouble to develop, and used, a >considerable arsenal of "psychic" abilities. The Mahatmas *trained* HPB and the following quotes from their letters also indicate her special position in relation to the Mahatmas: "...imperfect as may be our visible agent---and often most unsatisfactory and imperfect she is---yet she is the best available at present...." ML-2 "This state of hers is intimately connected with her occult training in Tibet, and due to her being sent out alone into the world to gradually prepare the way for others. After nearly a century of fruitless search, our chiefs had to avail themselves of the only opportunity to send out a European *body*...." ML-26 "[HPB is] a woman of most exceptional and wonderful endowments. Combined with them she had strong personal defects, but just as she was, there was no second to her living fit for this work. We sent her to America...." ML-45 And as to HPB's occult training: "She can and did produce phenomena, owing to her natural powers combined with several long years of regular training, and her phenomena are sometimes better, more wonderful and far more perfect than those of some high, initiated chelas...." ML-54 But as to the regular run of psychics and seers in HPB's time, Koot Hoomi pens the following: "Vainly do your modern seers and their prophetesses, creep into every cleft and crevice without outlet or continuity they chance to see; and still more vainly, when once within do they lift up their voices and loudly cry: 'Eureka! We have gotten a revelation from the Lord!'---for verily have they nothing of the kind. They have disturbed but bats, less blind their intruders; who, feeling them flying about, mistake them as often for angels---as they too have wings! Doubt not...it is but from the very top of those 'adamantine rocks' of ours, not at their foot, that one is ever enabled to perceive the *whole* Truth, by embracing the whole limitless horizon...." ML-48 And there is much in this ML-48 on psychism. Since we are on the subject of psychism, here is what Koot Hoomi says in a letter to Laura Holloway who herself was a clairvoyant, psychic and sensitive. This passage has never been published before: "...since you have scarcely learned the elements of self-control, in psychism, you must suffer bad consequences. You draw to yourself the nearest and strongest influences---often evil---and absorb them, and are psychically stifled or narcotised by them. The airs become peopled with resuscitated phantoms. They give you false tokens, misleading revelations, deceptive images. Your vivid creative fancy evokes illusive Gurus and chelas, and puts into their mouths words coined the instant before in the mint of your mind, unknown to yourself. The false appears as real, as the true, and you have no *exact method* of detection, since you are yet prone to force your communications to agree with your pre- conceptions." This letter is dated July, 1884. And Morya also writes on psychism: "There is one general law of vision (physical and mental or spiritual) but there is a qualifying special law proving that all vision must be determined by the quality or grade of man's spirit and soul, and also by the ability to translate diverse qualities of waves of astral light into consciousness. There is but one general law of life, but innumerable laws qualify and determine the myriads of forms perceived and of sounds heard. There are those who are willingly and others who are *unwillingly*---blind. Mediums belong to the former, sensitives to the latter. Unless regularly initiated and trained---concerning the spiritual insight of things and the supposed revelations made unto man in all ages from Socrates down to Swedenborg....---no self-tutored seer or clairaudient ever saw or heard *quite* correctly." ML-40 And KH writes: "The world of force is the world of Occultism and the only one whither the highest initiate goes to probe the secrets of being. Hence no-one but such an initiate can know anything of these secrets. Guided by his Guru the chela first discovers this world, then its laws...." ML-22 JRC, no doubt, you are aware of most of these quotes (and Alexis, too!). But I quote the above for others who may not know what the Mahatmas wrote on these topics. Daniel P.S. Letters from the Mahatmas are referenced from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions of THE MAHATMA LETTERS. From mike@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com Thu Apr 18 16:08:38 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 11:08:38 -0500 From: Michael Grenier Message-Id: <31766906.980@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com> Organization: Loral/Lockheed - Air Traffic Control Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: TSA On the Internet References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit M K Ramadoss wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > Eldon: > > Thanks for taking interest to post the above here. > > For those of us computer hardware illiterates, > > 166MHZ Pentium is a computer I see advertized in local newspapers that > one can walk into a store like Best Buy or Office Depot and walk out with. > > Windows NT - Like Windows everyone knows The last time I talked to Ruben, I suggested dropping the speed of the Pentium and putting the money elsewhere, e.g. a second PC, CDROM writer, or something. Basically a 56KB line is so slow that you do not need much of a computer to host it. Even with a T1, you don't need much. Anyway, I think we agreed on a 75 Mhz or better Pentium would suffice. Perhaps some of you think otherwise ... just remember that there is a limited amount of money that perhaps could go elsewhere. What do the rest of you think? Anyway, last I heard, which was a couple months ago, he hadn't yet registered the name and IP addresses he needed for his local subnet attached to the CISCO router. Ruben, if you're getting this, what is the latest? ------- Michael W. Grenier Loral Air Traffic Control 612-456-7869 mgrenier@eag.unisysgsg.com mike@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 18 01:29:51 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 02:29:51 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Netiquette guidelines and the future of Theos-l, etc. In-Reply-To: <199604171903.MAA03954@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604171903.MAA03954@web.azstarnet.com>, Blavatsky Foundation writes >The Internet is here but I still don't believe we Theosophists are taking >full advantage of >it. We are not even taking full advantage of the Theos-l, etc. forums! Correct .... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Apr 18 16:39:05 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 11:39:05 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Compassion /JRC Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I think one can be compassionate yet do what needs to be done. Sometimes what needs to be done can be very very painful in the short run, but is in the long term interests. As an analogy, my friendly compassionate surgeon can ruthlessly cut me open with his sharp knife and fix a problem with my body. Cutting somebody's body in the abstract can look like cruel and uncompassionate. It will produce intense pain and suffering in the short run. But in the long run it may save the life itself. It's my 2 cents worth on this topic. ....doss From nlporreco@bpa.gov Thu Apr 18 16:17:00 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 09:17:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: Re: theosophy & psychism Message-Id: <31767280@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 37 TEXT Chuck, Could you tell me more about where I can read about the conjuration of the shade of Appolonious of Tyana. It Doesn't matter if the book is in or out of print. Nick. > Date: Thursday, April 18, 1996 7:57AM > From: theos-l > Subject: Re: theosophy & psychism Alex, There was also a terribly embarrassing incident involving Anna Bogus (sorry about that) Bonus Kingsford. She decided, while under the undue influence of too much Laudanum, that she was appointed by her spirit friends to psychically kill Louis Pasteur. The press got their hands on it, Louis Pasteur caught a light cold and HPB was mortified as Anna Kingsford was a high mucky muck in the London Lodge at the time and it made the whole TS look like a pack of loony drug addicts. Then there was the whole matter of the relationship between the TS and the Order of the Golden Dawn which went south and made the official TS very suspicious of Magick, in spite of the fact that the shrine room that HPB ordered for the London Lodge was designed to perform ritual magick, being modeled on the chamber Eliphas Levi described in his conjuration of the shade of Appolonious of Tyana. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Thu Apr 18 17:36:52 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 11:36:52 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: theosophy & psychism In-Reply-To: <31767280@mortar.bpa.gov> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Porreco, Nick - CPMQ wrote: > > Chuck, > > Could you tell me more about where I can read about the conjuration of the > shade > of Appolonious of Tyana. It Doesn't matter if the book is in or out of > print. > > Nick. Nick ... "Transcendental Magic" by Eliphas Levi. I think its still in print (a really interesting book, BTW). -JRC From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 18 18:09:57 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 14:09:57 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960418140957_193680673@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: newsgroup Alex, I can't clarify it because I don't know what's really involved. I know one person (tyagi Nagashiva) who has his own newsgroup (alt.magick.tyagi) but as far as doing it, I have no idea. That's what computer gurus are for. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 18 18:10:49 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 14:10:49 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960418141048_193680962@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: MESSENGER #14 Rich, The problem then becomes whether it is worth the trouble to throw a monkey wrench into the machine. Clearly at the rate it is going it the TS is going to commit suicide. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 18 18:11:10 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 14:11:10 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960418141109_193681119@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: !!!!!! Alex, Have your heart medicine ready for this. Xtians are like everyone else, some good, some bad, some dreadful. I've known a few in my life that if they were all like that there were be no need for theosophy. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 18 18:11:16 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 14:11:16 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960418141115_193681142@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: za leetle choke Alex, At least you don't blow a gasket. Chuck the Inveterate Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From nlporreco@bpa.gov Thu Apr 18 18:48:00 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 11:48:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: Re: theosophy & psychism Message-Id: <31768E20@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 30 TEXT JRC, Thanks. I have two copies (for reference and due to circumstance) but have not read it yet. Unread Nick. > Date: Thursday, April 18, 1996 1:40PM > From: theos-l > Subject: Re: theosophy & psychism On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Porreco, Nick - CPMQ wrote: > > Chuck, > > Could you tell me more about where I can read about the conjuration of the > shade > of Appolonious of Tyana. It Doesn't matter if the book is in or out of > print. > > Nick. Nick ... "Transcendental Magic" by Eliphas Levi. I think its still in print (a really interesting book, BTW). -JRC From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 19:09:00 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 12:09 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Cosmii????? >>>>>>cut<<<<<<<< >> >This is an interesting question. As I understand it, there can be nothing >outside the cosmos because 'All that Is' is the Cosmos and 'All that Is' >would not be that if it could be outside itself. The Cosmos could be thought >of as an evolving thing also therefore it is forever expanding and there are >no limits to it. The Cosmos is full of Universes that may be said to have >arrived via the big bang. As above so below, and as we are never ending so >are all other things but all other things are expressions of the Cosmos. I >read an interesting thing on Eternal being equated with unchanging and if >that was the case nothing was eternal because everything was changing and >evolving for ever. I guess it depends on how one understands it. >> >Bee Brown >Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. >Theos Int & L > >I think the entire difference here is not of opinion but of definition. I personally define as "Cosmos" that which was "created" or "formed" by the "Big Bang", as such there are many Cosmoi (pl) but if you regard the "Cosmos" as everything..then of course nothing can, by definition, be outside of everything. I think perhaps it would be best if there was a better word for the container of creation. alexis dolgorukii From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 19:19:00 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 12:19 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Pasteur? At 07:57 AM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >There was also a terribly embarrassing incident involving Anna Bogus (sorry >about that) Bonus Kingsford. She decided, while under the undue influence of >too much Laudanum, that she was appointed by her spirit friends to >psychically kill Louis Pasteur. The press got their hands on it, Louis >Pasteur caught a light cold and HPB was mortified as Anna Kingsford was a >high mucky muck in the London Lodge at the time and it made the whole TS look >like a pack of loony drug addicts. >Then there was the whole matter of the relationship between the TS and the >Order of the Golden Dawn which went south and made the official TS very >suspicious of Magick, in spite of the fact that the shrine room that HPB >ordered for the London Lodge was designed to perform ritual magick, being >modeled on the chamber Eliphas Levi described in his conjuration of the shade >of Appolonious of Tyana. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: Why Louis Pasteur???? Anna Kingsford was a very high mucky muck indeed! She also was behind a movement to get rid of Blavatsky who was rude, crude, and smoked! This is the kind of history the powers that be in theosophy want to sweep under the rug...such as no theosophy...no new age....these folks want Theosophy to be Westernized Mahayana Buddhism and nothing else. Well it ain't! So there! alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 19:24:00 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 12:24 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:!!!!!! At 07:53 AM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Calling Victorians stuffy is like calling Barney purple. Bill Judge would >not have liked it a bit, which of course for me makes the temptation almost >overwhelming. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Shoulda known! alexis From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 18 20:34:03 1996 Date: 18 Apr 96 16:34:03 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: theosophy & psychism Message-Id: <960418203403_76400.1474_HHL83-3@CompuServe.COM> >Then there was the whole matter of the relationship between the TS and the >Order of the Golden Dawn which went south and made the official TS very >suspicious of Magick, in spite of the fact that the shrine room that HPB >ordered for the London Lodge was designed to perform ritual magick, being >modeled on the chamber Eliphas Levi described in his conjuration of the shade >of Appolonious of Tyana. And in spite of the fact that Westcott was one of the three founders of the Golden Dawn, and also one of HPB's inner group. Jerry S. From RIhle@aol.com Thu Apr 18 21:40:04 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 17:40:04 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960418174003_516947217@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: MESSENGER #14--Correction The corrected first paragraph should read as follows: "Now, while many of us have been very busy determining who is smug, blasphemous, condescending, [compulsively bitchy], [superciliously noticing the 'name-calling' flaw in others while obliquely engaging in it himself in the same post he complains about it--this refers to me, Richard Ihle] etc., it probably should not go unnoticed that the Big TS Machine, Algeo Section, just keeps rolling along toward its objectives." Godspeed, Richard Ihle From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 18 20:34:12 1996 Date: 18 Apr 96 16:34:12 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re:theosophy & psychism Message-Id: <960418203412_76400.1474_HHL83-7@CompuServe.COM> > Suffice it to say that HPB's position is clear, and anyone is free to > disagree with her if they choose. Yeah, clear as mud. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 18 20:34:11 1996 Date: 18 Apr 96 16:34:11 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: ethics and morality Message-Id: <960418203411_76400.1474_HHL83-6@CompuServe.COM> >This does not mean that a Universal ethic does not exist. In my view, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is as close to universal ethics as we can ever hope to get. And even this one has problems. People with low self-esteem or without self-love follow this rule all the time--but they are not much fun to be around. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 18 20:34:06 1996 Date: 18 Apr 96 16:34:06 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Netiquette guidelines and the future of Theos-l, etc. Message-Id: <960418203405_76400.1474_HHL83-4@CompuServe.COM> >3. Making everyone feel very comfortable no matter what their views and >opinions are. I would like everyone to feel comfortable too. But sometimes we see ideas being posting that we strongly feel are wrong, and it is our duty to present an alternative view. Else, all the newbies and lurkers will get the wrong information, and have to spend several extra lifetimes to get back on the right track. The problem then, is, how do we go about this without hurting feelings or making someone "uncomfortable?" Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 18 20:34:00 1996 Date: 18 Apr 96 16:34:00 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Cosmii????? Message-Id: <960418203400_76400.1474_HHL83-2@CompuServe.COM> > As I understand it, there can be nothing >outside the cosmos because 'All that Is' is the Cosmos and 'All that Is' >would not be that if it could be outside itself. If the cosmos was closed, then it has to have edges or boundaries. If it does, then one has to ask oneself, what is on the other side? This is a mind game, like the kind the old Buddhists loved to play. >The Cosmos could be thought >of as an evolving thing also therefore it is forever expanding and there are >no limits to it. Anything that evolves has to be limited, by definition. Anything that expands has to expand somewhere, doesn't it? Where is the room to expand, if the comos is "All that is?" >The Cosmos is full of Universes that may be said to have >arrived via the big bang. As above so below,... Right. There are worlds, and universes, and cosmoi, and ... and there is no end in sight. Just a few things to ponder over. Just how big is infinite, anyway? Thanks for the post, Bee. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 18 20:34:09 1996 Date: 18 Apr 96 16:34:09 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: ethics and morality Message-Id: <960418203408_76400.1474_HHL83-5@CompuServe.COM> >Four points: 1) Most people fail to know what a "good intention" really is. > 2) If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, can you imagine the >road paved with bad intentions? 3) I have a feeling that this cliche refers >to people who have good intentions but do nothing with them, do not act on >them. 4) A good intention does not mean that no mistakes will be made. A >good intention (defined correctly), however, in my belief, lessens the impact >of the mistake. One quick example: Christians used to kill heathens with the most morally upright intentions in the world. The heathen lived in sin. Every day they lived added more misery to their time in Hell where they would surely go after they died. So, by killing them now, they were sparing them from extra torture in Hell. Thus they were doing good. And all in the name of the Lord to boot. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 18 20:33:57 1996 Date: 18 Apr 96 16:33:57 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: David Lane's Thoughts on Inner Visions Message-Id: <960418203357_76400.1474_HHL83-1@CompuServe.COM> > ...because it seems that we are confusing >two very important issues: image produced characters which are an >admixture of what we read, see, smell, and believe (hey, i just saw >a pink unicorn playing with pee wee herman upon a pyramid in Elvis' >deli at Plato's cave next to silly putty's newspaper stand) and >images which are more or less reflections of what appears relatively >stable and permanent in the here and now. Dan, I would suggest to you, that there is not as much difference between these two types of images as you apparently think there is. >So here's the question in a simplified form: how does one know that >an inner vision is "real"? First of all, all visions (i.e., all sensory input) are "real" to the receiver. Dreams are real (have you ever had a "fake" dream?). A better question would be, what is a vision? In a practical sense, any vision that has meaning or value to you at the time, is real. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 18 20:34:15 1996 Date: 18 Apr 96 16:34:15 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re:theosophy & psychism Message-Id: <960418203414_76400.1474_HHL83-8@CompuServe.COM> Dan, quoting MLs: >"Vainly do your modern seers and their prophetesses, creep into every cleft >and crevice without outlet or continuity they chance to see; and still more >vainly, when once within do they lift up their voices and loudly cry: >'Eureka! We have gotten a revelation from the >Lord!'---for verily have they nothing of the kind. They have disturbed but >bats, less blind their intruders; who, feeling them flying about, mistake >them as often for angels---as they >too have wings! Doubt not...it is but from the very top of those >'adamantine rocks' of ours, >not at their foot, that one is ever enabled to perceive the *whole* Truth, >by embracing the whole limitless horizon...." ML-48 This quote covers the intellectual-spiritual approach as well as psychism, Dan. The "adamantine rocks" can be seen directly, or they can be intellectually comprehended. Either way, there is a danger of misconception. I think that this is one of JRC's main points, and I have to agree with it. We see a lot of emphasis in the TS literature about the dangers of psychism (and I would agree with a lot of it, though I think it overblown) but precious little about the dangers of intellectual misunderstanding, which is just as real. HPB says that the human mind cannot understand the infinite mind. Doesn't this alone suggest a danger in our trying? Koot Hoomi's letter says nothing about psychism, but tells us a lot about Laura Holloway. M's letter merely acknowledges the need for training and experience. Jerry S. Member, TI From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 18 21:53:41 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 22:53:41 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: OOROO In-Reply-To: <199604180527.AA12677@zipper.zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604180527.AA12677@zipper.zip.com.au>, Michelle Donald writes >BFN >OOROO >Michelle Errr - what is OOROO? :-) Alan the ignoramus --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 19:09:00 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 12:09 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:theosophy & psychism At 01:46 AM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>cut<<<<<< >If I may butt in here, I would like to say a little about this in relation >to NZ and the recent reminder by our own Nat Pres to be more Theosophical. I >was able to talk to him over lunch when he came to Wanganui to give a talk >the other day. I expressed my concern at what I perceived as a 'tightening >of the belt' and I was disturbed by it. He gave me some background of other >lodges that did not have a basic Theosophical core in their membership so >that the lodge was a forum for other than Theosophical knowledge. There is a >danger that if a President of a lodge is not strong enough to counter the >wild side of some 'new age' beliefs then the lodge doesn't represent >Theosophy anymore. He said that if a lodge had Theosophy over its door, it >should not mislead the public by 'doing' non-theosophy as its main feature >and that is where the fine line comes into play. We have a lodge in recess >here and a courtcase pending because a guy who tended to be disruptive and >claimed a direct line to Jesus wanted to steer the lodge away from Theosophy >and take up his teachings and follow him. The more theosophical members got >upset and a split occurred that nesitated involvement of Head Office and >much unpleasantness has ensued over the past year and has cost a lot of >money. I get the impression that it isn't psychism as such that is the main >problem but the fact that it is identified with the 'new age' nowadays and >there are some weird and wonderful groups under that umbrella that try to >use a lodge and a ready made membership to spread their message. Many of >these people are very enthusiastic and get emotional if others so not >immediately agree with them. Theosophists do not like to be told that they >are following a dead path and that this new one that is being pushed will >solve all their problems. I know of people who, as a group have shifted >around and done some strange things because a channelled entity told them >to. They arrived in a town and became interested in the local lodge and >tried to convince the members that the 'end was nigh' etc. Fortunately they >lost interest when noone took any notice of them but that doesn't always >happen. Maybe as stories like that get around, Theosophy feels the need to >protect what has been it's rationale for so many years and there are many >varied attempts to do that which we see as fearful behaviour because we may >not know what occurred to bring it about. Going to Exec meetings with other >NZ presidents give insight into the diverse personalities that are more or >less in charge of theosophy as some of them have very small memberships who >tend to leave it to the one who will do the work and that is often the >president. We have begun again the Sunday mornings where presidents can get >together and help each other to solve any problems they have. These follow >on from Exec meetings in Auckland on the Saturday and happen quarterly with >the first one in end May. I personally know quite a few NZ members who are >into psychism and noone give them a hard time. Not everybody embraces it >either but it is a matter of live and let live over here. >These are just some of my thoughts on it. I have just started reading the >first of Olcotts Diary Leaves and was HPB a rascal, was she ever. She even >got her nuisance elemental to hem the new towels that Olcott bought. I >wonder if I could find one of them, would be very handy >Peace and harmony to us all. >> >Bee Brown >Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. >Theos Int & L > >Bee: This is a really big problem. It's got most of us theosophists "in between a rock and a hard place". If as I do, you believe that everything that humans do and think is grist for theosophy's mill, then nothing is not theosophical. On the other hand, the problem of theosophical lodges being coopted by people who do not have the theosophical movement in their agenda, is a valid and worrisome problem. The San FRancisco Lodge for instace has long not really been anything but a personality cult centered around its late President, and is entirely devoted to a combination of Zen Buddhism and Sufism. Both Zen Buddhism and Sufism are excellent things, and are certainly legitimate objects for study and comparison under the second object. But here we have a case where theosophy and theosophists are denigrated by this group as far ineferior to their own special interests. Now, theosophy does bear a karmic burden as regards "New Age" groups as I personally believe, after much experience, that without the theosophical movement and the ideas it introduced, there would be no new age movement at all. Therefore for theosophists to denigrate the "new agers" is like a parent denigrating a child. It seems to me that far too much of the theosophical literature can be considered to be the result of "channeling" and therefore it ill becomes us to automatically denigrate all channeling but our own. To say "Theosophy is The Secret Doctrine and ONLY the SEcret Doctrine and nought else", is, in my mind, a mistaken approach. On the other hand permitting theosophical groups to be coopted away from theosophy is also mistaken. As the King of Siam said: "Is a puzzlement"...I certainly have no answers other than an inbuilt bias in favour of individual liberty and a strongly held belief that in this instance at least, "the good will drive out the not so good". alexis dolgorukii From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 18 19:48:00 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 12:48 PDT From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: ethics and morality At 09:20 AM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 96-04-17 07:05:13 EDT, you write: > >>First I'd like to point out that in every case I know of, both "morality" >>(religion based) and Ethics (Socially based) are entirely culturally >>specific. They are neither of them at all "Universals". > >This does not mean that a Universal ethic does not exist. But it does not at all either mean or imply that a "Universal Ethic" does exist. To me that would implicate a "God" and I don't accept such a creature as existing. > >>Second: If one behaves well, i.e. is either "moral" or "ethical" or both, >>because one believes in Karma, then it is hardly either "selfless" or >>"disregarding of results". It seems to me that one should "behave well" >>because that is how one is, and it thusly requires no thought at all to do >so. > >Agreed. > >>Think about Torquemada, Savanarola, and Hitler, I am certain each of those >persons >>felt their intent was perfectly virtuous, and yet each one of them is >>responsible for untold harm. > >They apparently thought wrong, and their intent was obviously not Universal >in nature. But they, themselves, didn't think so, and that is what is important as they possessed the power to act on their misconceptions. No phyiscal human has thoughts of a universal nature, nor has, nor will. No physical human being even has the slightest conception of what a "universal thought" might be. > >>The old cliche about "hell is paved with good >>intentions" is one of the most true truisms > >Four points: 1) Most people fail to know what a "good intention" really is. > 2) If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, can you imagine the >road paved with bad intentions? 3) I have a feeling that this cliche refers >to people who have good intentions but do nothing with them, do not act on >them. 4) A good intention does not mean that no mistakes will be made. A >good intention (defined correctly), however, in my belief, lessens the impact >of the mistake. 1. How do you presume to know that? 2. It would probably be identical though I suspect it would be much smaller. 3. Good intentions not followed up by action are totally result free. 4. A good intention, no matter what it's definition does not lessen the impact of a bad action. I think we're talking about two different impacts here. I'm talking about the impact on the object of the act (good or bad intentions aside) and I think that you're talking about imact on the "doer" or "Karma" which is a concept I do not accept as valid. > >> It seems to me that being >>altruistic by intention carries with it the strong implication that one is >>"striving" for some goal, and then the goal, which would be "altruism" >>becames part of a "goal oriented process" which is then hardly altruistic > >I don't follow your premises to your conclusion. Believing as I do what we >are told in Big T, we are at the point where the way is "up or down". To set >a goal, to visualize an ideal indicates that there is the recognition that >there is something to strive for, and we can choose what direction that will >be in. But no sooner is each goal reached when we realize that there is the >next goal, and the next and the next. Like steps. Like our days. Following >those steps, one day at a time, leads us on. I see nothing more admirable >than to set altruism as a goal or an ideal, as opposed to its opposite, and >the fact that it is a process should not be a problem for you of all people, >as that is your definition of theosophy. We have set behaviours in motion >which need to be altered. If we are to reach people with theosophy, we first >point the direction, then show them that right thought, right motive, right >action can be LEARNED. It (altruism, the feeling of Universal Brotherhood) >is not spontaneous in the masses of people. To say that it should be >immediately eliminates the vast majority because in them, it is not, and if >you are not willing to teach them, they will be lost for long periods. Now, knowing as I'm sure you do that I don't believe in "Big T" theosophy, some of our most basic premises are entirely dichotomous. But in this instance, I think you've misunderstood what I said in the above paragraph. I am saying that "altruism" is NOT a goal, is NOT an object or state to be striven for, but a kind of "state of consciousness", it has nothing to do with "Universal Brotherhood" but is a state from which each action isperformed because it is exactly the right action at the moment and for no other reason. The theosophical attitude, as I see it is to try to define abstract reality to non abstract beings, it's not a behaviour pattern, it's not a religion, it's not even an ethos, it is simply the delineation of abstract truth so that the non-abstract can comprehend it. It's not a subject one teaches, but rather the creation of an image (picture) which others may or may not see. As to "a pathway up or down" as I see it there is neither "up" or "down", there is only is. > >>Being naturally good is one thing, trying to be good is another thing >>altogether because it implies an awareness that the goal has yet to be >reached. > >And what could be more admirable or rewarding than seeing that light go on in >someone where they finally become AWARE that their goal is yet to be reached >or that there is a better alternative to their wretched lives? The despair of >life for most people comes from not being aware of what the right goal should >be, that which should be strived for, fought for along with the realization >that ALL can reach it, of their own volition and efforts, and not subject to >the whim of a vengeful God. That is only true if one shares your view of the universe, which I do not. > >Intent, motive, the thought that is the basis for and precedes all action, is >everything, because it is intent that colors the action. I believe that we >are beyond results, for if there is a concern in the result, we are bound by >the action. Let the result come however it may, content that our motive was >correct, i.e. universal. If we make a mistake, we learn. If good comes, >then, as it should be. To counter with a cliche, another truest of truisms, >"It's not winning or loosing, but how you play the game." It's not a "game" and one neither "wins" nor "loses". It just is. > >Greg H (sounding like Eldon) > > >alexis sounding like alexis From eldon@theosophy.com Thu Apr 18 23:59:21 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 16:59:21 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960418235921.006a3de4@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Salman Rushdie on 'Respect' and the Thought Police Rushdie's comments tie in with recent discussions, so I thought I'd post them. -- Eldon ---- PERSPECTIVE ON FREEDOM 'RESPECT' AND THE THOUGHT POLICE By Salman Rushdie "Los Angeles Times", April 18, 1996 In any vision of a free society, the value of free speech must rank the highest, for that is the freedom without which all the other freedoms would fail. Journalists do more than most of us to protect those values, for the exercise of freedom is freedom's best defense, and that is something you all do every day. It seems to me, however, that we live in an increasingly censorious age. By this I mean that the broad, indeed international, acceptance of 1st Amendment principles is being steadily eroded. Many special-interest groups, claiming the moral high ground, now demand the protection of the censor. Political correctness and the rise of the religious right provide the pro-censorship lobby with further cohorts. I would like to say a little about just one of the weapons of this resurgent lobby, a weapon used, interestingly, by everyone from anti-pornography feminists to religious fundamentalists: I mean the concept of "respect." On the surface of it, "respect" is one of those ideas nobody's against. Like a good warm coat in winter, like applause, like ketchup on your fries, everybody wants some of that. Sock-it-to-me-sock-it-to-me, as Aretha Franklin has it. But what we used to mean by respect -- what Aretha meant by it -- that is, a mixture of good-hearted consideration and serious attention -- has little to do with the new ideological usage of the word. Religious extremists demand respect for their attitudes with growing stridency. Very few people would object to the idea that people's rights to religious belief must be respected -- after all, the 1st Amendment defends those rights as unequivocally as it defends free speech -- but now we are asked to agree that to dissent form those beliefs -- to hold that they are suspect or antiquated or wrong -- that, in fact, they are arguable -- is incompatible with the idea of respect. When criticism is placed off limits as "disrespectful" and therefore offensive, something strange is happening to the concept of respect. Yet in recent times, both the U.S. National Endowment for the Arts and the British Broadcasting Corp. have announced that they will use this new version of "respect" as a touchstone for their funding and programming decisions. Other minority groups -- racial, sexual, social -- also have demanded that they be accorded this new form of respect. To "respect" Louis Farrakhan, we must understand, is simply to agree with him. To "diss" him is, equally simply, do disagree. But if dissent is also to be thought a form of "dissing," then we have indeed succumbed to the Thought Police. I want to suggest to you that citizens of free societies, democracies, do not preserve their freedom by pussyfooting around their fellow citizen's opinions, even their most cherished beliefs. In free societies, you must have the free play of ideas. There must be argument, and it must be impassioned and untrammeled. A free society is not a calm and eventless place -- that is the kind of static, dead society dictators try to create. Free societies are dynamic, noisy, turbulent and full of radical disagreements. Skepticism and freedom are indissolubly linked. And it is the skepticism of journalists, their show-me, prove-it unwillingness to be impressed, that is perhaps their most important contribution to the freedom of the free world. It is the disrespect of journalists -- for power, for orthodoxy, for party lines, for ideologies, for vanity, for arrogance, for folly, for pretension, for corruption, for stupidity, maybe even for editors -- that I would like to celebrate and that I urge you all, in freedom's name, to preserve. [Salmon Rushdie, whose latest work is "The Moor's Last Sigh" (Pantheon, 1996), is the British author under an Iranian assassination threat because of his writings. This passage is taken from a speech he gave Wednesday to the American Society of Newspaper Editors meetings in Washington. -- "LA Times"] From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 18 21:58:03 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 22:58:03 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Elemental In-Reply-To: <199604180534.RAA00214@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604180534.RAA00214@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz>, Bee Brown writes >I have just started reading the >first of Olcotts Diary Leaves and was HPB a rascal, was she ever. She even >got her nuisance elemental to hem the new towels that Olcott bought. I >wonder if I could find one of them, would be very handy Naybe one could go help Liesel with her housework! >Peace and harmony to us all. Yes please :-) >> >Bee Brown >Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. >Theos Int & L Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu Apr 18 23:07:10 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 19:07:10 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604190011.UAA03508@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: European union >>That's surely true, and it's also possible that there will be a >reincarnation of the HolyRoman Empire inEurope too. > >alexis Which, like the first one will be neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Fri Apr 19 00:12:03 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 12:12:03 +1200 From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Message-Id: <199604190012.MAA12971@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Cosmii????? >>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<< >>> >>This is an interesting question. As I understand it, there can be nothing >>outside the cosmos because 'All that Is' is the Cosmos and 'All that Is' >>would not be that if it could be outside itself. The Cosmos could be thought >>of as an evolving thing also therefore it is forever expanding and there are >>no limits to it. The Cosmos is full of Universes that may be said to have >>arrived via the big bang. As above so below, and as we are never ending so >>are all other things but all other things are expressions of the Cosmos. I >>read an interesting thing on Eternal being equated with unchanging and if >>that was the case nothing was eternal because everything was changing and >>evolving for ever. I guess it depends on how one understands it. >>> >>Bee Brown >>Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. >>Theos Int & L >> >>I think the entire difference here is not of opinion but of definition. I >personally define as "Cosmos" that which was "created" or "formed" by the >"Big Bang", as such there are many Cosmoi (pl) but if you regard the >"Cosmos" as everything..then of course nothing can, by definition, be >outside of everything. I think perhaps it would be best if there was a >better word for the container of creation. > >alexis dolgorukii > How would you define a universe? Would that be the container for solar systems and the Cosmos as container for universes? The Urantia Book has much to say on this subject and makes interesting theories but it seem such a vast subject to think about that labels are hard to pin down as to their meaning. Did the SD have a word for the container of creation? I have read it but I can't remember if it was mentioned. I suppose it was the circle with the dot in it or was it just the circle before the dot appeared. > Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 19 00:18:43 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 20:18:43 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604190123.VAA06729@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: psychism >What I think we see today, in the official theosophical disapproval of >anything but the intellectual discussion os psychism is based on fear. Fear >that the uncontrollable psychic activities (and unprovable) of the CWL era >(which runs all the way down to our own times in the persons of >Jinarajadasa, Arundale, and Taimini, might once again take the TS down roads >it no longer thinks it wise to travel. Alexis, I think you're being highly imaginative. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 18 21:52:15 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 22:52:15 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: To Alan re speaking In-Reply-To: <960418004754_274741418@emout12.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960418004754_274741418@emout12.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >I find it safer to believe nothing and just go with >the evidence. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA That's theosophy. I can't see how "destroying" a belief is connected with respecting it, if that is what you are saying. I would imagine a discarded belief, shown to be false on the evidence, would thereby become devoid of respect in consequence - "destruction" would not come into it. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 19 00:40:22 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 20:40:22 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604190144.VAA07637@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: re: changeing one's personality Good God, Jerry, that reallly came from left base. How can anyone be afraid of personality changes? Some of them just came naturally to me with time, with aging, without even half trying. I was a student, a wife, a mother, a housewife, a professional person, a retiree. Each one brought a change. Each one brought maturity, I think, because it made me have a different point of view. Besides, I started out with certain things from my parents which I wasn't at all in agreement with. I've been trying to change those, & often successfully after a lot of work, ever since I left my parents' home to go to college. It's something we just do. Come to think of it, at my age, the changes that come aren't always for the better, & that's something maybe to be afraid of. Doesn't help very much. The Buddha says that the one thing you can be sure of is that things will change. It's easier if one learns to ride the waves. Liesel member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From rwheaton@bart.ccis.com Fri Apr 19 02:06:09 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 19:06:09 -0700 From: Richard Wheaton Message-Id: <3176F511.1D66@bart.ccis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: female Mahatmas Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Are there any female Mahatmas? From rwheaton@bart.ccis.com Fri Apr 19 02:07:53 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 19:07:53 -0700 From: Richard Wheaton Message-Id: <3176F579.6ED2@bart.ccis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Senzar Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Does anyone know anything about Senzar or where I can find information about it? From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 19 01:02:29 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:02:29 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604190206.WAA08772@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: TS Moascow Alexis, My correspondent hasn't answered that letter of mine as yet, but I found the 3 year old High Country Theosoophist" in which Dick Slusser told about the Russian Theosophists. The name given is Dmitry Popov, Chairman of the Russian TS, with the Vostochnaya St. address. I just see now, it also mentions a member of Moscow's board of directors who's in NYC. That's a contact Daniel Entin, Director, Nicholas Roerich Museum 319 West 107th Street. NYC 10025 You could write him or phone him for info. When I get more info, I'll post it. Liesel From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Fri Apr 19 02:20:22 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 14:20:22 +1200 From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Message-Id: <199604190220.OAA18044@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:theosophy & psychism ...snip..... >>Bee: >This is a really big problem. It's got most of us theosophists "in between a >rock and a hard place". If as I do, you believe that everything that humans >do and think is grist for theosophy's mill, then nothing is not >theosophical. On the other hand, the problem of theosophical lodges being >coopted by people who do not have the theosophical movement in their agenda, >is a valid and worrisome problem. The San FRancisco Lodge for instace has >long not really been anything but a personality cult centered around its >late President, and is entirely devoted to a combination of Zen Buddhism and >Sufism. Both Zen Buddhism and Sufism are excellent things, and are certainly >legitimate objects for study and comparison under the second object. But >here we have a case where theosophy and theosophists are denigrated by this >group as far ineferior to their own special interests. Thankyou for a thought provoking post. Would it not be better to say that Theosophy studies all these things but the Theosophical Society has the core teachings as it's rationale for being a Society. All these other groups are a liberty to set up a Society of their own to have their teachings as the basis for their existence. If we say that we have a Society set up because of theosophy (small t) in which to study this and all other related subjects and it is called Theosophy Society to differentiate it from e.g the Buddhist Society so that people may know what is the guiding light of a Society even if it both study buddhism and theosophy within their curicullum. They may then go to which ever Society suits their interest and find subject matter as the main feature in that Society along with other sidelines. I would be confused if I went to the Buddhist Society and found them teaching Sufism as a regular thing and their library full of books on it. Now, theosophy does >bear a karmic burden as regards "New Age" groups as I personally believe, >after much experience, that without the theosophical movement and the ideas >it introduced, there would be no new age movement at all. Therefore for >theosophists to denigrate the "new agers" is like a parent denigrating a >child. The way some children behave sure makes parents want to pretend they are not their children. Even though I have come to Theosophy via the 'new age', there are many groups that I would not encourage in our lodge as I find their grasp on reality rather tenuous and their teachings bordering on the dangerous. If anyone in our lodge wanted to be involved with them then it would be up to them to go to the group rather than expose all of the rest of us to them just for the sake of seeming liberal. I agree that these groups owe much to Theosophy for their existence and if it was possible bring them under our umbrella but, like all children, they want to do their own thing without parental interference and that is where the problems occur. It seems to me that far too much of the theosophical literature can >be considered to be the result of "channeling" and therefore it ill becomes >us to automatically denigrate all channeling but our own. To say "Theosophy >is The Secret Doctrine and ONLY the SEcret Doctrine and nought else", is, in >my mind, a mistaken approach. On the other hand permitting theosophical >groups to be coopted away from theosophy is also mistaken. As the King of >Siam said: "Is a puzzlement"...I certainly have no answers other than an >inbuilt bias in favour of individual liberty and a strongly held belief that >in this instance at least, "the good will drive out the not so good". > >alexis dolgorukii > It is a puzzlement indeed. The 'good' are also often the 'meek' and so the 'not so good' can win the small battle at lodge level even if it all comes right in the end, it can close a small lodge for a while and maybe even for good as people loose confidence in a place that stands for 'spiritual' things and yet bicker among itself. > Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 19 01:27:22 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:27:22 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604190231.WAA09754@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: theosophy & psychism Bea, When I was Lodge President, we had someone come to meetings who was slightly psychic & healed. We just let her be. She was part of the group. & that was that. My personal experience with her was that she was once going to come to my hoouse & heal me. I waited & waited, & she forgot to show up. Another time, I noticed that I was standing talking to her & was getting very tired ie she was taking my energy, so I never asked her to heal me again, & I never stood that close to her again, but others related to her in their own way. She was very sociable. The group folded a few years ago, & I heard that she was the one who was trying to keep it going. Well, she was still hanging in there, if only ineffectively. But maybe, during all these years of contact she gained something. She was always looking for the end of the rainbow. Maybe she found it at our lodge. At one point we also had a very fanatic woman attend a few meetings. She was very insulting & disruptive. We let it go on for several meetings, because we thought that everyone should have the floor at our meetings; but then we deccided at a long business meeting, that she was bothering everyone else, & disrupting what we wanted to learn, so we decided that if she came again & made a ruckus we would ask her to leave. She never came again though. So that was that. From that point on, everyone could have their say so, but not hog the floor. Others had to have time to respond & voice their view as well. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 18 22:07:05 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:07:05 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: TS Moscow In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >> Russia 095 Moscow 205-22-28 >> >>Liesel >> >>They have a FAX? Wow! Well I don't, they're just going to have to get an >old fashioned letter from me! John of course, has infinite faxing apability >but I don't think the phone company wants to pay for Faxes to Moscow. So, >I'm still in need of a street address and a person to whom to send it. > >alexis Like a number of us, I suspect, I can fax direct from my PC. Moscow may be cheaper from the UK, so if they can read a English language fax, I for one would be happy to forward it. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Fri Apr 19 05:20:18 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:20:18 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Is there life out there? In-Reply-To: <31770C03.5AD@gil.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Ken Malkin wrote: > Folks, read the dribble that is being cross polinated on this valuable > asset. All personal nonsense has turned off many people. Childs play at > this level is just goulish! The world goes on in a formoid manner until > we understand that only "Thought forms" change it. I'm real tired of > all the silly stuff. How about, great intellect being expressed, not > form, foolish, fellowship? > Ken Malkin > Please do feel free to begin a thread .... -JRC From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 05:35:36 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 22:35:36 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Subject: Re: Revised TI Statement Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: At 07:47 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Dear TI members (and others who have joined the debate): > >Following the request for a vote, and the warm welcome and further >feedback relating to Murray's comments, I am posting below a slightly >altered version which seeks to take his observations into account - >almost verbatim as suggested. I also hope this may help others view TI >more favorably with a view to joining us :-) --- Alan. >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises men and women who, of their own > free choice, subscribe to the spirit of the three objects first > formulated by the Theosophical Society, but in a more up-to-date > form based on suggestions by members of the internet community, > and expressed thus: > >1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family, without > distinction of sex, 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 mysteries of nature and unrealized human > potential and abilities, with an underlying respect for all > life. > >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is a voluntary 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. All have the right to choose, without trace of > coercion, the path by which they seek understanding. > >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. > >We hope to be of service, and to share what we have in amity with > other theosophical, occult, and esoteric organizations, as also > with like-minded individuals. > >To join, send an e-mail message asking to be registered to > >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > >or give your name and other details you wish to share to whoever > introduced you to Theosophy International. > >---------------------------------------------------------------- > >"TI" has members in eight countries. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Very good indeed. I fully support these revisions. We're getting there! alexis dolgorukii member TI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 05:45:58 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 22:45:58 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Subject: Re: "Mindset" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: At 05:22 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis, > >I never got your essay on ontelligence's role in the universe. I'd like to >see it. >Also, come to think of it, you never told me how you liked "Mindset". Does >that mean you didn't? > >Liesel >....................................................................... > >Liesel: It certainly does not! It was far more "orthodox" theosophy than that which I am atttuned to, but it is very well written and espouses it's point-of-view very well and clearly indeeed. As you know, it doesn't reperesent my own ideas, but it represents yours very well indeed! Now, as to an attachment: My program will only send ASCII, can your machine receive it, if so I'll happily send it to you. Our house offer was accepted tonight and we open escrow on Monday...moving date June 5th.Which is exactly three days after our 25th anniversary. What a nice present! alexis dolgorukii member TI, FTSA From martinle@lainet.com Fri Apr 19 06:30:44 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:30:44 -0700 From: martinle@lainet.com (Martin Leiderman) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Is there life out there? >Folks, read the dribble that is being cross polinated on this valuable >asset. All personal nonsense has turned off many people. Childs play at >this level is just goulish! The world goes on in a formoid manner until >we understand that only "Thought forms" change it. I'm real tired of >all the silly stuff. How about, great intellect being expressed, not >form, foolish, fellowship? >Ken Malkin Dear Ken, well said Martin Leiderman From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 06:45:07 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:45:07 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Subject: RE: Thoughts Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: At 10:26 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Alex, > >I have heard it speculated that the Moslem, Christian unrest today is a >revisit of the group karma created during the Crusades. What are your >thoughts? > >Nick. >Subject: Re:union >Date: Thursday, April 18, 1996 7:52PM >My thoughts? Well when I look at the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Triad I see many things. I see ancient mutual antagonisms that have never really been ameliorated. That's very old news, and it's nothing at all either unique of new. The situation current in Palestine today is the result of serious political misjudgements in 1948. But if by "unrest" ypou mean the fundamentalist phenomenon cureently very rife in all three religions, my thoughts are these. Fundamentalism is a symptom of the death throes of a religion. It is "circling the wagons" against change and new thoughts. It is an intense need to return things to a "simpler and more secure age". Of course such an age never existed. When members of a religion feel called upon to react against the ongoing evolution of that religion and return it to an entirely illusory "pure state" then the religion is moribund. I, as may be obvious consider the Judeo-Chrsitian-Islamic Triad as essentially a single religion with three major sects. It is the demise of that single religion that the "religious unrest" of our times foretells. alexis dolgorukii' Member TI, FTSA > > From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 19 11:46:09 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 07:46:09 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960419074608_194164013@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: union Alex, I really doubt that the Holy Roman Empire will reincarnate. Have you been watching Jack Van Impe? Chuck MTI, FTSA From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Fri Apr 19 14:07:56 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:07:56 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Is there life out there? In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, Martin Leiderman wrote: > >Folks, read the dribble that is being cross polinated on this valuable > >asset. All personal nonsense has turned off many people. Childs play at > >this level is just goulish! The world goes on in a formoid manner until > >we understand that only "Thought forms" change it. I'm real tired of > >all the silly stuff. How about, great intellect being expressed, not > >form, foolish, fellowship? > >Ken Malkin > > > Dear Ken, well said > > Martin Leiderman Martin ... You also are cordially welcomed to begin any thread you wish. It is nice to hear from people that have been quiet, but it is not the responsibility of the posters here to simply provide a particular sort of conversation for an audience .... if anyone believes something is missing, please, then ... *introduce it*. What do you want to talk about? What subject of intellectual depth has not been covered that you wish to see covered? This isn't a theatre with audience, actors, and critics. Its a *conversation*. -JRC From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 18 22:33:16 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:33:16 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <7Cv0cbAsMsdxEwSN@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: TI Introduction In-Reply-To: <199604180040.AA11419@zipper.zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604180040.AA11419@zipper.zip.com.au>, Michelle Donald writes > >> Petrovna Blavatsky, formed the first formal Theosophical Society >> in New York in 1875. The successors to this Society >> incorporated it in Madras, India, in 1905. > >I dont see the need for this last sentence, could you please explain >its purpose? Because it is historically true, and that in the intervening period the objects of the original NY-founded Society had changed to their present form, being present in the Articles of Incorporation of the Adyar Society - available as a text file from me if you would like a copy. > >> Theosophists and The Theosophical Society (Pasadena) - both of >> which are based in the U.S.A. There are also said to be other >> minor theosophical organisations subscribing to the same or a > >I find the use of the word minor a judgmental term and the deletion >of this word from the sentence wouldnt detract from the meaning of >the sentence. For who are any of us to say whether one organization >is minor. I intended it to mean "small in size" but as you say, its removal would not detract from the meaning, so I will delete it! :-) > Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 19:05:31 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 12:05:31 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Subject: Re: There is! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: At 01:26 AM 4/19/96 -0400, you wrote: >On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Ken Malkin wrote: > >> Folks, read the dribble that is being cross polinated on this valuable >> asset. All personal nonsense has turned off many people. Childs play at >> this level is just goulish! The world goes on in a formoid manner until >> we understand that only "Thought forms" change it. I'm real tired of >> all the silly stuff. How about, great intellect being expressed, not >> form, foolish, fellowship? >> Ken Malkin >> >Please do feel free to begin a thread .... > -JRC > >Mr. Malkin: Please do. But I hope it has more to say than your first message. There is a great deal of really interesting discussion on thes "valuable asset" and while there is some "play" and some" gratutious humour (Is humour ever gratuitous?) I would say that I find very little that qualifies a drivel ("dribble" means something else entirely).Who has the right to judge what is "child's play"? And many great teachers have siad "unless you become as little children, the Kingom of Heaven is closed to you" or the equivalent? I don't think a totally judgemental attack is the best way to come out from "Lurking". I personally have trouble with words like "formoid" they remind me too much of the cartoonist Bizarro. If Mr. Malkin doesn't like the "silly stuff" he's got a "delete" button, as for the expression of great intellect, there's a lot of that on this board, much of it from people with whom I personally disagree intensely. Let Mr. Nalkin demonstrate "great intellect" instead of adolescent whining! alexis Dolgorukii Member TI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 19:35:35 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 12:35:35 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Subject: Re: union Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: At 08:40 AM 4/19/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I really doubt that the Holy Roman Empire will reincarnate. Have you been >watching Jack Van Impe? > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > >No, I haven't been watching Jack van Impe, I 've never heartd ofhim. I got this from my continuing and continuous study of those I consider the enemy. The Birch Society and Rev. Armstrongs "Plain Truth" magazine. Both of them are in terrible fear of that eventuality. But neither of them fear it more than my Cosin Otto. alexis From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 19 19:45:24 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 15:45:24 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604192049.QAA14603@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "Mindset" All the best for the new house. Is it the one Denali liked so much? I can decipher ASCII, so please send it. Liesel ............................................................................ >At 05:22 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >>Alexis, >> >>I never got your essay on ontelligence's role in the universe. I'd like to >>see it. >>Also, come to think of it, you never told me how you liked "Mindset". Does >>that mean you didn't? >> >>Liesel >>....................................................................... >> >>Liesel: > >It certainly does not! It was far more "orthodox" theosophy than that which >I am atttuned to, but it is very well written and espouses it's >point-of-view very well and clearly indeeed. As you know, it doesn't >reperesent my own ideas, but it represents yours very well indeed! > >Now, as to an attachment: My program will only send ASCII, can your machine >receive it, if so I'll happily send it to you. > >Our house offer was accepted tonight and we open escrow on Monday...moving >date June 5th.Which is exactly three days after our 25th anniversary. What a >nice present! > >alexis dolgorukii >member TI, FTSA > > > From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 19 21:46:00 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:46:00 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960419174600_517716355@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Revised TI Statement Alan, very good, now leave it as it is for a while. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 19 17:17:21 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 18:17:21 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: Thoughts In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >Fundamentalism is a symptom of the death throes of a >religion. It is "circling the wagons" against change and new thoughts. .. sounds disconcertingly familiar in a context closer to home ... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 18 23:17:32 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 00:17:32 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <3Cn7cBAM2sdxEwTo@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Proposed revisions In-Reply-To: <199604181951.HAA52892@iprolink.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604181951.HAA52892@iprolink.co.nz>, Murray A Stentiford writes >>Your feedback is greatly appreciated. > >Thanks. And be glad I haven't had the time to write more! :-) > >Murray >Member TI & TS in NZ > Phew! Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Apr 19 03:59:15 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 22:59:15 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960418230129.1e177d4e@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Netiquette guidelines and the future of Theos-l, etc. At 06:19 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >>3. Making everyone feel very comfortable no matter what their views and >>opinions are. > > I would like everyone to feel comfortable too. But sometimes >we see ideas being posting that we strongly feel are wrong, and it is >our duty to present an alternative view. Else, all the newbies and lurkers >will get the wrong information, and have to spend several extra lifetimes >to get back on the right track. The problem then, is, how do we go about >this without hurting feelings or making someone "uncomfortable?" > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > Hi Jerry: Very good points you have raised. I do not know if there is one single answer. Let me make an attempt. Like Buddha said on thing we all can see, it is easy to discuss. On things unseen there is bound to be a number of views or opinions or experiences. So as for the things unseen no one can be sure who is right or wrong or who has the correct or incorrect information. May be on these unseen things each one of us can present our view point with this caveat and leave it at that. Hopefully this approach may not hurt the feelings or make someone "uncomfortable. I would like hear any responses, ESPECIALLY from NEWBEES. Cheers ...doss From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 05:19:40 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 22:19:40 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:mud? Message-Id: At 06:02 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >> Suffice it to say that HPB's position is clear, and anyone is free to >> disagree with her if they choose. > > Yeah, clear as mud. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > >I don't know about "clear as mud" but I do know, that like so many other aspects of her personality and teaching it is certainly inconstant. But then "inconsistancy is the hobgoblin of tiny mainds", and she certainly didn't have a tiny mind. The problem is, many of those who have diefied her, the "Masters" and Theosophy itself, do. alexis dolgorukii member TI. FTSA From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 05:35:39 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 22:35:39 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Netiquette guidelines and the future of Theos-l, etc. Message-Id: At 06:20 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >>3. Making everyone feel very comfortable no matter what their views and >>opinions are. > > I would like everyone to feel comfortable too. But sometimes >we see ideas being posting that we strongly feel are wrong, and it is >our duty to present an alternative view. Else, all the newbies and lurkers >will get the wrong information, and have to spend several extra lifetimes >to get back on the right track. The problem then, is, how do we go about >this without hurting feelings or making someone "uncomfortable?" > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > >Jerry: That is a very good question indeed. But is that actually the character of this list? After all, ever since I subscribed it has seemed a place where advanced theosophists of strongly different views and beliefs about theosophy compared and argued those views. Is it really the kind of place that could make "everybody comfortable no matter what their views and opinions are"? We certainly can, and usually do, if those positions and beliefs are strong enough and secure enough. Now, new comers (newbies) can certainly "lurk" and ask questions and learn a lot from this diverse group. But it's good to remeber in Krotona, new people were required to be silent and listen for seven years before asking their first question. I'm sure there are places where "everybody is comfortable" and I am also sure this isn't one of them. BUT it is, I think, very usefuyl to a great number of us. alexis dolgorukii member TI, FTSA From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Fri Apr 19 02:59:15 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 20:59:15 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Salman Rushdie on 'Respect' and the Thought Police In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960418235921.006a3de4@mail.deltanet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cool. Not suprising that Rushdie would come out with such a position - or at least not suprising to the people that have had to deal with him ... his reputation around literary circles is that he may be one of the single nastiest and abusive individuals in those circles (which are not known for their adherence to the golden rule (-:). In fact, shortly after his trouble with the Iranians began an editor that had worked with him said he was not at all suprised - and jokingly said that his next book after "Satanic Verses" was probably going to be titled something like "Buddha Was A Fat Bastard". Interesting thing about his talk is that he gets himself tied up in the same contradictions as most in the anti-PC movement do when he complains: "Other minority groups -- racial, sexual, social -- also have demanded that they be accorded this new form of respect. To "respect" Louis Farrakhan, we must understand, is simply to agree with him. To "diss" him is, equally simply, to disagree. But if dissent is also to be thought a form of "dissing," then we have indeed succumbed to the Thought Police." What a *bizarre* example for Rushdie to use, for several reasons ... 1) Farrakhan, (who Rushdie naturally wishes to disagree with, as LF is a Muslim, and Rushdie has not exactly had the best relations with the Islamic world), is actually a living image of exactly what Rushdie says is *good* about western society - LF shows no respect for "power, orthodoxy, for party lines ..." - in many ways he is *to the western world* almost precisely what Rushdie is to Islamics. 2) To complain that someone may feel a little pressure not to disagree with LF and call *that* a sign of the "Thought Police" is to use precisely the argument the anti-PC movement has perfected: The slight pressure to "agree" with LF is *nothing* compared to the *actual* police, the full force of the state, that has rallied against LF. There is talk about bringing him before Congress to testify, of indicting him on a whole slew of charges - the CIA monitors his travels and if you "agree" with him too publicly your name goes on an FBI list. And yet "minority groups" backing LF are equated with "Thought Police" we must guard against because they would limit our "freedom", while the actions of the US Government are not even mentioned. 3) So let me get this straight, Salmon, LF speaks his mind utterly freely, claiming the rights of a free society; he speaks strongly against the ruling (white) race, breaks every taboo he can get his hands on, travels to foreign countries where his opinions are welcomed, but in the country he speaks so strongly against, the force of the state begins issuing all manner of threats against him. HHHmmmmmm, now where have we heard that scenario before? Of course in his case, since you have personal reasons to disagree with him, you apparently remain blind to *government* actions, and instead equate his advocates with the forces of the Thought Police. I wonder, what would you call the minority voices in Iran that disagreed with the Iranian Government about *your* work? 4) "Hello pot? Kettle here ... you're black". 5) If Rushdie wanted to be consistant in his ideology, it is not *agreeing* with LF that is giving in to the Thought Police, but failing to *disagree with the government's imposition of force because of the ideological content of LF's words*. [PS - While I've been using LF as an example, I personally *do* disagree with his views, though I do not like my government's actions against him, and really cannot conceive of what Rushdie is talking about, as I've never felt even an ounce of pressure to agree with him.] -JRC From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 05:49:12 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 22:49:12 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: news Message-Id: At 02:25 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >At least you don't blow a gasket. > >Chuck the Inveterate Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Well computer Guru #2 arrived from Sydney. He arrived before he left and had two Thursdays! Our offer on the house was accepted this evening, we open escrow on Monday and move-in on June 5th which is three days after John and my 25th anniversary.....wooopie! alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 05:50:36 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 22:50:36 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: newsgroup Message-Id: At 02:13 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I can't clarify it because I don't know what's really involved. I know one >person (tyagi Nagashiva) who has his own newsgroup (alt.magick.tyagi) but as >far as doing it, I have no idea. That's what computer gurus are for. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >It's OK they're already talking about it and will go searching for exemplars and come up with something. alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 05:52:37 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 22:52:37 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: !!!!!! Message-Id: At 02:21 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Have your heart medicine ready for this. Xtians are like everyone else, some >good, some bad, some dreadful. I've known a few in my life that if they were >all like that there were be no need for theosophy. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Oh I have too, especially Angelo Roncalli (John 23rd) but, their religion is still utterly invalid, despite the not so many nice people in it, and therefore there's always a need for theosophy! alexis dolgorukii Member TI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 06:17:06 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:17:06 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Cosmii????? Message-Id: At 08:21 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<< >>>> >>>This is an interesting question. As I understand it, there can be nothing >>>outside the cosmos because 'All that Is' is the Cosmos and 'All that Is' >>>would not be that if it could be outside itself. The Cosmos could be thought >>>of as an evolving thing also therefore it is forever expanding and there are >>>no limits to it. The Cosmos is full of Universes that may be said to have >>>arrived via the big bang. As above so below, and as we are never ending so >>>are all other things but all other things are expressions of the Cosmos. I >>>read an interesting thing on Eternal being equated with unchanging and if >>>that was the case nothing was eternal because everything was changing and >>>evolving for ever. I guess it depends on how one understands it. >>>> >>>Bee Brown >>>Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. >>>Theos Int & L >>> >>>I think the entire difference here is not of opinion but of definition. I >>personally define as "Cosmos" that which was "created" or "formed" by the >>"Big Bang", as such there are many Cosmoi (pl) but if you regard the >>"Cosmos" as everything..then of course nothing can, by definition, be >>outside of everything. I think perhaps it would be best if there was a >>better word for the container of creation. >> >>alexis dolgorukii >> >How would you define a universe? Would that be the container for solar >systems and the Cosmos as container for universes? The Urantia Book has much >to say on this subject and makes interesting theories but it seem such a >vast subject to think about that labels are hard to pin down as to their >meaning. Did the SD have a word for the container of creation? I have read >it but I can't remember if it was mentioned. I suppose it was the circle >with the dot in it or was it just the circle before the dot appeared. >> >Bee Brown >Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. >Theos Int & L > >How about..."A circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference exists not at all. alexis dolgorukii' member TI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 06:23:37 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:23:37 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Buonaparte Message-Id: At 08:20 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>That's surely true, and it's also possible that there will be a >>reincarnation of the HolyRoman Empire inEurope too. >> >>alexis > >Which, like the first one will be neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > >That was Buonaparte's remark, and in his period it was clearly true, but when it was founded by Charlemagne it was distinctly an Empire, it was recognized by the Roman Church as the successor to Imperial Rome, and due to it's alliance with Rome Rome granted it the appelation "Holy", By the time of the French Revolution several hundred years later, everything had changed. But for the longest time, while the Emperors were actually elected, it was a major force which eventually produced the idea of actual Democracy in the world. It was never really a military great power, it's power was activated in subtler ways. It was also, thus far, the world's first and most successful (over time) multicultural diverse society. and culturally it was a major center of European Civilization. alexis dolgorukii member TI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 06:26:36 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:26:36 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: I'm not Message-Id: At 10:18 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >>What I think we see today, in the official theosophical disapproval of >>anything but the intellectual discussion os psychism is based on fear. Fear >>that the uncontrollable psychic activities (and unprovable) of the CWL era >>(which runs all the way down to our own times in the persons of >>Jinarajadasa, Arundale, and Taimini, might once again take the TS down roads >>it no longer thinks it wise to travel. > >Alexis, I think you're being highly imaginative. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > >No Liesel, I'm not. I am actually being coldly realistic. What I said is true, unfortunately true, but true all the same! alexis dolgorukii member TI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 06:32:19 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:32:19 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Yes indeed! Message-Id: At 10:22 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >Are there any female Mahatmas? > >Yes indeed there are "Female Mahatmas (especially if you accept tha Adept and Illuminatus and Mahatma are all the same phenomenon. Hypatia of Alexandria the famous philosopher-mathematician was clearly an adept, and if her influence on subsequent history is to be held as evidence, so too was Sappho the poetess-philosopher of Lesbos, so too was Yelena Petrovna Blavatskaya, and Marie Curie, and Eleanore of Aquitaine, and Elisabeth 1st of England, and Catherine the Great of Russia. and Hildegarde von Bingen the composer-saint, and an almost endless list of others. alexis dolgorukii'member TI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 06:33:34 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:33:34 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Senzar Message-Id: At 10:23 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >Does anyone know anything about Senzar or where I can find information >about it? > >As I understand it Senzar is a language, and I have no idea at all how anyone could find out anything about it. alexis dolgorukii member TI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 06:37:00 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:37:00 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Thanks Message-Id: At 10:24 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis, > >My correspondent hasn't answered that letter of mine as yet, but I found the >3 year old High Country Theosoophist" in which Dick Slusser told about the >Russian Theosophists. The name given is Dmitry Popov, Chairman of the >Russian TS, with the Vostochnaya St. address. > >I just see now, it also mentions a member of Moscow's board of directors >who's in NYC. That's a contact > >Daniel Entin, Director, Nicholas Roerich Museum >319 West 107th Street. NYC 10025 > >You could write him or phone him for info. > >When I get more info, I'll post it. >Liesel > >Thanks Liesel, I'll consult with Alan and others and do what they suggest. alexis dolgorukii Member TI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 06:59:21 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:59:21 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:&tc Message-Id: At 10:33 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >...snip..... > >>>>>>cut<<<<<<< >Thankyou for a thought provoking post. Would it not be better to say that >Theosophy studies all these things but the Theosophical Society has the core >teachings as it's rationale for being a Society. All these other groups are >a liberty to set up a Society of their own to have their teachings as the >basis for their existence. If we say that we have a Society set up because >of theosophy (small t) in which to study this and all other related subjects >and it is called Theosophy Society to differentiate it from e.g the Buddhist >Society so that people may know what is the guiding light of a Society even >if it both study buddhism and theosophy within their curicullum. They may >then go to which ever Society suits their interest and find subject matter >as the main feature in that Society along with other sidelines. I would be >confused if I went to the Buddhist Society and found them teaching Sufism as >a regular thing and their library full of books on it. > Bee: I think it's completely rational and very useful for a society to exist which has the development of an attitude towards unbiased investigation and study as its core agends. The "Love of Truth" can easily be a "core teaching" and it certainly encourages unbiased study and investigation. While the present incarnation of the Theosophical Society can be argued to have a clearly identifiable "core Teaching", I am not sure of that teaching is compatible with what I very strongly believe was the original motivation for the theosophical movement's foundation. To me there's far too much "mahayana Buddhism as Theosophy" and not nearly enough unbiased investigation and study. To me, if people come to Theosophy to be either "saved" or "enlightened" they're going to be sorely disappointed. One must "enlighten" ones self. When one contemplates the three objectives of the original programme of the theosophical movement, a "theosophical library" has absolutely no limits on what it might contain. If one wants to study religion one should pick a religion and go to it. If one wants to learn about religion as a thing in itself, then theosophy is the answer. >As to the "new Age movements" we agree entirely. > >It is a puzzlement indeed. The 'good' are also often the 'meek' and so the >'not so good' can win the small battle at lodge level even if it all comes >right in the end, it can close a small lodge for a while and maybe even for >good as people loose confidence in a place that stands for 'spiritual' >things and yet bicker among itself. >> >Bee Brown >Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. >Theos Int & L > >The problem which you outline above is a real problem indeed, and what to do about it is one of the most useful learning opportunities in the field of human relations. It seems to me that each instance is utterly unique and can only be considered and worked with on it's own merits. "Bickering" is so common in spiritual groups that perhaps its oart of the spiritual growth pattern. Quien Sabe? alexis dolgorukii 'Member TI,FTSA From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 07:03:49 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 00:03:49 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TS Moscow Message-Id: At 11:36 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message , alexis dolgorukii > writes >>> Russia 095 Moscow 205-22-28 >>> >>>Liesel >>> >>>They have a FAX? Wow! Well I don't, they're just going to have to get an >>old fashioned letter from me! John of course, has infinite faxing apability >>but I don't think the phone company wants to pay for Faxes to Moscow. So, >>I'm still in need of a street address and a person to whom to send it. >> >>alexis >Like a number of us, I suspect, I can fax direct from my PC. Moscow may >be cheaper from the UK, so if they can read a English language fax, I >for one would be happy to forward it. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan: I was planning to write the letter inEnglish and have my #1 adopted son translate it into Russian but using the our alphabet, and I can send it to you as an attachnment and you can fax it. We'll talk again on this as it is very late and I got up very early. alexis From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Fri Apr 19 07:45:41 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 19:45:41 +1200 From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Message-Id: <199604190745.TAA00802@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Netiquette guidelines and the future of Theos-l, etc. >At 06:20 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>3. Making everyone feel very comfortable no matter what their views and >>>opinions are. >> >> I would like everyone to feel comfortable too. But sometimes >>we see ideas being posting that we strongly feel are wrong, and it is >>our duty to present an alternative view. Else, all the newbies and lurkers >>will get the wrong information, and have to spend several extra lifetimes >>to get back on the right track. The problem then, is, how do we go about >>this without hurting feelings or making someone "uncomfortable?" >> >> Jerry S. >> Member, TI >> >>Jerry: That is a very good question indeed. But is that actually the >character of this list? After all, ever since I subscribed it has seemed a >place where advanced theosophists of strongly different views and beliefs >about theosophy compared and argued those views. Is it really the kind of >place that could make "everybody comfortable no matter what their views and >opinions are"? We certainly can, and usually do, if those positions and >beliefs are strong enough and secure enough. Now, new comers (newbies) can >certainly "lurk" and ask questions and learn a lot from this diverse group. >But it's good to remeber in Krotona, new people were required to be silent >and listen for seven years before asking their first question. I'm sure >there are places where "everybody is comfortable" and I am also sure this >isn't one of them. BUT it is, I think, very usefuyl to a great number of us. > >alexis dolgorukii >member TI, FTSA > Here I am again. Like a little gnat, I am.:-) It seems simple enough to just disagree with each other in a caring and civilised manner. It is easy to get emotional and get over the top with a post that pushes a button or two. (I am as guilty of this as others) but I do try to remember that we are all entitled to our opinions no matter how strange they may be at this time and this list hopefully is a place to explore our opinions without being put down. I try to remember something I was told earlier in my life, 'Don't take away someone's belief unless you have a better one to replace it' and that becomes an ego trip to suppose that I might have a better one so I try to live and let live. > Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Fri Apr 19 07:53:29 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 19:53:29 +1200 From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Message-Id: <199604190753.TAA00958@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Cosmii????? >>How would you define a universe? Would that be the container for solar >>systems and the Cosmos as container for universes? The Urantia Book has much >>to say on this subject and makes interesting theories but it seem such a >>vast subject to think about that labels are hard to pin down as to their >>meaning. Did the SD have a word for the container of creation? I have read >>it but I can't remember if it was mentioned. I suppose it was the circle >>with the dot in it or was it just the circle before the dot appeared. >>> >>Bee Brown >>Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. >>Theos Int & L >> >>How about..."A circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference >exists not at all. > >alexis dolgorukii' >member TI, FTSA > That's the one. I knew I had heard of something that expressed it. I suppose this is one ??????? that has no name. > Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From michelle@zip.com.au Fri Apr 19 22:01:20 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 22:01:20 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Subject: female mahatmas Message-Id: <199604191137.AA05009@zipper.zip.com.au> Though I have studied this myself I remember at a talk some years ago some said that Kwan Yin (various spellings my apoloogies if this isnt the correct one) is one a female mahatma. Maybe others have studied this and can confirm/correct my memory? BFN OOROO Michelle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - michelle@zip.com.au Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ From michelle@zip.com.au Fri Apr 19 22:05:22 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 22:05:22 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Subject: Senzar Message-Id: <199604191141.AA05537@zipper.zip.com.au> There is a good booklet published by TPH London - a red cover if I remember correctly staple bound didnt have a spine. Sorry cant remember the title - a terrible sin - but I worked with so many books I ended up only associating them with the publishers and authors! I am sure this booklet would be available from the Quest Bookshop at Wheaton - they have a 1800 number for orders I'm sure someone in the US on this list could help with the number. John Algeo has an interest in Senzar too - you could always contact him and ask him to suggest some references. Hope this helps BFN OOROO Michelle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - michelle@zip.com.au Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 19 11:44:56 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 07:44:56 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960419074455_194163695@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Pasteur? Alex, She did not approve of Pasteur's research methods. Sound familiar? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 19 11:45:59 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 07:45:59 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960419074559_194163973@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: theosophy & psychism Jerry, The relationship between the two organizations has been a problem for TSers for some time. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 19 11:46:05 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 07:46:05 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960419074604_194163989@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: To Alan re speaking Alan, I think it has something to do with my hard-wiring. If I get really disappointed I feel a great sense of betrayal and then I end up lashing out at it. Like right now I feel a certain betrayal by the TS even though finding it meant that I probably avoided ending up as a petty criminal or murderer. So I get mad at it very easily and the only thing holding me in is a still remaining gratitude for what it has done for me and the hope that the problems are transitory and will pass. Chuck MTI, FTSA From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Apr 19 12:22:49 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 07:22:49 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Salman Rushdie on 'Respect' and the Thought Police In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII A well thought out response. In a very simplistic way of looking at what Rushdie did, he tried to make money by being nasty. Nothing wrong in todays world. But he had to pay a very heavy price for the risk he undertook and he has to blame himself for it. It is an irony of his fate that the religion he was born into dispensed ready money Karma -- IMHO. I hope he has learnt a lesson by now. ....doss On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, JRC wrote: > Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 01:54:33 -0400 > From: JRC > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Salman Rushdie on 'Respect' and the Thought Police > > Cool. Not suprising that Rushdie would come out with such a position - or > at least not suprising to the people that have had to deal with him ... > his reputation around literary circles is that he may be one of the > single nastiest and abusive individuals in those circles (which are not > known for their adherence to the golden rule (-:). In fact, shortly after > his trouble with the Iranians began an editor that had worked with him > said he was not at all suprised - and jokingly said that his next book > after "Satanic Verses" was probably going to be titled something like > "Buddha Was A Fat Bastard". > > Interesting thing about his talk is that he gets himself tied up in the > same contradictions as most in the anti-PC movement do when he complains: > > "Other minority groups -- racial, sexual, social -- also have > demanded that they be accorded this new form of respect. To > "respect" Louis Farrakhan, we must understand, is simply to agree > with him. To "diss" him is, equally simply, to disagree. But if > dissent is also to be thought a form of "dissing," then we have > indeed succumbed to the Thought Police." > > What a *bizarre* example for Rushdie to use, for several reasons ... > 1) Farrakhan, (who Rushdie naturally wishes to disagree with, as LF is a > Muslim, and Rushdie has not exactly had the best relations with the > Islamic world), is actually a living image of exactly what Rushdie says is > *good* about western society - LF shows no respect for "power, orthodoxy, > for party lines ..." - in many ways he is *to the western world* almost > precisely what Rushdie is to Islamics. > > 2) To complain that someone may feel a little pressure not to disagree > with LF and call *that* a sign of the "Thought Police" is to use > precisely the argument the anti-PC movement has perfected: The slight > pressure to "agree" with LF is *nothing* compared to the *actual* police, > the full force of the state, that has rallied against LF. There is talk > about bringing him before Congress to testify, of indicting him on a > whole slew of charges - the CIA monitors his travels and if you "agree" > with him too publicly your name goes on an FBI list. And yet "minority > groups" backing LF are equated with "Thought Police" we must guard > against because they would limit our "freedom", while the actions of the > US Government are not even mentioned. > > 3) So let me get this straight, Salmon, LF speaks his mind utterly > freely, claiming the rights of a free society; he speaks strongly against > the ruling (white) race, breaks every taboo he can get his hands on, > travels to foreign countries where his opinions are welcomed, but in the > country he speaks so strongly against, the force of the state begins > issuing all manner of threats against him. HHHmmmmmm, now where have we > heard that scenario before? Of course in his case, since you have > personal reasons to disagree with him, you apparently remain blind to > *government* actions, and instead equate his advocates with the forces of > the Thought Police. I wonder, what would you call the minority voices in > Iran that disagreed with the Iranian Government about *your* work? > > 4) "Hello pot? Kettle here ... you're black". > > 5) If Rushdie wanted to be consistant in his ideology, it is not > *agreeing* with LF that is giving in to the Thought Police, but failing > to *disagree with the government's imposition of force because of the > ideological content of LF's words*. > > [PS - While I've been using LF as an example, I personally *do* disagree > with his views, though I do not like my government's actions against him, > and really cannot conceive of what Rushdie is talking about, as I've > never felt even an ounce of pressure to agree with him.] > -JRC > From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 19 16:44:12 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:44:12 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <4ST0YIAcL8dxEwyW@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: female Mahatmas In-Reply-To: <3176F511.1D66@bart.ccis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <3176F511.1D66@bart.ccis.com>, Richard Wheaton writes >Are there any female Mahatmas? .. and if there are, do they do what they are told by the male mahatmas? Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 19 16:56:57 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:56:57 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: To Alan re speaking In-Reply-To: <960419074604_194163989@emout15.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960419074604_194163989@emout15.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Like right now I feel a certain betrayal by the TS even though >finding it meant that I probably avoided ending up as a petty criminal or >murderer. So I get mad at it very easily and the only thing holding me in is >a still remaining gratitude for what it has done for me and the hope that the >problems are transitory and will pass. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA In the Old Testament (KJV) there recurs frequently the expression, "It came to pass." That's life, and our experience of it. Events come, events go. The "future" moves inexorably towards the "past." To us, it appears that *we* are moving, when we are just being. C'est la vie. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 19 16:31:37 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:31:37 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: ML 48 In-Reply-To: <960418203414_76400.1474_HHL83-8@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960418203414_76400.1474_HHL83-8@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >Dan, quoting MLs: >>"Vainly do your modern seers and their prophetesses, creep into every cleft >>and crevice without outlet or continuity they chance to see; and still more >>vainly, when once within do they lift up their voices and loudly cry: >>'Eureka! We have gotten a revelation from the >>Lord!'---for verily have they nothing of the kind. I checked this in my UK-published copy (Rider & Co., 1923-30), and the quote is the same. Now excuse me for saying this, but we Brits are not unfamiliar with the history of the Brisish Raj in India, and although and educated Indian might use (even for that time) anachronistic quasi-biblical language such as "verily" it is *extremely* doubtful that one such would use the very American word "gotten" - which after many a year, I still haven't got used to, if you all get my drift ... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 19 17:03:15 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 18:03:15 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: !!!!!! In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >>Oh I have too, especially Angelo Roncalli (John 23rd) but, their religion >is still utterly invalid, despite the not so many nice people in it, and >therefore there's always a need for theosophy! > >alexis dolgorukii >Member TI, FTSA their theosophy is still utterly invalid, despite the not so many nice people in it, and therefore there's always a need for xtianity! :-) Just something to think about - doesn't mean I agree with it :-) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 19:11:42 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 12:11:42 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: names? Message-Id: At 03:56 AM 4/19/96 -0400, you wrote: > >>>How would you define a universe? Would that be the container for solar >>>systems and the Cosmos as container for universes? The Urantia Book has much >>>to say on this subject and makes interesting theories but it seem such a >>>vast subject to think about that labels are hard to pin down as to their >>>meaning. Did the SD have a word for the container of creation? I have read >>>it but I can't remember if it was mentioned. I suppose it was the circle >>>with the dot in it or was it just the circle before the dot appeared. >>>> >>>Bee Brown >>>Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. >>>Theos Int & L >>> >>>How about..."A circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference >>exists not at all. >> >>alexis dolgorukii' >>member TI, FTSA >> >That's the one. I knew I had heard of something that expressed it. I suppose >this is one ??????? that has no name. >> >Bee Brown >Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. >Theos Int & L > >Bee: I honestly don't know if that definition has a name or not. If I ever did it's buried somewhere in my database (head), But I do know that HPB wasn't the first to use those words for that perception. alexis dolgorukii member TI,FTSA From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 19:32:02 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 12:32:02 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Je Comprends Message-Id: At 08:32 AM 4/19/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >She did not approve of Pasteur's research methods. Sound familiar? > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Ah so, mon ami, Bien sur je comprends maintenant! Actually it sounds damn familiar! alexis From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Apr 19 20:09:33 1996 Date: 19 Apr 96 16:09:33 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: re: changeing one's personality Message-Id: <960419200933_76400.1474_HHL104-3@CompuServe.COM> Lisel: >Good God, Jerry, that reallly came from left base. How can anyone be afraid >of personality changes? Some of them just came naturally to me with time, >with aging, without even half trying. I was a student, a wife, a mother, a >housewife, a professional person, a retiree. Each one brought a change. ... I agree with you, Liesel. Nevertheless, one of the major warnings about the dangers of practicing ritual magic is that it can change your personality. This, from several New Age book reviewers who were reviewing my Enochian books. Jerry S. Member, TI From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 19 19:30:07 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 12:30:07 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: female mahatmas Message-Id: At 08:30 AM 4/19/96 -0400, you wrote: >Though I have studied this myself I remember at a talk some years ago >some said that Kwan Yin (various spellings my apoloogies if this isnt >the correct one) is one a female mahatma. > >Maybe others have studied this and can confirm/correct my memory? > >BFN >OOROO >Michelle > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - >michelle@zip.com.au >Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services >http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ > >Michelle: I wouldn't think so, and the reason is this: Kwan Yin, or Kannon, or Avolokitishvara and they are all essentially the same androgynous entity is essentially a "Divine Spirit" or "Goddess" and Mahatmas are always still physical "human beings = X" they are no longer homo-sapiens but rather are "Homo-Metsapiens" and so then it seems clear to me that Kwan Yin is no more an adept (Mahatma) than Apollo or Odhin would be. alexis dolgorukii member TI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 19 21:44:53 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:44:53 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960419174453_517715608@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: news Alex, Congratulations. Chuck the Jealous Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 19 21:45:50 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:45:50 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960419174549_517716274@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: !!!!!! Alex, All religions are invalid, so what else is news. As long as they aren't attacking me or mine, I'm perfectly willing to let them enjoy their ignorance. It's when they get in my way I work to remove them from this realm of tears. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker Charismaniacsbane From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 19 21:45:56 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:45:56 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960419174555_517716319@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: ethics and morality Jerry, Hallelujah! If intention is the only key does that mean we can kill the Christians in the name of stopping them from getting more bad Karma? :-) Why is it that people are not content to let others live their lives as they see fit and constantly try to force them into a mold? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 19 21:46:04 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:46:04 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960419174604_517716388@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: ethics and morality Jerry, Maybe I have very strange tastes in friends, but I find that people who are moral are no fun to be around. As George Orwell wrote of Ghandi, "Sainthood is not healthy for humans." Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 19 21:46:08 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:46:08 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960419174607_517716406@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: MESSENGER #14--Correction Rich, I've been studiously avoiding reading threads that are bad for my blood pressure these days and I reccommend you do the same. By the way, it was an article you wrote about the TS in the short lived journal Gnostica in the 1970's that got me into the TS in the first place, so you have heavy Karma. I think Alan has a hair shirt somewhere you may want to borrow. Just thought you'd like to know. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Richtay@aol.com Fri Apr 19 23:14:30 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 19:14:30 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960419191430_378745864@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: female mahatmas Kwan Yin (sometimes spelled Guan Yin) is the female bodhisattva of compassion. In China, compassion is associated with women and is considered a female perfection. Nonetheless, the figure of Kwain Yin (Kannon in Japanese) did not originate in East Asia, but is simply the transplanted figure of the MALE Indian figure Avalokiteshvara ("he who looks down" upon the world with compassion) which is also male in Tibet, as the figure Chen-re-zigs, thought to be incarnate in the Dalai Lama. It is important to recognize that Kwan-Yin/Kannon/Avalokiteshvara/Chen-re-zigs was never a historical figure, but is considered a "celestial bodhisattva" or being of compassion beyond time and space. This figure may be said to "incarnate" in human personages but is essentially a non-historical icon and cosmic energy which charges Buddhist thought and practice. From Richtay@aol.com Fri Apr 19 23:14:32 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 19:14:32 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960419191431_378745869@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Senzar Senzar is the language H.P. Blavatsky claims is the original source for her SECRET DOCTRINE, the language of Intiates which was at one time universal. It is said to pre-date Sanskrit and all other living languages, and is perhaps not actually a language perse, but a symbol system drawn in shades of color which can be read by any one familiar with it in their own language, much like mathematics today. Arabic numerals are pretty much universal in educated circles. Sadly, no academic evidence is available on Senzar, the manuscripts HPB referred to have never (yet) surfaced, and there are no authoritative sources on Senzar (to my knowledge) outside what HPB has written in her S.D. and in the preface to the VOICE OF THE SILENCE. From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 19 22:54:22 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 18:54:22 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604192358.TAA23451@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: ML quote >Dan, quoting MLs: >>"Vainly do your modern seers and *their* prophetesses, ... et tu, Koot Humi! Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 19 23:15:42 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 19:15:42 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604200020.UAA04061@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: female Mahatmas >From: Richard Wheaton >Subject: female Mahatmas >Message-ID: <3176F511.1D66@bart.ccis.com> > >Are there any female Mahatmas? > Dear Richard, I have yet to find any. There's the World Mother, but you have to look real hard to find references to her. There's the male Avalokiteshvara who turned into the female Quan Yin. There are female goddesses in other ancient religions, but the closest thing to a Mahatma we've got is a high chela, Helena P. Blavatsky. Liesel Member TI< TSA, TS in Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 19 23:18:05 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 19:18:05 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604200022.UAA08787@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Senzar >Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 19:07:53 -0700 >From: Richard Wheaton >To: theos-l@vnet.net >Subject: Senzar >Message-ID: <3176F579.6ED2@bart.ccis.com> > >Does anyone know anything about Senzar or where I can find information >about it? > >----------------------------- Richard, John Algeo wwrote a booklet on Senzar. Ask the Theosophical Publishing House in Wheaton, or the Olcott Library. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 19 23:30:14 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 19:30:14 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604200034.UAA14094@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: What to take up at branch meetings in the way of Theosophy Bee, At the time when we were discussing what to do with the disruptive fanantic at our meetings, I found an article by Shirley Nicholson, which we thought was helpful. It's called "Doctrine and Dogma" and it ran in the "American Theosophist" of October '83. I have extra copies. If you'd like one, I can snail mail it, but then, please give me your address. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 19 23:50:32 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 19:50:32 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604200054.UAA24494@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: I'm not Chaqu'un a son gout. LFD >Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:26:36 -0700 >From: alexis dolgorukii >To: theos-l@vnet.net >Subject: Re: I'm not >> >>Alexis, I think you're being highly imaginative. >> >>Liesel >>Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR >> >>No Liesel, I'm not. I am actually being coldly realistic. What I said is >true, unfortunately true, but true all the same! > >alexis dolgorukii >member TI, FTSA > > >------------------------------ From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Apr 19 23:56:24 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 19:56:24 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604200100.VAA27054@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: to: Alexis >>>How about..."A circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference >>exists not at all. >> >>alexis dolgorukii' Dear Alexis, as far as I remember, that's a quote froom Taimni. Liesel From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sat Apr 20 02:04:51 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 20:04:51 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: to: Alexis In-Reply-To: <199604200100.VAA27054@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > >>>How about..."A circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference > >>exists not at all. > >> > >>alexis dolgorukii' > > Dear Alexis, as far as I remember, that's a quote froom Taimni. > > Liesel L - I believe the "boundless circle" is an extremely old symbol. I think it's mentioned somewhere in the Zohar (or at least is alluded to), and in fact I think HPB mentions it in the SD. -JRC From vrc@tiac.net Sat Apr 20 02:32:15 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 22:32:15 -0400 From: Vegetarian Resource Center Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960419222656.25374ca0@pop.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Wheaton (College and Illinois) I wonder if the vegetarianism of the TSA HQ has ever tried to effectively promote healthful and humane diet in the town of Wheaton, and in the college there. As an alum, I heard that the college once had been selected by Saga Food Service for a test program to implement a whole series of vegetarian options. My understanding now is that the school has many vegetarian options (including entrees). I don't know if it's true. Also, I recall that one of the campus security officers was, during the daytime, a staff support person in the ROTC unit, issuing uniforms and other equipment. He was also the President of the LOCAL chapter of the TS. He was quite fond of incense from Madras, the sort made from cow dung. (Americans are quite fond of another term, but he was fond of burning the sacred incense from India.) I tried it, and was almost kicked out of the dorm for this incredibly powerful but sweet-smelling incense. How can something like that be refined to be so sweet? - msc vrc Maynard S. Clark vrc@tiac.net info@vegetarian.org Vegetarian Resource Center, P. O. Box 38-1068, Cambridge, MA 02238-1068 617-625-3790 (Voice, or Fax by arrangement) 617-357-2064 or 2194 (Facsimile) Listowner: Geographical - VEG-FL, VEG-NE (check out Regl Veg Project) Topical: Veg-BIZ, Veg-EDU, Veg-ORG, Special Groups: Veg-PARENT, Veg-REL, Veg-SINGLE, Veg-TEEN http://www.tiac.net/users/vrc/vrc.html Visit and Use our Research Library at the Peace Abbey in Sherborn MA. Build a vegetarian network! Find countless other vegetarians. A Simple, 1-Stop Contact for Vegetarian Information Retrieval-Referral-Advice There are countless vegetarian resources; we'll show you how to find them... From vrc@tiac.net Sat Apr 20 02:32:17 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 22:32:17 -0400 From: Vegetarian Resource Center Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960419222658.2537e902@pop.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: consistency and inconsistency At 01:23 AM 4/19/96 -0400, you wrote: >At 06:02 PM 4/18/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote: >>> Suffice it to say that HPB's position is clear, and anyone is free to >>> disagree with her if they choose. >> >> Yeah, clear as mud. >> >> Jerry S. >> Member, TI >> >>I don't know about "clear as mud" but I do know, that like so many other >aspects of her personality and teaching it is certainly inconstant. But then >"inconsistancy is the hobgoblin of tiny mainds", and she certainly didn't >have a tiny mind. The problem is, many of those who have diefied her, the >"Masters" and Theosophy itself, do. > >alexis dolgorukii >member TI. FTSA > Seems to me that the quote was originally: "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." In other words, the Transcendentalist author of that statement seemed to believe that there are some issues of detail that are insignificant and that belaboring the demand for consistency when it is inappropriate is merely a foolish mental habit for those who cannot see the world and its reality, and understand the broader issues involved. Was it Emerson or Thoreau who penned those words? (one or the other - my memory fades with the passing of the years - perhaps it's the lack of B-12 in the vegan diet) Maynard S. Clark vrc@tiac.net info@vegetarian.org Vegetarian Resource Center, P. O. Box 38-1068, Cambridge, MA 02238-1068 617-625-3790 (Voice, or Fax by arrangement) 617-357-2064 or 2194 (Facsimile) Listowner: Geographical - VEG-FL, VEG-NE (check out Regl Veg Project) Topical: Veg-BIZ, Veg-EDU, Veg-ORG, Special Groups: Veg-PARENT, Veg-REL, Veg-SINGLE, Veg-TEEN http://www.tiac.net/users/vrc/vrc.html Visit and Use our Research Library at the Peace Abbey in Sherborn MA. Build a vegetarian network! Find countless other vegetarians. A Simple, 1-Stop Contact for Vegetarian Information Retrieval-Referral-Advice There are countless vegetarian resources; we'll show you how to find them... From vrc@tiac.net Sat Apr 20 02:44:45 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 22:44:45 -0400 From: Vegetarian Resource Center Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960419223926.276f2310@pop.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What to take up at branch meetings in the way of Theosophy Why not type out and post it "in toto" - such sharing is done on OTHER religious lists... At 08:49 PM 4/19/96 -0400, you wrote: >Bee, > >At the time when we were discussing what to do with the disruptive fanantic >at our meetings, I found an article by Shirley Nicholson, which we thought >was helpful. It's called "Doctrine and Dogma" and it ran in the "American >Theosophist" of October '83. I have extra copies. If you'd like one, I can >snail mail it, but then, please give me your address. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > > From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 20 05:50:05 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 22:50:05 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960420055005.006dcab8@mail.slip.net> Return-Receipt-To: alexei@slip.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_830004605==_" Subject: Re: accompli X-Attachments: C:\WPWIN\!paradig; --=====================_830004605==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:58 PM 4/19/96 -0400, you wrote: >All the best for the new house. Is it the one Denali liked so much? > >I can decipher ASCII, so please send it. > >Liesel >............................................................................ > Liesel: No, it's one I liked very much and we bought it because it was built in 1995 and therefore the VA would accept it for out loan. It's brand new but it looks like a "Craftsman Style House" of about 1906. Inside, though it's a modern as modern can be. We're going up tomorrow so I can measure and plan the use of the space. I will try and attach the piece on intelligence. It's in UUencode and if that doesn't work I'' try again tomorrow in ASCII. I am just experimenting tonight with my new Eudora Pro which has spell checking etc. alexis --=====================_830004605==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="!paradig" The Universe itself, is an entirely value-free information system and nothing at all which an individual does while in the physical is going to have more than an attitudinal effecton their future. A person, because of the things they do, and because of the way they think, and because of WHAT they think, create an environment which colours and flavours their personal future. But that is the way in which an individual influences their post-mortem future, it has nothing at all to do with the Universal Intellgence field. There is no judgement, there is no retribution, there is only a milieu which every individual creates for themselves. The only thing that matters, the only thing in the universe, that mattters is intelligence. It is how that intelligence is utilized and how it processes and stores information that is critical. That's what the Universe is all about, the infinitization of inteliigence, and the processing and storage of information for the use of that intelligence. All information is valid, all information, and experience is the major source of information, is needful to the universal data-bank. What an individual human being does with their personal information data-bank, matters only within their personal paradigm. It does not matter in the slightest within the universal paradigm. --=====================_830004605==_-- From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 20 05:58:13 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 22:58:13 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960420055813.006de174@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Thoughts At 06:24 PM 4/19/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message , alexis dolgorukii > writes >>Fundamentalism is a symptom of the death throes of a >>religion. It is "circling the wagons" against change and new thoughts. > >.. sounds disconcertingly familiar in a context closer to home ... > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan: Same phenomenon, same cause, same effect. "The Wagon's are circled" everywhere nowadays. alexis From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 20 13:05:24 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 09:05:24 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604201409.KAA06688@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Theosphists in Russia Att: Daniel Entin I believe this is the e-mail address for the Roerich Museum in New York City, in which case it's the right address to send a message to Daniel Entin. A group of theosophists of all factions, & from a number of countries, has been corresponding & discussing theosophy for several years now on theos-l@vnet.net Several months ago, some of us formed a very loosely structured network called Theosophy International, with members in 8 countries. TI members are not in agreement with the policy Adyar has instituted in Russia, which, we think, makes it extremely difficult for any Russian Theosophists to become officially part of Adyar. Theosophy International is using a branch of theos-l, theos-buds@vnet.net to correspond & exchange ideas. We're a very relaxed group, almost like family, & like family, we sometimes argue our various ideas, but we're still all good friends. We can all write in English, more or less, & we would like to have an interchange with Russian, Ukranian & etc. Theosophists. One of our members is of Russian descent & has a son who could translate our messages into Russian, but if we could write directly via-e-mail (or else FAX) in English, it would be much less cumbersome, because then each one of us could write, rather than all go through one translator. We are contemplating several projects. The one which has already come to fruition is to begin putting the theosophical classics on the Internet. We would like to contact the Theosophical Society in Moscow to see whether any Russian Theosophists would be able to join us on theos-buds, or theos-l but all I have is a street address which is 3 years old. I've just recently gotten Moscow TS's FAX number, & I myself am probably going to use that shortly to contact my correspondent Sergei Belkovsky in Kaluga. But the others would prefer e-mail, if that's possible. We would like to start an ideas interchange with some Russian Theosophists ... that much at least to start with. If as time goes on, there are other needs, perhaps some of our members would be able to supply them. We'd have to see what develops. Best wishes, (Mrs.) Liesel F. Deutsch Syracuse NY USA From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 20 17:38:41 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 13:38:41 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960420133840_474266128@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Thoughts Alan, Very disconcertingly familiar. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 20 17:39:57 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 13:39:57 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960420133956_474266764@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: union Alex, Jack Van Impe is a fundamentalist preacher who has a half-hour weekly program out of Troy Michigan in which he speaks much of his interpretation of biblical prophecy. It is hilarious and what makes it so funny is the man does not seem to have a malicious bone in his body. He says all kinds of dreadful things and doesn't realize how weird he sounds. But any fundamentalist who will quote Nostradamus is not beyond redemption. Who knows, he may turn into a theosophist someday. Anyway, he is one of revived Holy Roman Empire types and he can come up with biblical chapter and verse about it. Did you know that King Juan Carlos of Spain is the going to be the Antichrist? :-) Chuck MTI, FTSA From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 20 16:41:42 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 12:41:42 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604201746.NAA00522@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Thesophists in Russia 2 Dear folks, especially Alexis, Everything in one day! My correspondent in Western Europe, who belongs to Adyar/France, phoned Moscow for us to get the right address. They've moved, & since they may move soon again have taken a PO Box. Mr.Vladimir Popov, President PO Box 9 123022 Moscow Russia The Russians begin with the last line & work backwards. The street address is the same, except instead of PO Box it's Trehgorny val Street 2, app 49 The FAX seems to be located in their publishing house. I write to her in French & she says it's the Fax for "editions Sphera". That sounds to me like a publisher. She says we can write in English. They'll understand it. They told her to thank us for whatever we're plannning to do. She gave me the FAX again, & if anyone is going to use it, I'd advise you to check first with the phone company. She & I differ on the first 3 digits, after that, we're both alike. She says to start with 007- I thought I should start with 011- The rest of it is FAX 095/205-22-28 phone 095/205-23-78 These are the FAX rates from the East Coast: 1PM - 2AM - $2.47/min. 2AM - 7AM - $1.89/min. 7AM - 1 PM - $2.09/min. She says the TS in Moscow doesn't have any e-mail. Alan, I think she still has some money from David in Perth to spend on books for Sergei. Most of it she's already bought & sent. She's talking about having had to wait for 4 books for a whole year, & having to order them repeatedly. Do you think that your friend with the book store could help her, if she needs help, & if yes, may I give her your snail mail address, or his? Liesel From mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz Sat Apr 20 22:35:01 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 10:35:01 +1200 From: mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz (Murray A Stentiford) Message-Id: <199604202251.KAA65414@iprolink.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Proposed revisions - to several Replying to several people: Alan B wrote: >Below is the revised version for the consideration of TI members, as >also mentioned on theos-l in a separate post. Murray S: >[Proposed revisions to AB's revised version... ] Jerry S: >Yes. Yes. Yes. .... Alexis D: >I fully support everything you say herein and also fullu support your >suggested changes. Acknowledgement to each. Thanks. Alan B: >Dear TI members (and others who have joined the debate): > >Following the request for a vote, and the warm welcome and further >feedback relating to Murray's comments, I am posting below a slightly >altered version which seeks to take his observations into account - >almost verbatim as suggested. I also hope this may help others view TI >more favorably with a view to joining us :-) --- Alan. Alan, I'm comfortable with the minor changes you've made. Michelle D: >>[MS to AB:] Thanks. And be glad I haven't had the time to write more! :-) > >te he he > >I sure know what that can mean, one time when Murray had a report to >write he came to stay one night and ending up staying more than a >week! Alan, do you see now how glad you should be? Mind, this talent hardly stands out around here :-) . Murray Stentiford Till Next Time Member TI & TS in NZ From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 20 00:06:55 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:06:55 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <4BQcrMAfqCexEwri@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Revised TI Statement In-Reply-To: <960419174600_517716355@emout17.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960419174600_517716355@emout17.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >very good, now leave it as it is for a while. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA > My own thoughts entirely. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 20 00:06:02 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:06:02 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <6R9c$LAqpCexEwLK@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: There is! In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , alexis dolgorukii writes >Let Mr. Nalkin demonstrate "great intellect" >instead of adolescent whining! > >alexis Dolgorukii >Member TI, FTSA Are you cross, Alexis? :-) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 20 05:38:37 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 22:38:37 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960420053837.006dfd00@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: vive la difference! At 03:10 PM 4/19/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message , alexis dolgorukii > writes >>>Oh I have too, especially Angelo Roncalli (John 23rd) but, their religion >>is still utterly invalid, despite the not so many nice people in it, and >>therefore there's always a need for theosophy! >> >>alexis dolgorukii >>Member TI, FTSA > >their theosophy >is still utterly invalid, despite the not so many nice people in it, and >therefore there's always a need for xtianity! :-) > >Just something to think about - doesn't mean I agree with it :-) > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >The difference is that while Theosophy is sometimes silly, sometimes fatuous, and regularly just as smug as xtians, Theosophy has never been the sole cause of millions of murders and Christianity surely has. Vive La Difference! alexis dolgorukii Member TI,FTSA From eldon@theosophy.com Sat Apr 20 05:44:18 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 22:44:18 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960420054418.0068c108@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: to Daniel regarding psychism Daniel: [writing to JRC] >Could you state what you think the traditional Theosophical view is on >psychism and supply the Theos-l audience with some citations from the >early literature that illustrate this traditional stance? Furthermore, >I would like to know why you discount this view. In first reading this, it seems if you're asking JRC to prove his ideas by providing citations to theosophical literature to back them up. He's stated that he's read the books and sees them as out-of-date and wrong when it comes to things like channeling. Asking him to "prove" his ideas by giving theosophical quotes would be like a fundamentalist Christian asking us to prove our theosophical ideas by giving Bible quotes, as though the Bible made that much difference in what we think! But that is not what you mean. What you're getting at is that JRC needs to show that he has some clear understanding of the theosophical viewpoint before he can discount it or disagree with it. If he's not clear on what it says, he cannot say it's wrong and offer better ideas. You're not trying to put him on the spot but rather attempting to get him to reflect on and review the basis for his thinking. >Both you and Eldon have this habit of writing sometimes in very >general terms and I find it very hard to follow exactly what you >are both talking about. I've been trying to state the broad picture and avoid another venture into a detailed discussion at the present, which could involve dozens of pages of writing. >Possibly you two could illustrate some of your differing >viewpoints with detailed examples, case histories (something >that the rest of us could sink our teeth into!). This sounds like write some articles. As time permits, I may write something, but not immediately. The quotes that you provided were useful. Here's one more: HPB> Psychic vision, however, is not to be desired, since Psyche HPB> is earthy and evil. More and more as science advances, the HPB> psychic will be reached and understood; psychism has in it HPB> nothing that is spiritual. ... ["The Inner Group Teachings of H.P. Blavatsky, pages 11-12.] The problem even with this single passage is that a discussion is necessary to put the quote in context, explain "earthy and evil", etc. It's not enough to give a good quote, come informed commentary is necessary, or we end up with much undigested content that does not benefit the reader. (This is, of course, when we use the quotes to communicate and inform, rather than to "prove" a particular viewpoint, using the quotes as an appeal to authority rather than as a teaching tool.) >I personally am very much interested in psychic phenomena of all >sorts. I follow very closely all the latest developments in >parapsychology and I have done a lot of study and research on >the Spiritualism of the 19th century. It is interesting to learn of paranormal powers and phenomena, to read actual case studies and scientific experiments. This is an area of study that can be followed, like any other. The personal pursuit of powers, though, and the effect upon one's inner life, is an entirely different matter. We can talk about the general way that things work, or the situation of particular people, people that may be exceptions to the rule. Something could be generally bad to follow, yet for some exceptional individuals their unique karmic circumstances allow for them to continue that path with benefit. There's a difference between the chaos and confusion in someone's life that opening the pandora's box of the psychical brings, and the disorder and turbulence that arises in one's life with probationary chelaship when one is faced with a lifetime's karma in a few years. (I can picture someone reading this and automatically saying in reply, "But *I* don't experience chaos and confusion with the psychic, it's all *your* internal problems with the psychic; things are simply rosy for me!" I could only wish continued good luck to such a person.) How, then, do we distinguish the spiritual path from surface confusions, when turbulence arises in our outer lives in either case? What is it that distinguishes that someone is alive and awakened to the Path, and is not an imposter, a person consumed with psychological inflation and delusions of grandeur? How do we identify living Gold from fools gold? This is another topic, requiring much writing, and would probably sound quite different depending upon which of us was speaking. >Hoping that you and Eldon will take what I have said above >as an encouragement to engage in a more constructive >dialog on a very important topic. But until either JRC or I have any new, original ideas on the subject, we have little more to say, other than restating our positions again and repeating the same thoughts in slightly different words each time. He may make occasional comments that make psychism sound good, wonderful, wholesome, the great next step forward in human evolution. I may make occasional remarks about psychism being not such a good thing. Either of us may feel it necessary, after reading enough of the other's comments, to "set the record straight" with a detailed reply. It's best, I think, when our replies deal with the ideas and issues, and don't find it necessary to try to humble the other by blasting their person, by putting them down and trying to find significant character or behavioral flaws. -- Eldon From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 20 05:54:55 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 22:54:55 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960420055455.00676600@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: !!!!!! At 06:13 PM 4/19/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >All religions are invalid, so what else is news. As long as they aren't >attacking me or mine, I'm perfectly willing to let them enjoy their >ignorance. It's when they get in my way I work to remove them from this >realm of tears. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker >Charismaniacsbane > >Chuck: That's where we differ, you want to let them wallow in their ignorance, and I want to end their ignorance, and along with it their religions.I am sure they won't be thankful to either of us, but in the long run, their descendants will thank me. alexis the over-civilized member TI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 20 06:10:45 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:10:45 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960420061045.006d9664@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: female Mahatmas At 08:30 PM 4/19/96 -0400, you wrote: >>From: Richard Wheaton >>To: theos-l@vnet.net >>Subject: female Mahatmas >>Message-ID: <3176F511.1D66@bart.ccis.com> >> >>Are there any female Mahatmas? >> > >Dear Richard, > >I have yet to find any. > >There's the World Mother, but you have to look real hard to find references >to her. >There's the male Avalokiteshvara who turned into the female Quan Yin. >There are female goddesses in other ancient religions, but the closest thing >to a Mahatma we've got is a high chela, Helena P. Blavatsky. > >Liesel >Member TI< TSA, TS in Canada, HR > > >Liesel: To confuse a Mahatma with what humanity foolishly calls "Gods" and "Goddesses" is a terrible error. Mahatmas (adepts and illuminati) are all still living breathing individuals. "The World Mother" is a symbolic figure and while it has a kind of reality on the non-physical planes of manifestation, has nothing to do with "The Perfected Human" or Adept. Figures like Kwan Yin or Kannon, or Avolokitishvara are what the Ancient Egyptians called "Neters" (Isis, Thoth, Horus etc.) which are manifestations and symbols of the forces inherent in nature. I've posted lists, directly to you, of women who were clearly adepts or Mahatmas (even CWL admitted that Hypatia was an adept). Why is it so hard to accept that actual people whose histories you know can be adepts. If an adept has to be a "God" or "Goddess" what use is the kind of self-improvement theosophy provides. HPB was an adept and her "handler" Narayan was clearly an advanced adept, all that "high Cela business was a blind to keep her out of trouble. On this subject Liesel, you are absolutely wrong, and I have no doubts about it. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 20 06:13:48 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:13:48 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960420061348.006d9234@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: to: Alexis At 09:07 PM 4/19/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>How about..."A circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference >>>exists not at all. >>> >>>alexis dolgorukii' > >Dear Alexis, as far as I remember, that's a quote froom Taimni. > >Liesel > >He may have used it, but I'm not aware of it. I do know that HPB used it, but she too got it from elsewhere as did I. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 20 06:16:57 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:16:57 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960420061657.006edc4c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: quote At 10:07 PM 4/19/96 -0400, you wrote: >On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > >> >>>How about..."A circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference >> >>exists not at all. >> >> >> >>alexis dolgorukii' >> >> Dear Alexis, as far as I remember, that's a quote froom Taimni. >> >> Liesel > >L - > I believe the "boundless circle" is an extremely old symbol. I >think it's mentioned somewhere in the Zohar (or at least is alluded to), >and in fact I think HPB mentions it in the SD. > -JRC > >She does, and if I am not mistaken it also appears in "Isis", it is clearly, though in defferent words and languages at least inferred in the Zohar, and it far pre-dates all of those. This was a concept very well known to Democritus, Anaximander, and Thales. One of the things most theosophists forget is that theosophy, per se, isn't particularly original. alexis dolgorukii member TI,FTSA From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 20 06:19:54 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:19:54 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960420061954.006d52fc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Emerson A > >Was it Emerson or Thoreau who penned those words? >(one or the other - my memory fades with the passing of the >years - perhaps it's the lack of B-12 in the vegan diet) > > >Maynard S. Clark vrc@tiac.net info@vegetarian.org > I'm pretty sure it was Emerson. alexis dolgorukii From olcott@cedar.cic.net Sat Apr 20 07:13:26 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 03:13:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: Senzar In-Reply-To: <3176F579.6ED2@bart.ccis.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Richard Wheaton wrote: > Does anyone know anything about Senzar or where I can find information > about it? > John Algeo wrote a little book, SENZAR: THE MYSTERY OF THE MYSTERY LANGUAGE, published by Theosophical History Centre, London, 1988 (32 p.) It is available from TPH Wheaton for $6.00 plus $2.75 postage within US. Call 1-800-669-9425 (credit card orders only) The book can be borrowed from the Olcott Library. You must be a member of TSA, resident in the US; or a member of the Olcott Library. For a brochure on the use of the library, please send your postal address. Elisabeth Trumpler Head Librarian Olcott Library & Research Center send e-mail to: olcott@dupagels.lib.il.us From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Apr 20 14:56:45 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 09:56:45 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Free E-Mail and Theosophy Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII A new phenomenon is in the works. Imagine everyone with a PC or MAC having an e-mail for *free* -- yes *free*. Even homes can have multiple e-mail addresses for each member of the household. Think of the number of people who may be using e-mail in the US. Just like we all have *free* TV programming paid for my advertisers, two companies - Freemark Communication and Juno are beta testing their services and are expected to make them available soon. To each e-mail message that is displayed on the screen there will be an ad. The Advertiser pays for your use of e-mail. These companies provide the software and access to their computers to send and receive e-mail. For the privilege of having e-mail for free, you have to put up with reading the ads attached to e-mail. The service these companies provide will be restricted to e-mail - no www browsing. In the context of universal free e-mail availability, there is a very great potential for every group or organization to take full advantage of to communicate with others interested in the activity of interest. I think all Theosophy groups can take full advantage to communicate with its members and others interested persons. It is a great opportunity we cannot afford to miss. I think every organizations need to move fast. Those who are behind the curve need to get in front of the curve and not behind it. One of the problems that we see is the *lack* of either the understanding of the potential inherent in the technology or the *fear* of losing control over the information that is dispensed to the followers/audience. Information is power. Since the technology is new and many in the administrative hierarchy are in their sixties and perhaps seventies and have grown up in an entirely different technological culture and era, it is time to bring in knowledgeable *experts* who have a better appreciation of the technology and what it can do. A case in point is the theos-l. It was not the result of an organization taking the lead and taking advantage of technology. It was the vision and lead and commitment of one man John E Mead (I think DeGracia may have had a role to play also). Take also the case of a web page. We have two web pages - one on vnet and the other on garlic. The one one vnet was again put up by the efforts of two individuals - John Mead and Don DeGracia. And it was put up in a couple of *days* -- and not months or years. I do not know how many days it took for Rudy for his web pages. Surely, it was not months or years. As for the official web page of TSA, we are still waiting and they are working on it. Eldon took the trouble to find out and posted a message. We are all grateful for it. It is interesting to note that all the hardware listed in his message are off-the shelf items that one can walk into a good computer hardware store and walk out with. One of the items may have to be obtained locally in Chicago from a specialty dealer same day or the next. The only thing that may take some days is the registering the domain - about two weeks and the telephone company to hook up the line. Why I am pointing these out here? Going a little faster may surely help spreading of Theosophy to the masses. I would invite all those in this list -- *especially those who have been complaining about not much substantial stuff being discussed* -- come up with suggestions, ideas, opinions, criticisms, plans, so that we can make Theosophy reach a larger audience thru e-mail and thereby affect the lives of large number of human beings for the better. Sorry for the long message. .....doss From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Apr 20 15:21:38 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 10:21:38 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Eudora Pro 2.2 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Alexis: I noticed that you got the Eudora Pro and will be using it very shortly. It is one of the best programs out there with advanced features such as multiple mailboxes, filtering ability. There is one more thing I like about Eudora Light and Pro. The message files are kept as ASCII files and some times I go and using my word processor pull out a message and compose a reply with my word processor. The one of the features that is missing in Eudora Pro is this -- sometime in a message I want to import a text file in the middle of the message and when I do this, I would like to see how the whole message looks -- I would like to see the entire message before sending it out. While Eudora Pro will handle it as an attachment in the middle of the message, it would not display it as part of the message when you are composing the message. The only program I know which does this is the professional version of BeyondMail. The personal version of BeyondMail which is to be released next week may have it at some time in the future. What I do not like about BeyondMail is that it *does not* keep the messages in a straight ascii file. For that reason I am keeping away from BeyondMail. Keep us all informed about your experience with the filtering and other features of Eudora Pro. BTW, I see some others here also use Eudora Pro. You can sometimes find this information by displaying the full header in the incoming messages. In Eudora Pro, click on "Blah Blah" button. .....doss From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Apr 20 15:32:51 1996 Date: 20 Apr 96 11:32:51 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: ethics and morality Message-Id: <960420153251_76400.1474_HHL30-1@CompuServe.COM> >Hallelujah! If intention is the only key does that mean we can kill the >Christians in the name of stopping them from getting more bad Karma? :-) Chuck, its the least we can do for 'em. A win-win situation. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Apr 20 15:32:53 1996 Date: 20 Apr 96 11:32:53 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: ethics and morality Message-Id: <960420153253_76400.1474_HHL30-2@CompuServe.COM> Chuck, Orwell was right! Jerry S. Member, TI From RIhle@aol.com Sat Apr 20 16:01:11 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 12:01:11 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960420120110_474217565@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: MESSENGER #14--Correction >Chuck writes> >I've been studiously avoiding reading threads that are bad for my blood >pressure these days and I reccommend you do the same. >By the way, it was an article you wrote about the TS in the short lived >journal Gnostica in the 1970's that got me into the TS in the first place, so >you have heavy Karma. >I think Alan has a hair shirt somewhere you may want to borrow. >Just thought you'd like to know. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA Richard Ihle writes> Chuck, I think any "heavy karma" which might be the result of having influenced you to check-out the TS would actually be very much on the positive side. When I think of you, I am often reminded of the company which wanted to import expensive tropical fish from across the ocean. This would have been a very profitable venture except for the fact that more than half the fish would always be found dead in their tanks upon their arrival in the United States. The solution was simple: the company just started putting a bullhead in each tank. While it was true that the bullheads ate a few of the tropical fish, the great aeration of the water created as the bullheads chased their victims during the long voyage enabled 99% of the rest to survive. . . . From my vantage, at least, even more important than any Magical technique in the progressive improvement of Self-awareness is the simple incentive provided by PAIN resulting from unsatisfactory semi-Self (egoic) indulgence. If individuals reaped nothing but success from their egoic delusions (e.g., the fourth-level "I REALLY AM the idea I am drawn to," or the fifth-level "I REALLY AM my desire-free idea") there would be little incentive to develop and continuously maintain the "Once-Removed Vantage." You have helped far more people than you hurt with your humor, I assure you. Most people, regardless of what they say, probably do not press the *delete* key when they see your messages; rather, they likely just read them with a hightened degree of Mindfulness because they can never predict what you will say. If they could keep this up in all the other areas of their lives, they would walk the earth as gods for sure. The reason I try to discourage myself and others from resorting to the all-too-easy characterizations of people's motivations or personal attributes in arguments is simply that these things do not fight the actual Desire-Mental or Mental semi-Selves the individuals may be indulging. Calling someone "condescending," for example, does not damage the "garment" of the mental type of semi-Self; it merely forces the person to take it off for a while and utilize ("become") a Desire-Feeling semi-Self for protection. After the familiar third-level fight of emotional charge and counter-charge, the individual can then go back and put on the same undamaged and unchanged mental-ego garb. In the long run, keeping the "character traits" of the participants out of arguments seems like a more efficacious approach. If a person can be shown that the garment of his or her idea is not so exalted or indefectable that it immediately subordinates all others wearing different garments, there is a much better chance the person will not be tempted to rely on it as a *full-blown* substitute for his or her Inner Identity. No, a person like you is very valuable for the theosophical life. Not only are you a good model of someone with enough "psychological flexibility" to easily juxtapose dissimilar planes to achieve humorous effect, but your mere presence reminds others--as it is reminding me now in this extended exposition--not to *completely* lose the Self in temporary transformation to mental semi-Self. --After all, Chuck is around, so there is a very good chance that he will be able to perceive some unnoticed incongruity or humor in one's oh-so-serious and sacred and Self-suicidal idea. Chuck's Lesson: Parade in the mental garment for a while, but always be ready to throw it aside with the passing comment, "*That* raggedy idea wasn't the Real Me anyway.". . . Thanks, Chuck. Godspeed, Richard Ihle From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 20 17:40:02 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 13:40:02 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960420134001_474266811@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Wheaton (College and Illinois) It is doubtful that vegetarianism will ever catch on in the Chicago suburbs. We like our beef. And there is a great little gyros place right across the street from Olcott where I go eat lunch during convention because what the cooks at Olcott do to vegetables should not be done to--well, I better not say that. Chuck MTI, FTSA From vrc@tiac.net Sat Apr 20 19:44:42 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 15:44:42 -0400 From: Vegetarian Resource Center Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960420153909.27479056@pop.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Are theosophists vegetarians? Are theosophists vegetarians? I always thought so. If that has changed, I'm on the wrong list. Please RSVP with a positive response. (My reflection is that negative responses would be wrong.) - Maynard S. Clark From vrc@tiac.net Sat Apr 20 19:46:59 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 15:46:59 -0400 From: Vegetarian Resource Center Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960420154126.18af9e16@pop.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Eudora 2.2 I use Eudora 2.2 I have had numerous problems with it and therefore am probably as experienced as anyone in sharing with you some of its strengths and weaknesses. There are other programs, of course, but I honestly PREFER Eudora 2.2 Nonetheless, there are some serious drawbacks, none of which will be admitted by Qualcomm. But THAT'S OK, since the folks at Qualcomm are pretty good folks, and they even sent e-mail around the company announcing the 8th International Vegan Festival when we went to San Diego, the location of the Qualcomm headquarters. - Maynard S. Clark Maynard S. Clark vrc@tiac.net info@vegetarian.org Vegetarian Resource Center, P. O. Box 38-1068, Cambridge, MA 02238-1068 617-625-3790 (Voice, or Fax by arrangement) 617-357-2064 or 2194 (Facsimile) Listowner: Geographical - VEG-FL, VEG-NE (check out Regl Veg Project) Topical: Veg-BIZ, Veg-EDU, Veg-ORG, Special Groups: Veg-PARENT, Veg-REL, Veg-SINGLE, Veg-TEEN http://www.tiac.net/users/vrc/vrc.html Visit and Use our Research Library at the Peace Abbey in Sherborn MA. Build a vegetarian network! Find countless other vegetarians. A Simple, 1-Stop Contact for Vegetarian Information Retrieval-Referral-Advice There are countless vegetarian resources; we'll show you how to find them... From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sat Apr 20 20:25:21 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 14:25:21 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Are theosophists vegetarians? In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960420153909.27479056@pop.tiac.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, Vegetarian Resource Center wrote: > Are theosophists vegetarians? > > I always thought so. > If that has changed, I'm on the wrong list. > > Please RSVP with a positive response. > (My reflection is that negative responses would be wrong.) > > - Maynard S. Clark Maynard ... Though I hope it doesn't cause you to leave the list, no, they aren't not necessarily. Some are, some aren't. But there is certainly no requirement to be, nor has there ever been - and it would have been difficult to make such a requirement, as HPB wasn't even a vegetarian. -JRC From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Apr 20 21:15:06 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 16:15:06 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Are theosophists vegetarians? In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960420153909.27479056@pop.tiac.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi Theosophy does not demand anything. Membership in the Theosophical Society requires only one tobe in sympathy with the first object - Universal Brotherhood. In practice many many Theosophists are vegetarians out of their own conviction not because of any requirement from the Theosophical Society. In addition, many Theosophist have worked hard for the betterment of the conditions of all living beings. They have been active in Animal Rights Movement. The writer had the privilege of seeing the local animal rights organization from incorporation to getting tax exempt status. So you are in the right place. Feel free to post anything that might interest us here. If there is any way we can answer any questions, please let me know. ...doss On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, Vegetarian Resource Center wrote: > Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 15:43:11 -0400 > From: Vegetarian Resource Center > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Are theosophists vegetarians? > > Are theosophists vegetarians? > > I always thought so. > If that has changed, I'm on the wrong list. > > Please RSVP with a positive response. > (My reflection is that negative responses would be wrong.) > > - Maynard S. Clark > > From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Apr 20 21:18:32 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 16:18:32 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Eudora 2.2 In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960420154126.18af9e16@pop.tiac.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Glad to see your msg. In San Antonio Texas where I live, there is a local Vegetarian Group. Most of the members are also active in the local animal rights group. Glad to know that Qualcomm publicised Vegetarian activities. ....doss On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, Vegetarian Resource Center wrote: > Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 15:47:41 -0400 > From: Vegetarian Resource Center > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Eudora 2.2 > > I use Eudora 2.2 > > I have had numerous problems with it and therefore am probably as > experienced as anyone in sharing with you some of its strengths and weaknesses. > > There are other programs, of course, but I honestly PREFER Eudora 2.2 > > Nonetheless, there are some serious drawbacks, none of which will be > admitted by Qualcomm. > But THAT'S OK, since the folks at Qualcomm are pretty good folks, > and they even sent e-mail around the company announcing the 8th > International Vegan Festival when we went to San Diego, the location of the > Qualcomm headquarters. > > - Maynard S. Clark > > > Maynard S. Clark vrc@tiac.net info@vegetarian.org > Vegetarian Resource Center, P. O. Box 38-1068, Cambridge, MA 02238-1068 > 617-625-3790 (Voice, or Fax by arrangement) 617-357-2064 or 2194 (Facsimile) > > Listowner: Geographical - VEG-FL, VEG-NE (check out Regl Veg Project) > Topical: Veg-BIZ, Veg-EDU, Veg-ORG, > Special Groups: Veg-PARENT, Veg-REL, Veg-SINGLE, Veg-TEEN > http://www.tiac.net/users/vrc/vrc.html > Visit and Use our Research Library at the Peace Abbey in Sherborn MA. > > Build a vegetarian network! Find countless other vegetarians. > A Simple, 1-Stop Contact for Vegetarian Information Retrieval-Referral-Advice > There are countless vegetarian resources; we'll show you how to find them... > > From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Apr 20 21:21:47 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 16:21:47 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Are theosophists vegetarians? In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Many active members of TS were/are lacto-ovo vegetarians and some are not. Even those who are not, have supported vegetarian activities. An unusual situation! ....doss On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, JRC wrote: > Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 16:28:26 -0400 > From: JRC > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Are theosophists vegetarians? > > On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, Vegetarian Resource Center wrote: > > > Are theosophists vegetarians? > > > > I always thought so. > > If that has changed, I'm on the wrong list. > > > > Please RSVP with a positive response. > > (My reflection is that negative responses would be wrong.) > > > > - Maynard S. Clark > > Maynard ... > Though I hope it doesn't cause you to leave the list, no, they > aren't not necessarily. Some are, some aren't. But there is certainly no > requirement to be, nor has there ever been - and it would have been > difficult to make such a requirement, as HPB wasn't even a vegetarian. > -JRC > From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 20 21:40:53 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:40:53 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960420174052_195122397@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: vive la difference! Alex, Don't give some of our brethren any ideas! Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 20 21:41:17 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:41:17 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960420174117_195122619@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: !!!!!! Alex, I would be perfectly happy to end their ignorance if I thought it would happen. I am just more cynical about such things than you and I doubt that if they really believe it anything will shake them and if they do not, they will find something better eventually. Besides, they have lots of lifetimes to learn, except of course for the true Xtians, who, being like viruses, bacteria, and mosquitos, have no souls, are not sentient beings and do not reincarnate. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 20 21:41:24 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:41:24 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960420174123_195122690@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: ethics and morality Jerry, There is debate whether Musashi attained enlightenment because he killed his 63 opponents with such one-pointed concentration or because his participation in the extermination of the Japanese Xtians gave him such karmic merit that all his past negative Karma was removed. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Apr 20 21:41:27 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:41:27 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960420174127_195122731@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: MESSENGER #14--Correction Rich, Thanks. I really needed that. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 20 21:48:20 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:48:20 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604202252.SAA10381@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: changeing your personality > one of the major warnings >about the dangers of practicing ritual magic is that it can change your >personality. This, from several New Age book reviewers who were >reviewing my Enochian books. Jerry Is it that the personality changes to something unwanted, & something that just happens and not within the person's wishes? ie is it a very negative, unwanted change, maybe? I'm guessing, but that would make sense to me. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 20 21:58:03 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:58:03 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604202302.TAA15500@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Vegetarian Resource Center If any institution, especially along the East Coast, is interested in a vegetarian workshop, David Hirsch, one of the owners of the Moosewood Restaurant in Ithaca, NY has conducted a number of those. He's also written a number of cookbooks, some together with the other Moosewood owners, & some by himself. Anyone interested, can contact me. I have his phone number, & am in touch fairly frequently. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS i Canda, HR From Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Sat Apr 20 23:09:12 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 96 16:09:12 PDT From: Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Message-Id: <9604202312.AA09510@orchid.tc.pw.com> Subject: changeing your personality To Liesel and Jerry and whomever else: Do the reviewers you've referred to specify what type of ritual magic may cause these changes? --------------------------------------- > one of the major warnings >about the dangers of practicing ritual magic is that it can change your >personality. This, from several New Age book reviewers who were >reviewing my Enochian books. Jerry Is it that the personality changes to something unwanted, & something that just happens and not within the person's wishes? ie is it a very negative, unwanted change, maybe? I'm guessing, but that would make sense to me. Liesel From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Apr 20 23:28:23 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 18:28:23 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960420183038.1c07b3e6@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Are theosophists vegetarians? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Clark: It may also be of some interest to you that as a rule, in all the property owned by the Theosophical Society world-wide, no preparation as well as consumption of meat, sea food or chicken and other birds are not allowed. I am sure such a restriction is in place and is observed in the TS Headquarters in Wheaton, IL. There may very very rare exceptions. This should give you a flavor of the defacto commitment of the Theosophical Society as regards Vegetarianism. So, again, you are in the right spot. Hope you are happy to see this and my prior message. ....Doss >> From: Vegetarian Resource Center , on 4/20/96 3:43 PM: >> Are theosophists vegetarians? >> >> I always thought so. >> If that has changed, I'm on the wrong list. >> >> Please RSVP with a positive response. >> (My reflection is that negative responses would be wrong.) >> >> - Maynard S. Clark >> >> > From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 20 22:45:04 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 18:45:04 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604202349.TAA06358@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Free E-Mail and Theosophy Dear Doss, That may sound attractive to some people. I think, as long as I can afford the $25.- or so to subscribe to a server, I'd just as soon spend the money & do without the ads. Looking at ads, to me, is a terrible waste of time. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 20 22:45:00 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 18:45:00 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604202349.TAA06343@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: female adepts Dear Alexis, You're right, I was absolutely wrong. I was looking for females among all the holy & venerated people in the world, & there are powerfully few. So the answer is there aren't any female Mahatmas, because HPB was only a chela, & I don't know of any female who was really an adept. Liesel From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 20 00:03:34 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:03:34 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <3RifPEAWnCexEwKd@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: MESSENGER #14--Correction In-Reply-To: <960419174607_517716406@emout09.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960419174607_517716406@emout09.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >I think Alan has a hair shirt somewhere you may want to borrow. >Just thought you'd like to know. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA You must be kidding! Not my style - I am a happy sinner, not a miserable one! Alan (well I try) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From JPROLSTON@aol.com Sun Apr 21 01:23:16 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 21:23:16 -0400 From: JPROLSTON@aol.com Message-Id: <960420212315_518442886@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: New Theosophical Magazine Dear Friend, We'd like to announce the formation of a new internet publication dedicated to the original teachings of Theosophy. The intent of the magazine is to offer original articles, news items, reprints from theosophical journals, and commentary from the subscribers. The focus will be on theosophical source writings, like those of H.P. Blavatsky and W.Q. Judge, later writers that follow the same lineage, like Robert Crosbie and G. de Purucker, new materials from religion and science that throw new light on the Teachings, and original philosophical inquiry along theosophical lines. This online magazine, "Theosophy World", will be implemented in the form of three mailing lists. Each list represents a different department of the magazine. "Theosophical Papers" (theos-papers@theosophy.com) will distribute the articles that are written. "Theosophical Notes" (theos-notes@theosophy.com) will distribute the news notes and short items that are written. "Theosophical Talk" (theos-talk@theosophy.com) will distribute the letters to the editors, as well as facilitate discussion and exploaration of theosophical ideas and teachings. The articles and news notes will be on moderated lists, so that the editors can insure (a) the lists are used for new postings and not discussions, (b) the lists contain materials that are sufficiently polished to be deemed read for the readership (although the standards won't be held as high as those for a printed publication), and (c) the content of "Theosophy World" maintain a consistent focus on theosophical themes, as determined by the best judgment of the editors. The third department, "Theosophical Talk", will be unmoderated, to allow for an open discussion of the topics presented in the magazine. From this list may also arise ideas for future articles, generated out of the discussion. Significant comments are encouraged; one-line comments like "I liked that!" or "Huh?" should be sent directly to the author, and not posted. Articles and new items may be signed by the author or submitted as anonymous contributions (to be attributed to "A Student"). The real name and email address of the contributor would be retained by the editors. Email directed to the author of a particular anonymous article would be forwarded, as a courtesy, by the editors, using this information. "Theosophy World" is scheduled to go on-line in June, 1996. Additional information will be provided, as it becomes available, regarding how to subscribe, the initial number of subscribers, and individuals indicating an interest in contributing materials to the publication. The magazine will attempt to provide a stream of focused materials on Theosophy and of interest to Theosophists, breaking it apart into three departments which can be separately subscribed to, based upon one's interest. People interested in receiving a series of articles and reprints on theosophical topics would subscribe to "Theosophical Papers". Those interested in short pieces, including news and science notes, would subscribe to "Theosophical Notes". And those interested in a discussion would subscribe to "Theosophical Talk". One does not have to wade through the talk, though, if one only wants to read the articles and/or the notes. At a later date, there may be a paper edition of extracts from "Theosophy World", available via surface mail. The details regarding this edition are not available at this time. We now come to the BIG question: What can you do to help us get started, and to insure that you're kept up-to-date on our progress? First, you can indicate your interest by writing to theos-world@ theosophy.com. Second, you can pass this message on to others you may know that have internet access and might like to receive and/or contribute to the new publication. Your interest and support is appreciated. We're soon to move into a new century, and a new, fresh, original push to Theosophy is needed at this time! Our intent is to help this push with "Theosophy World", and your participation is invaluable! -- The Editors reply to theos-world@theosophy.com From rwheaton@bart.ccis.com Sun Apr 21 01:24:09 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 18:24:09 -0700 From: rwheaton@bart.ccis.com Message-Id: <31798E39.48FA@bart.ccis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Golden Dawn Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "The formation of an Esoteric Section (or school) of Theosophy was intimately connected with another influential force of the 19th century, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn." Quote from (The Key of It All), by David Allen Hulse, page xxxii vol. 1. Does anyone know what school Hulse may be talking about? From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Apr 21 03:27:35 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 22:27:35 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: New Theosophical Magazine In-Reply-To: <960420212315_518442886@emout10.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear Friend: A very welcome news and would be looking forward to the lists. In the meanwhile, can you enlighten us on: (1) who are the editors/moderators (2) who is (organization and/or person(s)) providing the financial and administrative support to the lists (3) are there going to be any charges to subscribe to these lists? Your response on the above will be appreciated. MK Ramadoss ============================================== On Sat, 20 Apr 1996 JPROLSTON@aol.com wrote: > Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 21:27:18 -0400 > From: JPROLSTON@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: New Theosophical Magazine > > Dear Friend, > > We'd like to announce the formation of a new internet publication dedicated > to the original teachings of Theosophy. The intent of the magazine is to > offer original articles, news items, reprints from theosophical journals, and > commentary from the subscribers. > > The focus will be on theosophical source writings, like those of H.P. > Blavatsky and W.Q. Judge, later writers that follow the > same lineage, like Robert Crosbie and G. de Purucker, new > > materials from religion and science that throw new light on the Teachings, > and original philosophical inquiry along theosophical lines. > > > This online magazine, "Theosophy World", will be implemented in the form of > three mailing lists. Each list represents a > different department of the magazine. > > > "Theosophical Papers" (theos-papers@theosophy.com) will > > distribute the articles that are written. > > > "Theosophical Notes" (theos-notes@theosophy.com) will distribute the news > notes and short items that are written. > > "Theosophical Talk" (theos-talk@theosophy.com) will distribute the letters to > the editors, as well as facilitate discussion and exploaration of > theosophical ideas and teachings. > > The articles and news notes will be on moderated lists, so that the editors > can insure (a) the lists are used for new postings and not discussions, (b) > the lists contain materials that are sufficiently polished to be deemed read > for the readership (although the standards won't be held as high as those for > a printed publication), and (c) the content of "Theosophy World" maintain a > consistent focus on theosophical themes, as determined by the best judgment > of the editors. > > The third department, "Theosophical Talk", will be unmoderated, to allow for > an open discussion of the topics presented in the magazine. From this list > may also arise ideas for future articles, generated out of the discussion. > Significant comments are encouraged; one-line comments like "I liked that!" > or "Huh?" should be sent directly to the author, and not posted. > > > Articles and new items may be signed by the author or submitted as anonymous > contributions (to be attributed to "A Student"). The real name and email > address of the contributor would be retained by the editors. Email directed > to the author of a particular anonymous article would be forwarded, as a > courtesy, by the editors, using this information. > > > "Theosophy World" is scheduled to go on-line in June, 1996. > > Additional information will be provided, as it becomes available, regarding > how to subscribe, the initial number of subscribers, and individuals > indicating an interest in contributing materials to the publication. > > > The magazine will attempt to provide a stream of focused > materials on Theosophy and of interest to Theosophists, breaking it apart > into three departments which can be separately subscribed to, based upon > one's interest. > > People interested in receiving a series of articles and reprints > > on theosophical topics would subscribe to "Theosophical Papers". Those > interested in short pieces, including news and science notes, would subscribe > to "Theosophical Notes". And those interested in a discussion would subscribe > to "Theosophical Talk". One does not have to wade through the talk, though, > if one only wants to read the articles and/or the notes. > > > At a later date, there may be a paper edition of extracts from > > "Theosophy World", available via surface mail. The details > > regarding this edition are not available at this time. > > > We now come to the BIG question: What can you do to help us get > > started, and to insure that you're kept up-to-date on our > > progress? > > > First, you can indicate your interest by writing to theos-world@ > theosophy.com. > > Second, you can pass this message on to others you may know that have > internet access and might like to receive and/or contribute to the new > publication. > > Your interest and support is appreciated. We're soon to move > > into a new century, and a new, fresh, original push to Theosophy is needed at > this time! Our intent is to help this push with "Theosophy World", and your > participation is invaluable! > > -- The Editors > > > reply to theos-world@theosophy.com > From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Apr 21 03:32:20 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 22:32:20 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Free E-Mail and Theosophy In-Reply-To: <199604202349.TAA06358@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear Liesel: Many feel like what you feel. However, there are many who are not yet on e-mail or Internet not because they cannot afford to spend $20/month, but do not consider it justified and for them it would be a boon. I am looking into this segment of users. Anyhow, we will have to wait and see what the public response is. ....doss On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 19:53:14 -0400 > From: liesel f. deutsch > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Free E-Mail and Theosophy > > Dear Doss, > > That may sound attractive to some people. I think, as long as I can afford > the $25.- or so to subscribe to a server, I'd just as soon spend the money & > do without the ads. Looking at ads, to me, is a terrible waste of time. > > Liesel > Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR > > From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Sat Apr 20 22:55:06 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 10:55:06 +1200 From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Message-Id: <199604202255.KAA06419@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: HPB @ Olcott With the recent talk about HPB I thought this might be of interest. It is from the Diary Leaves by Col Olcott and if you have read it just hit the delete key . Page 103. In tracing up HPB's literary history from that point until the close of her life, one important fact should be borne in mind by such as are willing to do her simple justice. She was not a learned woman, in the literary sense, when she came to America. When, long after Isis Unveiled was begun, I inquired of her ever-beloved aunt Mdlle. Fadeyef, where her niece had acquired all this varied kmowledge of recondite philosophies, metaphysics, and sciences, this prodigiously intuitive comprehension of ethnical evolution, the migrations of ideas, the occult forces of nature, etc., she wrote me frankly that up to their last meeting, some four or five years previously, Helena had "not even thought of such things in her dreams," that her education had been simply that of any young lady of good family. She had learnt, besides her native Russian, French, a little English, a smattering of Italian, and music: she was astounded at my accounts of her erudition, and could only attribute it to the same sort of inspiration as had been enjoyed by the Apostles, who, on the Day of Pentecost, spoke in strange tongues of which they had previously been ignorant. She added that from her childhood her niece had been a medium, more extraordinary for psychical power and variety of phenomena than any of whom she had read in the whole course of a lifelong study of the subject. I had a better chance than any of her friends to know what were her actual literary attainments, having helped her in her correspondence and labours of authorship and corrected almost every page of her MSS for years. ..snip... Whether HPB did or did not acquire her practical psychical knowledge or powers in the East, it is undeniable that she 'had' them, could practise them whenever she liked, and that her explanations of them were identical with those which are given in the teachings of every Eastern school of Occult Science. I, personally, can further testify that she was in relations with Eastern adepts, and that not only she, but even I, was visited by them, conversed with them and was taught by them, before leaving America and after reaching India." On page 107 he says this. "Nor, as said, was she an orderly or accurate writer; her mind seemed to rush ahead at such a pace, and streams of thought came pouring from both sides in such force that confusion and want of method were the result in her writing. She laughed once, but confessed the justness of the comparison, when I told her that her mind was like Dickens's image of Mugby Junction, with its ceaseless trains screaming out, backing and shunting, and from morning to night keeping up a bewildering confusion. But beginning with the 'Hiraf' article, and coming down to the last line she wrote for type, one thing must honestly be said - her writing was always full of thought-suggestion, brilliant and virile in style, while her keen sense of humour often seasoned her most ponderous essays wit hmirth-provoking ideas. To the methodical scholar she was exasperating, yet never dull or uninteresting. Later on, I shall have occasion to speak of the phenomenal changes in her literary and conversational moods and styles. I have said, and shall always reiterate, that I learnt more from her than from any schoolmaster, professor, or author I ever had to do with. Her psychical greatness, however so overmatched her early education and mental discipline that the critics who knew her only in literature have done her a bitter and savage injustice. XB Saintine writes, in Picciola, that the penalty of greatness is isolation; her case proves the aphorism; she dwelt on spiritual heights wither only the eagles of manking soar. Most of her adversaries have only seen the mud on her shoes; and, verily, sometimes she wiped them even on her friends who could not mount on wings as strong as her own." On page 98 he says "This will give my Indian readers an idea of the extraordinary physical phenomena which were going on at the time in the Western countries. In the East, similar displacements of solid things, such as household furniture, cooking utensils, articles of clothing, etc are occasionally heard of, but always with horror, and the eye-witnesses have scarecely ever dreamt of making them the subject of scientific research: on the contrary, they are looked upon as misfortunes, the work of evil spirits, often of earth-bound souls of near relatives and intimate friends, and their greatest desire is to abate them as unqualified nuisances. I only repeat what has often been explained before by all theosophical writers, in saying that intercourse between the living and their deceased friends and connections is, to the Asiatic, an abhorrent proof that the dead are not happily dissevered from earthly concerns, and thus are hampered in their normal evolution towards the condition of pure spirit. The West, as a whole, despite its religious creed, is grossly materialistic, imagining the future life as but an extension of this in time, - and in space too, if one comes to consider its physical conceptions of heaven and hell - and can only grasp the actuality of post-morten conscious existence through such concrete physical phenomena as M Aksakoff enumerates, and the many others which astonish the visitors to mediums.** Here is an interesting footnote. **In drafting the much-discussed "Third Object" of the Theosophical Society, at New York, my mind was influenced by the knowledge of this fact, and, at the same time, by my ignorance of the full scope of Oriental Science. Had I known what evils were to come upon us through the pretended development of psychical powers, I should have worded it otherwise.** He doesn't say how he would have worded it. He continues; "The East, on the other hand, is spiritual and philosophical in its conceptions, and phenomena of the above kind are to Asiatics but evidence of the possession of a low order of psychical powers by those who show them. The incidents of my flower-born ring, of Mrs Thayer's showers of plants, flowers, and birds, and of Mrs Youngs's lifting of pianos on eggs, strike the Western materialist's imagination, not as horrors but simply as interesting lies, too scientifically revolutionary to be true, yet vastly important if so, I suppose I must have heard a hundred times if once,in India, that it was a great pity that HPB showed phenomena, for it went to prove that she had not reached a high stage of Yoga. True, the Yogi is warned by Patanjali, as the contempory 'bhikdhus' were by Gautama Buddha, to beware of vainly showing their wonders when they found the 'siddhis' had developed themselves in the course of their psychical evolution. Yet the Buddha himself sometimes displayed his transcendent powers of this kind, but improved the occasion to preach the noble doctrines of his Arya Dharma, and spur his hearers to the noblest efforts to spiritualise, after de-brutifying themselves. And so with most other religious teachers. Did not HPB adopt the like policy? Did she not, even while doing her wonders, warn us all that they were a very subordinate and insignificant part of Theosophy - some, mere hypnotic suggestions, others physical marvels in the handling of matter and force, by knowledge of their secrets and an acquired control over the elemental races concerned with cosmic phenomena?" Page 109. "I am sure all earnest members of the Theosophical Society will be glad to know that as early as July 1875, HPB affirmed the existence of the Eastern Adepts, of the mystic Brotherhood, of the stores of divine knowledge in their keeping, and of her personl connection with them." Snip "Spiritualism, in the hads of an adept, becomes Magic, for he is learned in the art of blending together the laws of the Universe, without breaking any of them and thereby violating Nature. In the hands of an inexperienced medium, Spiritualism becomes UNCONSCIOUS SORCERY; (his Caps) for...he opens, unknown to himself, a door of communication between the two worlds, through which emerge the blind forces of Nature lurking in the astral Light, as well as good and bad spirits." Page 110 "I affirm my belief in the reality of ancient occult science, and the fact that I had unexpectedly 'been brought into contact with living persons who do, and had in my presence done the very marvels that Paracelsus, Albertus, and Appolonius are credited with'. In saying this, I had in mind not only HPB's multifariour phenomena, not only the beginnings of my intercourse with the Mahatmas, but also the disclosure to my own eyes, in my own bedroom, in a house where HPB did not live, and when she was not present, of the spirits of the elements, by a stranger whom I casually met in New York, one day shortly before penning the letter. The stranger came by appointment to my chambers. We opened the folding doors wich separated the sitting from the small bedroom, st on chairs facing the wide doorway, and by a wonderful process of Maya (I now suppose) I saw the bedroom converted, as it were, into a cube of empty space. The furniture had disappiared from my vbiew, and there appeared alternately vivid scenes of water, cloudy atmosphere, sunterranean caves, and an active volcano; each of the elements teeming with beings, and shapes, and faces, ofwhich I caught more of less transient glipses. Some of the forms were lovely, some malignant and fierce, some terrible. They would float into view as gently as bubbles on a smooth stream, or dart actoss the scene and disappear, or play and gambol together in flame or flood. Anon, a misshapen monster, as horrid to see as the pictures in Barretts Magus, would glare at me and plunge forward, asthough it wished to deize me as the wounded tiger does its victim, yet fading out on reaching the boundary of th cube of visualised Akash, where the two rooms joined. It was trying on one's nerves, but after my experiences at the Eddy's I managed not to 'weaken'. My stranger friend declated himself satisfied with the result of the psychical test, and, on leaving, said we might meet again. But until now we have not. He seemed a fair-skinned Asiatic, but I could not exactly detect his mationality, though I then fancied him a Hindu. He talked English as fluently as myself." Hope this is of interest to you all. \\// (o o) --o00-(_)-00o-- Stop the world,I wanna get off Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From malkin@gil.net Sun Apr 21 04:34:31 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 00:34:31 -0400 From: Ken Malkin Message-Id: <3179BAD7.6912@gil.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Listening Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Buds.txt" 0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAEwAAAAAA AAAAEAAAFgAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAABQAAAD///////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////9////BwAAAP7///8EAAAABQAAAAYAAAAIAAAA /v///wkAAAD+////CwAAAAwAAAANAAAADgAAAA8AAAAQAAAAEQAAABIAAAD+//////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////1IA bwBvAHQAIABFAG4AdAByAHkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAWAAUA//////////8DAAAAAAkCAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMBC 7tM1L7sBAwAAAEALAAAAAAAAAQBDAG8AbQBwAE8AYgBqAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIAAgH///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAbgAAAAAAAABXAG8AcgBkAEQAbwBjAHUA bQBlAG4AdAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGgACAf// //8EAAAA/////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAoAAACwEAAA AAAAAE8AYgBqAGUAYwB0AFAAbwBvAGwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWAAEBAQAAAAIAAAD/////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAakbT NS+7AQBqRtM1L7sBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAP7///////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////HwAAACAAAAAhAAAAIgAAACMA AAAkAAAAJQAAACYAAAAnAAAAKAAAACkAAAAqAAAAKwAAACwAAAD+//////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////8BAP7/ AwoAAP////8ACQIAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGHAAAAE1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkIDYuMCBEb2N1bWVu dAAKAAAATVNXb3JkRG9jABAAAABXb3JkLkRvY3VtZW50LjYA9DmycQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANDP EeChsRrhAAAAAAAAAAAAANDPEeChsRrhAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD4AAwD+/wkABgAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAABAAAAIAAAABAAAA/v///wAAAAAAAAAA//////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVYvBi+yD7ARTVleL HZjB9L+D6wSL+4sLjTSNAAAAACv+hcmLN4l1/HQSg/kBdwW5AQAAAI13BIPrBPOli3X8X4kz g8MEXokdmMH0v1uL5V3DVleLNZjB9L+D7gSLBoPuBIs+iQaD7gSLBok+iUYIi8FfXsNVi+yD 7AhTiU34gy2YwfS/BFahmMH0v1eLNYDB9L+LPaTB9L+LGIPHWLgAAAAAiR2swfS/iR2wwfS/ 9sIBdCWLRgSLDosUmIsMmf8VyMH0v4sNpMH0v4lF/ItRFIvI/1cYK0X8UIvTi87/FcTB9L+L RfhfXluL5V3DVYvsg+wQU4lV8FaJTfRXizWAwVRoYW5rIHlvdSBvbmUgYW5kIGFsbCBmb3Ig eW91ciBzdXBwb3J0aXZlLCBzYXJjYXN0aWMgYW5kIHNhcmRvbmljIHJlc3BvbnNlcyBib3Ro IHB1YmxpYyBhbmQgcHJpdmF0ZSB0byBteSByZWNlbnQgcG9zdGluZy4gIEZ1cnRoZXIsIEkg YXBwcmVjaWF0ZSB0aGUgY29ycmVjdGlvbiB0byBteSB0ZXh0LiBRdWl0ZSByaWdodCB3aG8g ZXZlciBzYWlkIGRyaXZlbCwgbm90IGRyaWJibGUsIHRoYW5rIHlvdS4gSSB3YXMgdGFrZW4g d2l0aCB0aGUgk0J1bGyUIGF0IHRoZSBtb21lbnQuIA1JIGRvIG5vdCBoYXZlIGEgc3RyaW5n IHRvIG9mZmVyLCBidXQgbWVyZWx5IGEgdGhyZWFkLiBXaXRoaW4gdGhlIHRhcGVzdHJ5IG9m IGxpZmUgd2Ugd2VhdmUsIGl0IHNlZW1zIHRvIG1lLCBjb21tZW5jaW5nIHRyYXZlbGVyIHRo YXQgSSBhbSwgYWxsIGlzIGEgdGhvdWdodCBmb3JtIG1hbmlmZXN0aW5nIGluIGEgbXlyaWFk IG9mIHdheXMuIEkgaGF2ZSBvYnNlcnZlZCwgYW5kIGJlbGlldmUsIGlmIHdlIHRoaW5rIGEg dGhpbmcsIHdlIGNyZWF0ZSBhIHRoaW5nLiBXaGF0ZXZlciB0aGUgbGV2ZWwgb2YgdGhvdWdo dCwgdW5kZXJseWluZyB0aGUgdWx0aW1hdGUgcmV0YXJkYXRpb24gb2YgdGhhdCBlbmVyZ3ks IGlzIG1hbmlmZXN0YXRpb24gYXMgZm9ybSBpbiBzb21lIG1hbm5lci4gV2UgYXJlIGp1c3Qg YXRvbXMgaW4gYSBncmVhdGVyIGJlaW5nIHdoZW4gYWxsIHBvc3NpYmlsaXRpZXMgaGF2ZSBi ZWVuIGV4cGxvcmVkLiBPdWdodCBidXQgdGhhdCByZWFsaXphdGlvbiB3aWxsIGFmZm9yZCBl c2NhcGUgZnJvbSBjYXJwaW5nIGVuZGxlc3NuZXNzLg1XaG8gYW0gSSB0byBibG93IGFnYWlu c3QgdGhlIHdpbmQsIGJ1dCBoYWQgSSBteSBkcnV0aGVycywgSSB3b3VsZCByYXRoZXIgc2Vl ayB0byByaWRlIHRoZSBjcmVzdCBvZiB0aGUgZXZvbHV0aW9uYXJ5IHdhdmUgcmF0aGVyIHRo YW4gZGFzaGVkIG9uIHRoZSBzaG9yZSBvZiBmb3JtLiANDQ3QzxHgobEa4QAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAA+AAMA/v8JAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH+/wAAA18AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAA 4IWf8vlPaBCrkQgAKyez2TAAAACQAwAADgAAAAcAAACYAAAAAgAAALwAAAAEAAAA4AEAAAgA AAAEAgAADAAAACgCAAALAAAATAIAAA0AAABwAgAADwAAAJQCAAAQAAAAuAIAAAUAUwB1AG0A bQBhAHIAeQBJAG4AZgBvAHIAbQBhAHQAaQBvAG4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAoAAIA////////////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HgAAAMADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP////////// /////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA////////////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACgAAANwCAAASAAAAAAMAAA4AAAAkAwAACQAAAEgDAAATAAAA bAMAAGb/ZgBm//8A/2ZmAP9m/wD//2YAwcHBAF9fXwB3d3cAHgAAABYAAABDOlxXSU5XT1JE XE5PUk1BTC5ET1QAAAAAAAAAHgAAAAABAABUaGFuayB5b3Ugb25lIGFuZCBhbGwgZm9yIHlv dXIgc3VwcG9ydGl2ZSwgc2FyY2FzdGljIGFuZCBzYXJkb25pYyByZXNwb25zZXMgYm90aCBw dWJsaWMgYW5kIHByaXZhdGUgdG8gbXkgcmVjZW50IHBvc3RpbmcuICBGdXJ0aGVyLCBJIGFw cHJlY2lhdGUgdGhlIGNvcnJlY3Rpb24gdG8gbXkgdGV4dC4gUXVpdGUgcmlnaHQgd2hvIGV2 ZXIgc2FpZCBkcml2ZWwsIG5vdCBkcmliYmxlLCB0aGFuayB5b3UuIEkgd2FzIHRha2VuIHdp dGggdGhlIJNCdWwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB4AAAALAAAAS2VuIE1h bGtpbgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB4AAAALAAAAS2VuIE1hbGtpbgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAEAAAAAASuU5FC+7AQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAwKRZi7feAQAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAASuU5FC+7AQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAB4AAAATAAAATWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgNi4wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB4AAAACAAAAMQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////9ylZQAzwAkEAAAAAGUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADAADTBgAAsBAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADTAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADAAA jAAAAAAMAACMAAAAjAwAAAAAAACMDAAAAAAAAIwMAAAAAAAAjAwAAAAAAACMDAAAFAAAALYM AAAAAAAAtgwAAAAAAAC2DAAAAAAAALYMAAAAAAAAtgwAAAAAAAC2DAAACgAAAMAMAAAKAAAA tgwAAAAAAADgDgAAVQAAAMoMAAAAAAAAygwAAAAAAADKDAAAAAAAAMoMAAAAAAAAygwAAAAA AADKDAAAAAAAAMoMAAAAAAAAygwAAAAAAADrDAAAAgAAAO0MAAAAAAAA7QwAAAAAAADtDAAA LQAAABoNAADUAAAA7g0AANQAAADCDgAAHgAAADUPAABUAAAAiQ8AACcBAADgDgAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACMDAAAAAAAAMoMAAAAAAAAAAAEAAUAAQABAMoMAAAAAAAAygwAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAygwAAAAAAADKDAAAAAAAAOAOAAAAAAAAygwAAAAAAACMDAAA AAAAAIwMAAAAAAAAygwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAygwAAAAAAADKDAAAAAAAAMoM AAAAAAAAygwAAAAAAADKDAAAAAAAAIwMAAAAAAAAygwAAAAAAACMDAAAAAAAAMoMAAAAAAAA 6wwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAoAwAAAgAAACoDAAADgAAAIwMAAAAAAAAjAwAAAAA AACMDAAAAAAAAIwMAAAAAAAAygwAAAAAAADrDAAAAAAAAMoMAAAhAAAAygwAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFRoYW5rIHlvdSBvbmUgYW5kIGFsbCBmb3Ig eW91ciBzdXBwb3J0aXZlLCBzYXJjYXN0aWMgYW5kIHNhcmRvbmljIHJlc3BvbnNlcyBib3Ro IHB1YmxpYyBhbmQgcHJpdmF0ZSB0byBteSByZWNlbnQgcG9zdGluZy4gIEZ1cnRoZXIsIEkg YXBwcmVjaWF0ZSB0aGUgY29ycmVjdGlvbiB0byBteSB0ZXh0LiBRdWl0ZSByaWdodCB3aG8g ZXZlciBzYWlkIGRyaXZlbCwgbm90IGRyaWJibGUsIHRoYW5rIHlvdS4gSSB3YXMgdGFrZW4g d2l0aCB0aGUgk0J1bGyUIGF0IHRoZSBtb21lbnQuIA1JIGRvIG5vdCBoYXZlIGEgc3RyaW5n IHRvIG9mZmVyLCBidXQgbWVyZWx5IGEgdGhyZWFkLiBXaXRoaW4gdGhlIHRhcGVzdHJ5IG9m IGxpZmUgd2Ugd2VhdmUsIGl0IHNlZW1zIHRvIG1lLCBjb21tZW5jaW5nIHRyYXZlbGVyIHRo YXQgSSBhbSwgYWxsIGlzIGEgdGhvdWdodCBmb3JtIG1hbmlmZXN0aW5nIGluIGEgbXlyaWFk IG9mIHdheXMuIEkgaGF2ZSBvYnNlcnZlZCwgYW5kIGJlbGlldmUsIGlmIHdlIHRoaW5rIGEg dGhpbmcsIHdlIGNyZWF0ZSBhIHRoaW5nLiBXaGF0ZXZlciB0aGUgbGV2ZWwgb2YgdGhvdWdo dCwgdW5kZXJseWluZyB0aGUgdWx0aW1hdGUgcmV0YXJkYXRpb24gb2YgdGhhdCBlbmVyZ3ks IGlzIG1hbmlmZXN0YXRpb24gYXMgZm9ybSBpbiBzb21lIG1hbm5lci4gV2UgYXJlIGp1c3Qg YXRvbXMgaW4gYSBncmVhdGVyIGJlaW5nIHdoZW4gYWxsIHBvc3NpYmlsaXRpZXMgaGF2ZSBi ZWVuIGV4cGxvcmVkLiBPdWdodCBidXQgdGhhdCByZWFsaXphdGlvbiB3aWxsIGFmZm9yZCBl c2NhcGUgZnJvbSBjYXJwaW5nIGVuZGxlc3NuZXNzLg1XaG8gYW0gSSB0byBibG93IGFnYWlu c3QgdGhlIHdpbmQsIGJ1dCBoYWQgSSBteSBkcnV0aGVycywgSSB3b3VsZCByYXRoZXIgc2Vl ayB0byByaWRlIHRoZSBjcmVzdCBvZiB0aGUgZXZvbHV0aW9uYXJ5IHdhdmUgcmF0aGVyIHRo YW4gZGFzaGVkIG9uIHRoZSBzaG9yZSBvZiBmb3JtLiANDQ0bVwAwnD6AAAAAAGobiwAwnD+A AAAAAPUb6wAwnECAAAAAAOAcEwAwnEGAAAAAAPMcLwAwnEKAAAAAACIdZwAwnEOAAAAAAIkd VwAwnESAAAAAAOAdiwAwnEWAAAAAAGse6wAwnEaAAAAAAFYfEwAwnEeAAAAAAGkfLwAwnEiA AAAAAJgfZwAwnEmAAAAAAP8fVwAwnEqAAAAAAFYgiwAwnEuAAAAAAOEg6wAwnEyAAAAAAMwh LwAwnE2AAAAAAPshEwAwnE6AAAAAAA4iZwAwnE+AAAAAAHUiVwAwnFCAAAAAAMwiiwAwnFGA AAAAAFcj6wAwnFKAAAAAAEIkEwAwnFOAAAAAAFUkLwAwnFSAAAAAAIQkZwAwnFWAAAAAAOsk VwAwnFaAAAAAAEIlAAMAANMGAAD8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABl0DAGMcAAEAAwAAEgQAAC4GAADRBgAA 0gYAANMGAAD+AAXAIUsB/gAKwCFLAf4AA8AhSwH+AAHAIUsB/gABwCFLAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAARAABQ4AEQAIAAEASwAPAAAAAAAaAABA8f8CABoABk5vcm1hbAACAAAAAwBhCQQA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgBBQPL/oQAiABZEZWZhdWx0IFBhcmFncmFwaCBGb250AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAB4A/k8BAAIBHgAGU3R5bGUxAAIAEAAIAFWBXQQAYxgAAAAAANMDAAADAP// //8EAP////8BAAQg//8BAAAAAADTAwAAAAAAAAAAAAMAANMGAAAEAAADAADTBgAABQAhAApL ZW4gTWFsa2luE0M6XFdJTldPUkRcQlVEUy5UWFT/QEhQIExhc2VySmV0IDQAXFwgb2ZmaWNl XGhwIGxhc2VyamV0AEhQUENMNU1TAEhQIExhc2VySmV0IDQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAQBBJQAQAADZwAEAQABAAAAAAAAAAEACQEsAQEAAQAsAQIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAA AAAAAAAAAAABAEAATVNVRE4DSFAgTGFzZXJKZXQgNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADkAQAA AAAAADsBAAAAAAQAZAAKAAAASFAgTGFzZXJKZXQgNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAEE lABAAANnAAQBAAEAAAAAAAAAAQAJASwBAQABACwBAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAEAQABNU1VETgNIUCBMYXNlckpldCA0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOQBAAAAAAAA OwEAAAAABABkAAoAAAADgAEACAAAAAgAAAAHAEIAQgAIAAAAAAAAAAgAAABVABUWkAEAAFRp bWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbgAMFpABAgBTeW1ib2wACyaQAQAAQXJpYWwADRaQAQAAQ2VudHVyeQAV RgAAAABCcnVzaCBTY3JpcHQgTVQAIgAEAAEIiBgAANACAABoAQAAAADzpQTG86UExgAAAAAB AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAgxAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFwCJwEA AP9UaGFuayB5b3Ugb25lIGFuZCBhbGwgZm9yIHlvdXIgc3VwcG9ydGl2ZSwgc2FyY2FzdGlj IGFuZCBzYXJkb25pYyByZXNwb25zZXMgYm90aCBwdWJsaWMgYW5kIHByaXZhdGUgdG8gbXkg cmVjZW50IHBvc3RpbmcuICBGdXJ0aGVyLCBJIGFwcHJlY2lhdGUgdGhlIGNvcnJlY3Rpb24g dG8gbXkgdGV4dC4gUXVpdGUgcmlnaHQgd2hvIGV2ZXIgc2FpZCBkcml2ZWwsIG5vdCBkcmli YmxlLCB0aGFuayB5b3UuIEkgd2FzIHRha2VuIHdpdGggdGhlIJNCdWwAAAAKS2VuIE1hbGtp bgpLZW4gTWFsa2luAAAAAAAAAAAAANDPEeChsRrhAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD4AAwD+/wkA BgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAABAAAAIAAAABAAAA/v///wAAAAAAAAAA//////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////1IAbwBvAHQAIABFAG4AdAByAHkA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWAAUA//////// //8DAAAAAAkCAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAg+dPSNS+7AeAb/y46L7sBFwAAAEAEAAAAAAAA AQBDAG8AbQBwAE8AYgBqAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAABIAAgH///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAbgAAAAAAAABXAG8AcgBkAEQAbwBjAHUAbQBlAG4AdAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGgACAf////8EAAAA/////wAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABsAAAD9EgAAAAAAAE8AYgBqAGUAYwB0AFAA bwBvAGwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWAAEB AQAAAAIAAAD/////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAakbTNS+7AQBqRtM1L7sBAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////xUAAAD9/////v////7///8YAAAAGQAAAP7/ ///+////HAAAAB0AAAAeAAAAHwAAACAAAAAhAAAAIgAAACMAAAAaAAAA//////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////8FAFMAdQBtAG0AYQByAHkASQBuAGYA bwByAG0AYQB0AGkAbwBuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKAACAP////////// /////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAADAAwAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA////////////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP// /////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAEAAAD+////AwAAAAQAAAAFAAAABgAAAAcAAAAIAAAACQAAAAoAAAALAAAADAAAAA0A AAAOAAAADwAAABAAAAD+//////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////AQD+/wMKAAD/////AAkCAAAAAADAAAAA AAAARhwAAABNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCA2LjAgRG9jdW1lbnQACgAAAE1TV29yZERvYwAQAAAA V29yZC5Eb2N1bWVudC42APQ5snEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADQzxHgobEa4QAAAAAAAAAAAAD+/wAA A18AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAA4IWf8vlPaBCrkQgAKyez2TAAAACQAwAADgAAAAcA AACYAAAAAgAAALwAAAAEAAAA4AEAAAgAAAAEAgAADAAAACgCAAALAAAATAIAAA0AAABwAgAA DwAAAJQCAAAQAAAAuAIAAAoAAADcAgAAEgAAAAADAAAOAAAAJAMAAAkAAABIAwAAEwAAAGwD AAD/AyKYJ8jyNjhM27XXkOOkPE4pPZWcp4jrLLkqtQb52B4AAAAWAAAAQzpcV0lOV09SRFxO T1JNQUwuRE9UAAAAAAAAAB4AAAAAAQAAVGhhbmsgeW91IG9uZSBhbmQgYWxsIGZvciB5b3Vy IHN1cHBvcnRpdmUsIHNhcmNhc3RpYyBhbmQgc2FyZG9uaWMgcmVzcG9uc2VzIGJvdGggcHVi bGljIGFuZCBwcml2YXRlIHRvIG15IHJlY2VudCBwb3N0aW5nLiAgRnVydGhlciwgSSBhcHBy ZWNpYXRlIHRoZSBjb3JyZWN0aW9uIHRvIG15IHRleHQuIFF1aXRlIHJpZ2h0IHdobyBldmVy IHNhaWQgZHJpdmVsLCBub3QgZHJpYmJsZSwgdGhhbmsgeW91LiBJIHdhcyB0YWtlbiB3aXRo IHRoZSCTQnVsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAeAAAACwAAAEtlbiBNYWxr aW4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAeAAAACwAAAEtlbiBNYWxraW4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AABAAAAAAErlORQvuwEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAMCkWYu33gEAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAMSKjhgvuwEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAOpW+gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAeAAAAEwAAAE1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkIDYuMAAAAAAAAAAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAeAAAAAgAAADIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABCQUNLVVAgICAgIBAAt7tg USBRIAAAu2BRIBwBAAAAAFBPV0VSQUxCICAgEACT41xdIF0gAADjXF0g0nQAAAAAQ0xPQ0sg ICBJTkkAAAAAAAAARyAAAMaBPSDwIWYAAABDVENEICAgIElOSQAAAAAAAABHIAAAKJ4uIO8h PQoAAENUTUlESSAgSU5JAAAAAAAAAEcgAAArcJAf7iFEAwAAQ1RNSVhFUiBJTkkAAAAAAAAA RyAAAGcPlx/tIQACAABDVFJFTU9URUlOSQAAAAAAAABHIAAAK3CQH40AzAAAAENUV0FWICAg SU5JAAAAAAAAAEcgAAArcJAfwyG5AAAAQ1RXQVZFICBJTkkAAAAAAAAARyAAALWB4R7CIQgC AABET1NBUFAgIElOSQAAAAAAAACNIAAAaVI9IMAhBwQAAEVGQVhQVU1QSU5JAAAAAAAAAE8g AAAJA0sevyEbAAAARklMRU1BTiBJTkkAAAAAAAAAZyAAAJwAZyC9IRoBAABJSEVBUklUIElO SQAAAAAAAABHIAAAjLojILwhYA0AAElOREVPICAgSU5JAAAAAAAAAGcgAAAAAHMbuyGQAAAA dGl2ZSwgc2FyY2FzdGljIGFuZCBzYXJkb25pYyByZXNwb25zZXMgYm90aCBwdWJsaWMgYW5k IHByaXZhdGUgdG8gbXkgcmVjZW50IHBvc3RpbmcuICBGdXJ0aGVyLCBJIGFwcHJlY2lhdGUg dGhlIGNvcnJlY3Rpb24gdG8gbXkgdGV4dC4gUXVpdGUgcmlnaHQgd2hvIGV2ZXIgc2FpZCBk cml2ZWwsIG5vdCBkcmliYmxlLCB0aGFuayB5b3UuIEkgd2FzIHRha2VuIHdpdGggdGhlIJNC dWwAAAAKS2VuIE1hbGtpbgpLZW4gTWFsa2luAAAAAAAAAAAAANDPEeChsRrhAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAD4AAwD+/wkABgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAABMAAAAAAAAAABAAABYAAAABAAAA/v// /wAAAAAUAAAA//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////cpWUAM8AJBAAAFABlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwAA 0wYAAP0SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAvgQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAwAAIwAAAAADAAAjAAAAIwMAAAAAAAAjAwAAAAAAACMDAAAAAAAAIwMAAAAAAAA jAwAABQAAAD2DAAAAAAAALYMAABAAAAA9gwAAAAAAAD2DAAAAAAAAPYMAAAAAAAA9gwAAAoA AAAADQAACgAAAPYMAAAAAAAALREAAFUAAAAKDQAAAAAAAAoNAAAAAAAACg0AAAAAAAAKDQAA AAAAAAoNAAAAAAAACg0AAAAAAAAKDQAAAAAAAAoNAAAAAAAAKw0AAAIAAAAtDQAAAAAAAC0N AAAAAAAALQ0AAC0AAABaDQAA1AAAAC4OAADUAAAAAg8AAB4AAACCEQAAVAAAANYRAAAnAQAA IA8AAA0CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAjAwAAAAAAAAKDQAAAAAAAAAABAAFAAEAAQAKDQAA AAAAAAoNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAoNAAAAAAAACg0AAAAAAAAgDwAAAAAAAAoN AAAAAAAAjAwAAAAAAACMDAAAAAAAAAoNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAoNAAAAAAAA Cg0AAAAAAAAKDQAAAAAAAAoNAAAAAAAACg0AAAAAAACMDAAAAAAAAAoNAAAAAAAAjAwAAAAA AAAKDQAAAAAAACsNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKAMAAAIAAAAqAwAAA4AAACMDAAA AAAAAIwMAAAAAAAAjAwAAAAAAACMDAAAAAAAAAoNAAAAAAAAKw0AAAAAAAAKDQAAIQAAAAoN AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABUaGFuayB5b3Ugb25lIGFu ZCBhbGwgZm9yIHlvdXIgc3VwcG9ydGl2ZSwgc2FyY2FzdGljIGFuZCBzYXJkb25pYyByZXNw b25zZXMgYm90aCBwdWJsaWMgYW5kIHByaXZhdGUgdG8gbXkgcmVjZW50IHBvc3RpbmcuICBG dXJ0aGVyLCBJIGFwcHJlY2lhdGUgdGhlIGNvcnJlY3Rpb24gdG8gbXkgdGV4dC4gUXVpdGUg cmlnaHQgd2hvIGV2ZXIgc2FpZCBkcml2ZWwsIG5vdCBkcmliYmxlLCB0aGFuayB5b3UuIEkg d2FzIHRha2VuIHdpdGggdGhlIJNCdWxslCBhdCB0aGUgbW9tZW50LiANSSBkbyBub3QgaGF2 ZSBhIHN0cmluZyB0byBvZmZlciwgYnV0IG1lcmVseSBhIHRocmVhZC4gV2l0aGluIHRoZSB0 YXBlc3RyeSBvZiBsaWZlIHdlIHdlYXZlLCBpdCBzZWVtcyB0byBtZSwgY29tbWVuY2luZyB0 cmF2ZWxlciB0aGF0IEkgYW0sIGFsbCBpcyBhIHRob3VnaHQgZm9ybSBtYW5pZmVzdGluZyBp biBhIG15cmlhZCBvZiB3YXlzLiBJIGhhdmUgb2JzZXJ2ZWQsIGFuZCBiZWxpZXZlLCBpZiB3 ZSB0aGluayBhIHRoaW5nLCB3ZSBjcmVhdGUgYSB0aGluZy4gV2hhdGV2ZXIgdGhlIGxldmVs IG9mIHRob3VnaHQsIHVuZGVybHlpbmcgdGhlIHVsdGltYXRlIHJldGFyZGF0aW9uIG9mIHRo YXQgZW5lcmd5LCBpcyBtYW5pZmVzdGF0aW9uIGFzIGZvcm0gaW4gc29tZSBtYW5uZXIuIFdl IGFyZSBqdXN0IGF0b21zIGluIGEgZ3JlYXRlciBiZWluZyB3aGVuIGFsbCBwb3NzaWJpbGl0 aWVzIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBleHBsb3JlZC4gT3VnaHQgYnV0IHRoYXQgcmVhbGl6YXRpb24gd2ls bCBhZmZvcmQgZXNjYXBlIGZyb20gY2FycGluZyBlbmRsZXNzbmVzcy4NV2hvIGFtIEkgdG8g YmxvdyBhZ2FpbnN0IHRoZSB3aW5kLCBidXQgaGFkIEkgbXkgZHJ1dGhlcnMsIEkgd291bGQg cmF0aGVyIHNlZWsgdG8gcmlkZSB0aGUgY3Jlc3Qgb2YgdGhlIGV2b2x1dGlvbmFyeSB3YXZl IHJhdGhlciB0aGFuIGRhc2hlZCBvbiB0aGUgc2hvcmUgb2YgZm9ybS4gDQ0NIA1JIGFtIHNv cnJ5IHRvIHNheSBJIGhhdmUgbm8gZ3JlYXQgaW50ZWxsZWN0IHRvIG9mZmVyLiBUaG9zZSB3 aG8gaGF2ZSBwbGFjZWQgdGhlaXIgb3BpbmlvbnMgYmVmb3JlIHRoZSBwdWJsaWMgZG8gdGhl IGJlc3QgdGhleSBjYW4uIFBlcmhhcHMgbm90IGFzIGFjdG9ycyBldGMuLCBidXQgY2VydGFp bmx5IHdpc2ggdG8gYmUgY29uc2lkZXJlZCByZXNwb25zaWJsZSBwaWxncmltcy4gcmV0YXJk YXRpb24gYW5kIGFubmloaWxhdGlvbiBvZiAgIGJlIA1JbiBhcHByZWNpYXRpb24sIEtlbiBN YWxraW4AAADrJFcAMJxWgAAAAABCJQADAADTBgAA1AYAANUGAADWBgAA1wYAAOcGAADoBgAA 6QYAAAkHAAAaBwAAIwcAACQHAAAlBwAAMAcAAEIHAABOBwAAUgcAAFgHAABtBwAAcgcAAHgH AACBBwAAmAcAAK0HAACuBwAAtwcAAL4HAADKBwAAywcAAM4HAADPBwAA0AcAANMHAADvBwAA /Pz8/Pz8/Pz8/Pz8/Pz8/Pz8/Pz8/Pz8/Pz8/Pz8/Pz8/AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZdAwBjHAAiAAMAABIE AAAuBgAA0QYAANIGAADTBgAA1QYAANQHAAD+AAXAIUsB/gAKwCFLAf4AA8AhSwH+AAHAIUsB /gABwCFLAf4ABcAhSwH+AAPAIUsBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEQAAcOABEACAABAEsADwAAAAAAGgAAQPH/AgAaAAZOb3JtYWwA AgAAAAMAYQkEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIAQUDy/6EAIgAWRGVmYXVsdCBQYXJhZ3Jh cGggRm9udAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAeAP5PAQACAR4ABlN0eWxlMQACABAACABVgV0EAGMYAAAA AAC+BAAAAwD/////BAD/////AQAEIP//AQAAAAAAvgQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD6AAAA1AEAAPoD AACfBAAAvQQAAL4EAAAABcAhSwEABMAhSwEACsAhSwEAA8AhSwEAAcAhSwEAAcAhSwEAAwAA 7wcAAAQAAAMAANQHAAAFACEACktlbiBNYWxraW4TQzpcV0lOV09SRFxCVURTLlRYVP9ASFAg TGFzZXJKZXQgNABcXCBvZmZpY2VcaHAgbGFzZXJqZXQASFBQQ0w1TVMASFAgTGFzZXJKZXQg NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAEElABAAANnAAQBAAEAAAAAAAAAAQAJASwBAQABACwB AgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAQABNU1VETgNIUCBMYXNlckpldCA0AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOQBAAAAAAAAOwEAAAAABABkAAoAAABIUCBMYXNlckpldCA0AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAQSUAEAAA2cABAEAAQAAAAAAAAABAAkBLAEBAAEALAECAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQBAAE1TVUROA0hQIExhc2VySmV0IDQAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA5AEAAAAAAAA7AQAAAAAEAGQACgAAAAOAAQCwBAAAsAQAAAgAeAB4ALAE AAAAAAAAsAQAAAIIAgAAAAAAACkAAAAqAAAA+QAAAPoAAAD7AAAA/AAAAAwBAAANAQAADgEA AC4BAAA/AQAASAEAAEkBAABKAQAAVQEAAGcBAABzAQAAdwEAAH0BAACSAQAAlwEAAJ0BAACm AQAAvQEAANIBAADTAQAA6QIAAAoDAAATAwAAGgMAACYDAAAnAwAAKgMAAO4DAADvAwAA8wMA APQDAAB/BAAAggQAAJ4EAAC6BAAAvQQAAL4EAAABAwADAAAAAAED0wYAAAAAAQNCAwAAAAAA A9QGAAAAAAED1QYAAAAAAQPWBgAAAAABA9cGAAAAAAED5wYAAAAAAQPoBgAAAAABA+kGAAAA AAEDCQcAAAAAAQMaBwAAAAABAyMHAAAAAAEDJAcAAAAAAQMlBwAAAAABAzAHAAAAAAEDQgcA AAAAAQNOBwAAAAABA1IHAAAAAAEDWAcAAAAAAQNtBwAAAAABA3IHAAAAAAEDeAcAAAAAAQOB BwAAAAABA5gHAAAAAAEDrQcAAAAAAAMRBAAAAAABAzAFAAAAAAEDrgcAAAAAAQO3BwAAAAAB A74HAAAAAAEDygcAAAAAAQPLBwAAAAABA2AFAAAAAAEDzgcAAAAAAQMkBgAAAAABA88HAAAA AAADKAYAAAAAAQPQBwAAAAABA7MGAAAAAAAD0wcAAAAAAAPPBgAAAAAAA9IGAAAAAFUAFRaQ AQAAVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuAAwWkAECAFN5bWJvbAALJpABAABBcmlhbAANFpABAABDZW50 dXJ5ABVGAAAAAEJydXNoIFNjcmlwdCBNVAAiAAQAAQiIGAAA0AIAAGgBAAAAAPOlBMYWqAQG AAAAAAIABwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABACDEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA XAInAQAA/1RoYW5rIHlvdSBvbmUgYW5kIGFsbCBmb3IgeW91ciBzdXBwb3I= From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 21 05:10:21 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 22:10:21 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960421051021.006827d8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: huh??? At 01:44 PM 4/20/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Jack Van Impe is a fundamentalist preacher who has a half-hour weekly program >out of Troy Michigan in which he speaks much of his interpretation of >biblical prophecy. It is hilarious and what makes it so funny is the man >does not seem to have a malicious bone in his body. He says all kinds of >dreadful things and doesn't realize how weird he sounds. >But any fundamentalist who will quote Nostradamus is not beyond redemption. > Who knows, he may turn into a theosophist someday. >Anyway, he is one of revived Holy Roman Empire types and he can come up with >biblical chapter and verse about it. >Did you know that King Juan Carlos of Spain is the going to be the >Antichrist? :-) > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > >Chuck: It is apparently as easy to "skunch" the Bible to fit one;s preoccupations as it is for some folks to "skunch" either the S.D. of HPB's writings. Juan Carlos the anti-Christ....Oh that's really funny! Where do they get that? He is one of the nicest people I've ever met, and extremely intelligent. He's also been a wonderful influence for Spain, they never would have been able to become the truly Democratic Nation they're becoming without his personal intervention preventing a coup by the Falangistas. Maybe theat's why the crazy christians don't like him. Falange = Opus Dei. Alexis dolgorukii member TI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 21 05:30:26 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 22:30:26 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960421053026.00673b08@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: There is! At 09:19 PM 4/20/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message , alexis dolgorukii > writes >>Let Mr. Nalkin demonstrate "great intellect" >>instead of adolescent whining! >> >>alexis Dolgorukii >>Member TI, FTSA > >Are you cross, Alexis? :-) > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >VERY....but just with Mr. Malkin. I find words like "formoid" and the kind of thinking they demonstrate very irritating indeed. Historically of course, the Dolgorukii are easily irritated (vide HPB and she was only slightly Dolgorukii). In fact Oleg Ruriksson, the founder of our line was the archetype from which we all descend and he was incredibly irritable! alexis From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 21 11:46:51 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 07:46:51 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960421074648_474688370@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: huh??? Alex, I figured that you of all people would see the humor of the situation. Besides, the antichrist cannot take power without having the ark of the covenant and that's in my basement. Grandma used it for a cedar chest. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 21 01:34:55 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 02:34:55 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: union In-Reply-To: <960420133956_474266764@emout07.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960420133956_474266764@emout07.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Did you know that King Juan Carlos of Spain is the going to be the >Antichrist? :-) > >Chuck MTI, FTSA I thought Alexis had applied for the job ... Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From malkin@gil.net Sun Apr 21 15:23:28 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 11:23:28 -0400 From: Ken Malkin Message-Id: <317A52F0.47CA@gil.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: listening Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you one and all for your supportive responses both public = and private to my recent posting. Further, I appreciate the correction = to my text. Quite right who ever said drivel, not dribble, thank you. = Taken with the =93Bull=94 at the moment you know. = I am sorry to say I have no great intellect to offer. Those who = have placed their opinions before the public do the best they can. = Perhaps not as actors etc., but certainly as beings who wish to be = considered verbal and responsible pilgrims. = I do not have a string to offer, but merely a thread. Within the = tapestry of life we are weaveing together, it seems to me, commencing = traveler that I am, all is thought form manifesting in a myriad of ways. = Multi-hued, miss knotted, and rag tag as we may think, often great = attempts seem to be made at creating perfection. We are volunteers in = this work. Within the context of what is understood at that moment we = all make progress. The effort best done together, in harmlessness and = compasion. I have observed, and believe, if we think a thing, we create a = thing. Whatever the thought, a neccessary way station in the ultimate = retardation and annihilation of that energy, is transitory = manifestation. Form as formoid et.al. in some manner. = We are then responsible for our creations even though we are = "Just" atoms in a greater being when all possibilities have been = explored. Ought but that realization will afford us escape from carping = end less ness. To understand, as some have equated, in ancestral = haughteness, the form effort in geneal quality is valuable in an = eternal sense, therefore better than, boggles my brain. = Who am I to blow against the wind, but had I my druthers, I = would rather seek to ride the crest of the evolutionary wave, = surrounded and supported by the froth of responsible possibility, warmed = and inspired by the Sun (Son, son) rather than be dashed on the shore of = form, ground up by the undertow. In appreciation, Ken Malkin From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Apr 21 15:45:39 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 10:45:39 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960421104757.27df20e0@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: listening Ken: Glad to see your message. First and foremost we are all human beings and everything else - education, intellect, profession, accomplishments, etc all come later - IMHO. We are all fellow travellers with every other human being and anything and everything that we can do to help anyone to make the world a little better will go a long way. Cheers ....doss At 11:24 AM 4/21/96 -0400, you wrote: >Thank you one and all for your supportive responses both public = > >and private to my recent posting. Further, I appreciate the correction = > >to my text. Quite right who ever said drivel, not dribble, thank you. = > >Taken with the =93Bull=94 at the moment you know. = > > I am sorry to say I have no great intellect to offer. Those who = > >have placed their opinions before the public do the best they can. = > >Perhaps not as actors etc., but certainly as beings who wish to be = > >considered verbal and responsible pilgrims. = > > I do not have a string to offer, but merely a thread. Within the = > >tapestry of life we are weaveing together, it seems to me, commencing = > >traveler that I am, all is thought form manifesting in a myriad of ways. = > >Multi-hued, miss knotted, and rag tag as we may think, often great = > >attempts seem to be made at creating perfection. We are volunteers in = > >this work. Within the context of what is understood at that moment we = > >all make progress. The effort best done together, in harmlessness and = > >compasion. > I have observed, and believe, if we think a thing, we create a = > >thing. Whatever the thought, a neccessary way station in the ultimate = > >retardation and annihilation of that energy, is transitory = > >manifestation. Form as formoid et.al. in some manner. = > > We are then responsible for our creations even though we are = > >"Just" atoms in a greater being when all possibilities have been = > >explored. Ought but that realization will afford us escape from carping = > >end less ness. To understand, as some have equated, in ancestral = > >haughteness, the form effort in geneal quality is valuable in an = > >eternal sense, therefore better than, boggles my brain. = > > Who am I to blow against the wind, but had I my druthers, I = > >would rather seek to ride the crest of the evolutionary wave, = > >surrounded and supported by the froth of responsible possibility, warmed = > >and inspired by the Sun (Son, son) rather than be dashed on the shore of = > >form, ground up by the undertow. > In appreciation, Ken Malkin > From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 21 04:59:31 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 21:59:31 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960421045931.00683a64@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Eudora Pro 2.2 At 11:32 AM 4/20/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis: > >>>>>cut<<<<<< >Keep us all informed about your experience with the filtering and other >features of Eudora Pro. BTW, I see some others here also use Eudora Pro. >You can sometimes find this information by displaying the full header in >the incoming messages. In Eudora Pro, click on "Blah Blah" button. > > .....doss > >So far, my expereinces with Eudora Pro are very positive. Being 32 bit architecture it runs very much faster than Eudora Light which is 16 Bit, (as you can see my computing guru has been busy), he and I discussed the ASCII sent only as an attachment and decided I will create documents in Word Perfect and "cut and paste" them into my Eudora Message so I can see the whole thing before I send it our. He's also taught me how to compose a message entirely on Word Perfect and "send" it to Eudora. We haven' done the filters yet but we're going to on Monday. The best feature as far as I am concerned is spell checking. Today I was busy with my new house and tomorrow we're going to visit Jerry and April Hejka-Elkins. Thanks for the suggestion, I'm very glad I followed it up. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 21 05:41:11 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 22:41:11 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960421054111.0067fd1c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: female adepts At 07:53 PM 4/20/96 -0400, you wrote: >Dear Alexis, >You're right, I was absolutely wrong. I was looking for females among all >the holy & venerated people in the world, & there are powerfully few. So the >answer is there aren't any female Mahatmas, because HPB was only a chela, & >I don't know of any female who was really an adept. > >Liesel > >Mme Blavatsky was a Chela, HPB was an adept, and a particularly powerful one! An Adept is the same thing as a Mahatma if you remove all the religious fol de rol. If you think there are no human females among the most venerated people in the world (to me the word holy is meaningless- UNLESS it is taken as meaning WHOLE) then this represents the only gap in your knowledge I have yet to discover. there is an immensely long list of women who were as powerful in their adept hood as any male figure in Theosophical Legend. Don't let yourself feel excluded or denigrated because CWL was a colossal fool! alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 21 05:13:17 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 22:13:17 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960421051317.006820e8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: some are, some aren't At 03:43 PM 4/20/96 -0400, you wrote: >Are theosophists vegetarians? > >I always thought so. >If that has changed, I'm on the wrong list. > >Please RSVP with a positive response. >(My reflection is that negative responses would be wrong.) > >- Maynard S. Clark > >Mr. Clark: Some Theosophists are vegetarians, and some are not. Theosophists have no "required status". alexis dolgorukii From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 21 05:55:37 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 22:55:37 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960421055537.00687d60@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Golden Dawn At 09:27 PM 4/20/96 -0400, you wrote: >"The formation of an Esoteric Section (or school) of Theosophy was >intimately connected with another influential force of the 19th century, >the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn." Quote from (The Key of It All), >by David Allen Hulse, page xxxii vol. 1. Does anyone know what school >Hulse may be talking about? > >To the best of my knolwedge the only thing he was referring to has to be The EsotericSection of The Theosophical Society as formed by Mmme. Blavatsky during her lifetime. A number of the founding members of The Golden Dawn were originally members of the Esoteric Section (Win Westcott for instance). The section did not, but should have, died when it's only teacher did. alexis dolgorukii member TI,FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 21 06:54:13 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 02:54:13 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960421025411_379548360@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Are theosophists vegetarians? Sorry to disappoint you but there are quite a few of us who aren't and have no desire to become so. On this subject, as most others, we come in all shades of opinion, which is why sometimes we get a little (or maybe not a little) mad at each other. Stick around, you may find something interesting. At least your life will not be dull. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 21 06:55:10 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 02:55:10 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960421025509_379548613@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: vegetables and the avoidance thereof In the summer of 1987, I was afflicted with an extreme attack of open-mindedness (a condition not dissimilar to having an empty head) and decided to try a vegetarian diet up at the convention at Lake Geneva. I was lucky to escape with my life (a situation I find myself in often for some bizarre and inexplicable reason) and when I expressed my distaste for the lifestyle to Ed Abdill, he said, "Don't judge vegetarian food by what they have here." I responded, my voice rising several octaves, "You mean it can get worse?!?!" "Not likely," Ed answered with his wicked little grin. Then they moved convention back to Olcott.... I think I'll stay a carnivore. It is undoubtedly inconvenient for the poor cattle, but I'll be happier, and if I inherited Grandpa's genes, I'll live a lot longer. He lasted well into his nineties and never touched a vegetable in his life, unlike my poor father whose diet required him to eat some and he died in his early sixties. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 21 11:45:31 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 07:45:31 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960421074530_474688106@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: MESSENGER #14--Correction Alan, Sorry, with the D.D. after your name I thought you had all the ecclesiastical paraphenalia. Chuck the Barbaric Sinner MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 21 01:14:39 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 02:14:39 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Free E-Mail and Theosophy In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , M K Ramadoss writes >I would invite all those in this list -- *especially those who have been >complaining about not much substantial stuff being discussed* -- come up >with suggestions, ideas, opinions, criticisms, plans, so that we can make >Theosophy reach a larger audience thru e-mail and thereby affect the >lives of large number of human beings for the better. > >Sorry for the long message. > > .....doss So far as the TI input is concerned, I hope that Rudy (who is on holiday) will be able to provide links to documents such as have been uploaded to theos-roots, although there is still much work to be done. At least so far I have been able to upload the complete text of ~Ocean of Theosophy~ and still have the ASCII text on disk ready to go on a Web page when we have are able to make links to documents. Personally I would like to see a library mix of classic source (not "core") material and serious contributions by latter-day theosophists. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 21 00:21:55 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 01:21:55 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: What to take up at branch meetings in the way of Theosophy In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960419223926.276f2310@pop.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.16.19960419223926.276f2310@pop.tiac.net>, Vegetarian Resource Center writes >Why not type out and post it "in toto" - >such sharing is done on OTHER religious lists... This is a RELIGIOUS list? Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 21 00:20:10 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 01:20:10 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: to: Alexis In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , JRC writes > I believe the "boundless circle" is an extremely old symbol. I >think it's mentioned somewhere in the Zohar (or at least is alluded to), >and in fact I think HPB mentions it in the SD. > -JRC 'Tis certainly well-known (and used) in Kabalist circles. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 21 01:22:58 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 02:22:58 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Are theosophists vegetarians? In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960420153909.27479056@pop.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.16.19960420153909.27479056@pop.tiac.net>, Vegetarian Resource Center writes >Are theosophists vegetarians? > >I always thought so. >If that has changed, I'm on the wrong list. > >Please RSVP with a positive response. >(My reflection is that negative responses would be wrong.) > >- Maynard S. Clark > What a curious question. Theosophy is not a cult or a religion, but it probably has more vegetarians per capita than most other organisations (except the vegetarian societies!) Personally, I am a vegetarian, and wish everyone was, but I am not about to preach to anyone (well, not today, anyhow). :-) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 21 00:24:57 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 01:24:57 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: vive la difference? In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960420053837.006dfd00@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960420053837.006dfd00@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >>The difference is that while Theosophy is sometimes silly, sometimes >fatuous, and regularly just as smug as xtians, Theosophy has never been the >sole cause of millions of murders Give it time ..... it could be argued (and probably has been) that the mass-murders of the Nazis were connected to the racial ideas they had derived from theosophy and its evolutionary theories regarding the "superiority" of the Aryan race. Certainly theosophy promulgated such ideas BEFORE Hitler used them. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From vrc@tiac.net Sun Apr 21 12:15:55 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 08:15:55 -0400 From: Vegetarian Resource Center Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960421081034.256fecac@pop.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Are theosophists vegetarians? Doesn't Theosophy teach that, because of reincarnation, all persons alive are different manifefstations of the supreme Person, and have metaphyically equal standing? At 08:00 AM 4/21/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.16.19960420153909.27479056@pop.tiac.net>, Vegetarian >Resource Center writes >>Are theosophists vegetarians? >> >>I always thought so. >>If that has changed, I'm on the wrong list. >> >>Please RSVP with a positive response. >>(My reflection is that negative responses would be wrong.) >> >>- Maynard S. Clark >> >What a curious question. Theosophy is not a cult or a religion, but it >probably has more vegetarians per capita than most other organisations >(except the vegetarian societies!) Personally, I am a vegetarian, and >wish everyone was, but I am not about to preach to anyone (well, not >today, anyhow). :-) > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > > From vrc@tiac.net Sun Apr 21 12:46:20 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 08:46:20 -0400 From: Vegetarian Resource Center Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960421084059.257fcc2c@pop.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To: Vegetarian Resource Center Liesel - I have been told by friends that Moosewood is no longer a vegetarian restaurant? Is this true? (tragically) Why would such a restaurant that has received such wide acclaim as a vegetarian restaurant seek to change its status when the movement is just now growing to the point of really being able to support and sustain vegetarian restaurants in a really big way. - Maynard At 07:03 PM 4/20/96 -0400, you wrote: >If any institution, especially along the East Coast, is interested in a >vegetarian workshop, David Hirsch, one of the owners of the Moosewood >Restaurant in Ithaca, NY has conducted a number of those. He's also written >a number of cookbooks, some together with the other Moosewood owners, & some >by himself. Anyone interested, can contact me. I have his phone number, & am >in touch fairly frequently. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS i Canda, HR > > > > From vrc@tiac.net Sun Apr 21 12:46:16 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 08:46:16 -0400 From: Vegetarian Resource Center Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960421084056.257fc272@pop.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: some are, some aren't Why would a professing theosophist NOT be a vegetarian? Seems to me that what "theosophy" is today (if I can extrapolate rationally) is (by OPERATIVE definition rather than conceptual definition) the sum total of what is done by those who choose this as a primary identification, and therefore changes with history. IF the early theosophists were all vegetarians, and many today just want a little more cognitive latitude, then what we are seening is PEOPLE who want cognitive latitude and chance upon theosophical societies and therefore opt to stay around, calling themselves theosophists according to their own understanding. The questions I would have are: How much are such people "in dialogue with" the earliest founders of the theosophical movement, and how is nonvegetarianism justified in a context in which recognition of the personal status of each jiva is crucial to the meanings theosophists espouse? (Or is this meaning lost, and the movement is perhaps rapidly becoming a place to read the books about esoteric theories about the supposed intentions of the practitioners of rituals and concepts?) Tell me if this seems true to your observations and experience? - Maynard S. Clark At 01:44 AM 4/21/96 -0400, you wrote: >At 03:43 PM 4/20/96 -0400, you wrote: >>Are theosophists vegetarians? >> >>I always thought so. >>If that has changed, I'm on the wrong list. >> >>Please RSVP with a positive response. >>(My reflection is that negative responses would be wrong.) >> >>- Maynard S. Clark >> >>Mr. Clark: > >Some Theosophists are vegetarians, and some are not. Theosophists have no >"required status". > >alexis dolgorukii > > > From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Apr 21 15:39:22 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 10:39:22 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960421104140.27df7ee8@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: some are, some aren't Let me but in with a response to some of the points raised. 1. The founders of Theosophical Society were not vegetarians. But later leaders are. As Alan mentioned there is more vegetarians in the TS per capita. 2. Theosophy - Theo-sophia - Divine Wisdom itself is not defined and does not even appear in the three objects of the Society. So no belief in any of the theories is required. 3. Each member is given the widest lattitude to believe what one wants. The requirement for membership is being in sympathy with the first object of the society viz universal brotherhood. 4. The members of the Theosophical Society all over the world have been very active in Vegetarian movement and other related areas such as animal rights, vivisection etc. As one msg mentioned, please hang around and you will find an organization unlike any you may have run into. ...doss At 08:50 AM 4/21/96 -0400, you wrote: >Why would a professing theosophist NOT be a vegetarian? > >Seems to me that what "theosophy" is today >(if I can extrapolate rationally) is (by OPERATIVE definition >rather than conceptual definition) the sum total of what >is done by those who choose this as a primary identification, >and therefore changes with history. > >IF the early theosophists were all vegetarians, and many >today just want a little more cognitive latitude, then what >we are seening is PEOPLE who want cognitive latitude >and chance upon theosophical societies and therefore >opt to stay around, calling themselves theosophists >according to their own understanding. > >The questions I would have are: > How much are such people "in dialogue with" the > earliest founders of the theosophical movement, and > how is nonvegetarianism justified in a context in which > recognition of the personal status of each jiva is > crucial to the meanings theosophists espouse? > (Or is this meaning lost, and the movement is > perhaps rapidly becoming a place to read > the books about esoteric theories about the > supposed intentions of the practitioners of > rituals and concepts?) > >Tell me if this seems true to your observations and experience? > > - Maynard S. Clark > >At 01:44 AM 4/21/96 -0400, you wrote: >>At 03:43 PM 4/20/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>Are theosophists vegetarians? >>> >>>I always thought so. >>>If that has changed, I'm on the wrong list. >>> >>>Please RSVP with a positive response. >>>(My reflection is that negative responses would be wrong.) >>> >>>- Maynard S. Clark >>> >>>Mr. Clark: >> >>Some Theosophists are vegetarians, and some are not. Theosophists have no >>"required status". >> >>alexis dolgorukii >> >> >> > > From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sun Apr 21 15:50:02 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 09:50:02 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: some are, some aren't In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960421084056.257fc272@pop.tiac.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 21 Apr 1996, Vegetarian Resource Center wrote: > Why would a professing theosophist NOT be a vegetarian? > > Seems to me that what "theosophy" is today > (if I can extrapolate rationally) is (by OPERATIVE definition > rather than conceptual definition) the sum total of what > is done by those who choose this as a primary identification, > and therefore changes with history. The "sum total of what is done by those who choose this as a primary identification"? This would make what "Theosophy is" fairly close to what the "human race" is - as its members come from many countries, and almost every religion and political organization. We are not a cult with defined dietary restrictions. > IF the early theosophists were all vegetarians, and many > today just want a little more cognitive latitude, then what > we are seening is PEOPLE who want cognitive latitude > and chance upon theosophical societies and therefore > opt to stay around, calling themselves theosophists > according to their own understanding. The early theosophists were NOT all vegetarians. Are you actually attemtping, by the way, to *accuse* anyone who belongs to the society and eats meat of *not* being a Theosophist? (Ooohhh, I hope so! That would be *so* much fun!). And tell me, do you consider yourself a Theosophist? Or have you come here to promulgate vegetarianism - to *use* this list to further a personal ideology? You speak as though Theosophists are separate from you - as though you don't "identify" with theosophy. > The questions I would have are: > How much are such people "in dialogue with" the > earliest founders of the theosophical movement, and > how is nonvegetarianism justified in a context in which > recognition of the personal status of each jiva is > crucial to the meanings theosophists espouse? > (Or is this meaning lost, and the movement is > perhaps rapidly becoming a place to read > the books about esoteric theories about the > supposed intentions of the practitioners of > rituals and concepts?) > > Tell me if this seems true to your observations and experience? > > - Maynard S. Clark What positively remarkable logic! By the same reasoning, the earliest vegetarians were probably Hindus. But many people today want more cognitive latitude. What we are seeing, then, is PEOPLE who want cognitive latitude, who stumble across vegetarianism and opt to stay around calling themselves vegetarians according to their own understanding. How could a professing vegetarian NOT be a Hindu? Of course you might say "that's ridiculous, the early vegetarians might have been Hindus, but there's never been a requirement that to be a vegetarian one has to also be a Hindu." Exactly. The requirement for being a Theosophist is the acceptance of the Three Objects of the Society. Not belief in Maynard's own personal reading of what a theosophist "should" be. I hope you stay on the list, but should, perhaps warn you, that several people in the past have come on and attempted to "convert" - fact, we even had a Christian fundamentalist a while back - but to my knowledge not a single person has ever been converted by a preacher here - a preacher of *anything* - any usually such people wind up fleeing in a short period of time. We are not *followers* here, bucko, but a list of exceedingly independent thinkers. Many Theosophists are vegetrians. Many aren't. Attmepting to try to guilt trip those who aren't by actually telling them they are somehow not authentic Theosophists if they aren't vegetarians .... oooohhhhh! this should be fun! (Chuck! Chuck, stop it! Now put that helmet down ... slowly now .... keep your hands where we can see them ... tee hee) Regards, -JRC From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun Apr 21 17:40:44 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 13:40:44 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604211845.OAA19984@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: listening > >I am sorry to say I have no great intellect to offer.> Dear Ken Malkin, With that writing, & those questions, who needs great intellect? Liesel Membeer TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sun Apr 21 19:14:09 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 13:14:09 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: to Daniel regarding psychism In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960420054418.0068c108@mail.deltanet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > Daniel: >=20 > [writing to JRC] >=20 > >Could you state what you think the traditional Theosophical view is on > >psychism and supply the Theos-l audience with some citations from the=20 > >early literature that illustrate this traditional stance? Furthermore,= =20 > >I would like to know why you discount this view. >=20 > In first reading this, it seems if you're asking JRC to prove his > ideas by providing citations to theosophical literature to back them > up. He's stated that he's read the books and sees them as out-of-date > and wrong when it comes to things like channeling. Asking him to > "prove" his ideas by giving theosophical quotes would be like a > fundamentalist Christian asking us to prove our theosophical ideas > by giving Bible quotes, as though the Bible made that much difference > in what we think! =09Perhaps you should stick to categorizing your own thoughts,=20 Eldon, and allow me to explain mine. So far as "channeling" goes, I first= =20 differentiate between the ML, the SD & Isis, and the lesser writers that=20 came later and who tried to *formalize* a theosophical "path". Second, by= =20 "out of date" I mean that whi=ECe HPB certainly *did* speak against passive= =20 mediumship, the modern phenomena called "channeling" contains at least=20 some practices that have virtually nothing to do with what HPB was=20 arguing against. She *may or may not have* agreed or disagreed with these= =20 practices, but they were not what she was analyzing. The main point was=20 that we cannot just pick her criticisms of "mediumship" up out of her=20 writings, and automatically simply apply them to a very different=20 phenomena a century in the future. *You* may wish to reduce this to "he=20 thinks they're out of date and wrong", but that is not what I said, it is= =20 your subjective interpretation of what I said.=20 =09The attempt to portray me as someone who so completely=20 disregards Theosophical literature that I wouldn't even bother to quote=20 from it is just outright mean-spirited. From here on in Eldon, for fun, I= =20 cease to hold back. You virtually continually answer not my ideas, but=20 your categorizations of them; not my points or arguments, but your own=20 speculations as to my motives for stating them. And you almost invariably= =20 completely misunderstand my arguments and are utterly wrong about my=20 motives. I now feel fully free to do the same to you. What a hoot this=20 will be!=20 =09Daniel ... I should make clear what I meant (in answer to your=20 question, not Eldon's reading of it): I do not discount HPB, KH or M. I=20 *do* believe many interpretations are possible of what they wrote,=20 however, and they wrote what appears to be very different things at=20 different times. When I refer to "traditional Theosophy", I'm not=20 referring to the *three founders* (the two Adepts and HPB), rather to a=20 particular (and to my mind very reductionist) viewpoint of their writings= =20 that has arisen over the decades, and that has now reached the point of=20 being virtually institutionally enforced in formal TS organizations. This= =20 viewpoint is almost purely intellectually based, and quite naturally=20 selects quotes from the original writings that prove that the "psychic"=20 may contain the danger of "delusion" - conveniently, of course, *not*=20 looking for all the quotes that would indicate that the intellectual=20 carries dangers just as deep. In fact, it was in part to mitigate the=20 materialism of the *science* of the time, not the "psychism", that the=20 original TS impulse was delivered - which appears to have been a profound= =20 piece of foreknowledge ... as the dangers to our current world from the=20 misuse of the *intellect* make the dangers of the "psychic" positively=20 pale in comparison. =09It is this misreading, this entirely form-based reduction of the=20 original impulse, whose *proponents* have tried to claim it to be=20 "traditional", that I have rejected. - not KH or M, both of whom used a=20 rather impressive array of such things *in service*, nor HPB, whom,=20 throughout her travels, sought out, investigated, and developed within=20 herself a stunning number of "latent powers", and who in fact made the=20 investigation of such things one of the three pillars of Theosophy. =20 =20 > But that is not what you mean. What you're getting at is that JRC > needs to show that he has some clear understanding of the > theosophical viewpoint before he can discount it or disagree with > it. If he's not clear on what it says, he cannot say it's wrong > and offer better ideas. You're not trying to put him on the spot > but rather attempting to get him to reflect on and review the > basis for his thinking. =09Gee thanks! But I wonder who you are talking to? I get the=20 feeling Daniel knew full well what he was "getting at", and believe it or= =20 not, *I* am actually capable of understanding what he said as well. I=20 don't believe Daniel was attempting to get me to "reflect on and review=20 the basis for my thinking" - he simply *asked a question*. One of your=20 more endearing habits is to almost continually guess people's motives, and= =20 then proceed as though your assessment of them is some sort of truth. For= =20 someone continually warning others to beware of the "subjective" nature=20 of those evil psychic powers, you certainly seem disinclined to apply=20 those warnings to your own "intuitions".=20 =09I suspect neither Daniel nor I need your interpretation of his=20 question to me ... an interpretation that sounds curiously closer to=20 what *you* want me to do than to what was actually asked. And I certainly= =20 don't need *you* portraying my thoughts and attitudes on my behalf, as=20 you distort them with your "personal equation" worse than any psychic=20 I've met.=20 > >Possibly you two could illustrate some of your differing=20 > >viewpoints with detailed examples, case histories (something=20 > >that the rest of us could sink our teeth into!). =09 > This sounds like write some articles. As time permits, I may > write something, but not immediately. The quotes that you > provided were useful. Here's one more: =09Aaahhh, but this is a major point. Daniel asked a question in the=20 spirit of *the Third Object*, that is, as an *investigator asking for=20 evidence to inform debate*. He has asked for *specifics* rather than=20 general ideas, for demonstration rather than quotes. And for this reason=20 when I get time I will answer Daniel, but not argue with you - you have=20 not the grounds to discuss the matter, and in fact you, and the many=20 others that have dominated this debate in recent years in TS circles,=20 have attempted undermine the very foundations upon which an *actual*=20 "investigation" might proceed. =20 =09I *have*, over the years, *investigated*. Have you spoken to,=20 examined, gathered evidence from, and analyzed the relative veracity of=20 several *hundred* practitioners of various forms of and manifestations of= =20 inner abilities? I have. Of the few who you've come into contact with,=20 did you approach the evidence *without presumptions of what you would=20 find* ... neither believing it was right until proven wrong *nor=20 assuming it delusion?* I did. Have you done a literature survey ... not=20 just the literature of one philosophy, but the writings from a wide=20 variety of different religions, philosophies, and sciences on the=20 subject? I have. Have you further experienced some of the phenomena=20 within yourself ... put years of effort and discipline into taking a raw=20 trait and forming it into a consistant, *empirically verifiable* ability?= =20 Experimented with a whole host of different conditions, both internal and= =20 external, to discover as many permutations of the ability as possible?=20 Experimented with the results of *combining* such ability with other=20 meditations, with causing that inner vision to sublimate and refine into=20 something completely different than its first manifestations? I have. =09My *premises* were not that I would discover things that=20 conveniently fit some sort of predefined paradigm, Theosophical or=20 otherwise. I was not, and am not attempting to *confirm* a picture I've=20 gotten from a single philosophical standpoint. And it would be as useless= =20 to debate the subject with such a person as it would be to debate Gould's= =20 theory of punctuated evolution with a Creationist, or the nuances of=20 macroeconomic modelling equations with someone who thinks money is "evil". =09You speak of the subject not with the tones of an investigating=20 scientist, but with the normative attitude of a priest who has arrived at= =20 conclusions before evidence has even been gathered. =09I have never actually presented any research, or experiments, or=20 tentative conclusions on this list - what I've been forced to debate is=20 whether or not such things are even valid in Theosophy. There are places=20 where such *investigations* proceed, in fact growing numbers of places,=20 but the proper atmosphere must exist to make such investigations possible= =20 - and that atmosphere is not present in a place were every mention of such= =20 things brings warnings that "illusion" is possible, hints that anyone who= =20 even presents evidence is doing so just to "get attention", and dark=20 warnings of terrible dangers.=20 The Adepts of the ML, and HPB certainly said only Adepts could see with=20 total clarity 100% of the time, but do you think they became Adepts, and=20 suddenly just sort of *had* the vision, just instantly *discovered* they=20 could exercise a whole manner of abilities? Or is it more likely such=20 things developed slowly over lifetimes - were at furst blurred and=20 confused, but through use and exercise, combined with spiritual=20 development, *gradually* turned into the abilities that *in the cause of=20 service to humanity* are exceedingly valuable things to possess?=20 > HPB> Psychic vision, however, is not to be desired, since Psyche > HPB> is earthy and evil. More and more as science advances, the > HPB> psychic will be reached and understood; psychism has in it > HPB> nothing that is spiritual. ... >=20 > ["The Inner Group Teachings of H.P. Blavatsky, pages 11-12.] >=20 okay ... Hhhhmmmm, lemme grab the first available ... HPB> To see and appreciate the difference - the immense gulf that=20 HPB> separates terrestrial matter from the finer grades of supersensuous=20 HPB> matter - every astronomer, every chemist and *physicist* ought to be a= =20 HPB> *psychometer*, to say the least; he ought to be able to sense for=20 HPB> himself that difference in which he now refuses to believe.=20 [Italics are HPB's].=20 [Secret Doctrine, footnote to Stanza VI(6)(b) - (named thus instead of by= =20 page as there are so many different editions floating around)]. I generally do not quote from the SD to back up my arguments, as it=20 really is too immense, seemingly enormously contradictory, and many=20 apparently opposing conclusions can be reached from it. When I talk about= =20 rejecting, or finding flaws in "traditional" Theosophy, I'm talking not=20 about HPB, but about a "doctrine" that was formalized by lesser minds out= =20 of the vastness of her thought ... a doctrine I consider "tamed, leashed=20 and shrunken" Theosophy - that winds up often being presented in such a=20 fashion as to imply that HPB or the Adepts want everyone to spend their=20 lives sitting around studying books, meditating, having calm "deep"=20 discussions of the intricacies of arcane "truths" and studiously avoiding= =20 anything that might lead them into "illusion".=20 =09Of course, if the Adepts had done this, they never would have=20 become Adepts, and if HPB had done so, we wouldn't have the very=20 literature that people quote from to justify this "playpen Theosophy". > >I personally am very much interested in psychic phenomena of all=20 > >sorts. I follow very closely all the latest developments in=20 > >parapsychology and I have done a lot of study and research on=20 > >the Spiritualism of the 19th century. >=20 > The personal pursuit of powers, though, and the effect upon > one's inner life, is an entirely different matter. We can > talk about the general way that things work, or the situation > of particular people, people that may be exceptions to the > rule. Something could be generally bad to follow, yet for > some exceptional individuals their unique karmic circumstances > allow for them to continue that path with benefit. > > There's a difference between the chaos and confusion in=20 > someone's life that opening the pandora's box of the psychical > brings, and the disorder and turbulence that arises in one's > life with probationary chelaship when one is faced with a > lifetime's karma in a few years. =09I will presume you are quoting Theosophical writings, and not=20 claiming to be a "probationary chela" (though you sometimes seem to hint=20 that you might be). Presuming this then, how do you know there is a=20 difference? That becoming a "probationary chela" does not itself serve to= =20 open that "Pandora's box"? In fact, if the early TS is any evidence,=20 virtually everyone who *was* accepted as such *almost immediately began=20 developing* - or attempting to develop - a whole palette of such=20 abilities - *with the aid and complicity of the Adepts*.=20 =09 > (I can picture someone reading this and automatically saying > in reply, "But *I* don't experience chaos and confusion with > the psychic, it's all *your* internal problems with the > psychic; things are simply rosy for me!" I could only wish > continued good luck to such a person.) =09How nice. A veiled warning. Not even the vaguest notion that=20 perhaps your ideas of the "psychic" are proper *for your path* (who=20 knows, you may have gone *overboard* in some past time into the psychic,=20 and be spending a few lives delibrately avoiding it) but that=20 *generalizing* what is proper for *you* may not apply at all to anyone=20 else's path ... that is, maybe it actually *is* your internal problems=20 with it from which your attitudes spring. =20 =09Out of the substantial number of people I've *systematically*=20 surveyed, spoken and experimented with, a particular *subset* has had=20 negative experiences - others have had very intensely positive=20 experiences, but most fall in between in something close to a normal=20 distribution. It is to the extreme end of one tail of that distribution=20 that your "Pandora's Box" of chaos and confusion effects, and most of=20 those seem to fall into one of two groups ... one in which the people,=20 due to some bad psychological or physiological imbalance or distorion=20 probably should never have touched the stuff in the first place - but in=20 whom the chaos and confusion existed *independently* of psychic stuff=20 (that is, the psychic was not a *cause*, but an *avenue of=20 manifestation*) ... and one in which the chaos and confusion was=20 *temporary*, and either the person stopped experimenting, or simply=20 overcame *initial* confusion (a blind man who suddenly had his eyesight=20 restored would *also* initially experience great chaos and confusion, and= =20 might well be temporarily deluded as he tried to fit actual perceptions=20 into the conceptual picture he had built of the world ... but that would=20 hardly be an argument for keeping him *blind*). =09A very *very* small number actually seem to have experienced=20 permanently negative effects ... but even this must be understood within=20 the context of doing *any* actual inner work ... there is a small subset=20 of those undergoing Jungian analysis that *also* crack as the result of=20 *that* - which, by the way, is capable of unleashing a "Pandora's Box of=20 chaos and confusion" as bad as any "psychic" development can - but this=20 is certainly not a reason to issue general warnings against analysis. =20 =09=09 >=20 > >Hoping that you and Eldon will take what I have said above=20 > >as an encouragement to engage in a more constructive=20 > >dialog on a very important topic. >=20 > But until either JRC or I have any new, original ideas on the > subject, we have little more to say, other than restating > our positions again and repeating the same thoughts in > slightly different words each time. =09This may be your view. It isn't mine. In fact, I have never=20 actually *stated* my *position* - most posts have been deconstructions=20 of, and arguments against, *your* assertions, and through them the=20 assertions of what I consider a ridiculous thought-form that hovers=20 around modern Theosophy, and has served to keep debate on the subject=20 trapped within hundred year old categories. > He may make occasional comments that make psychism sound > good, wonderful, wholesome, the great next step forward in > human evolution.=20 =09I have never made affirmative comments suggesting any such thing.=20 I once sketched a paradigm I was playing with intellectually, that=20 suggested that the phenomena of disciplined channeling might be the first= =20 step of something new (and this was really just playing with a particular= =20 viewpoint, it was not a *belief* nor an *assertion*) - and I have now and= =20 then pointed out that *HPB* correctly predicted that there would be an=20 increase in children *born* with "latent" powers active in this and=20 coming centuries.=20 =09I have *never* called psychic development a "path"; I have never=20 once even *suggested* that anyone attempt in any way, shape or form begin= =20 experimenting with it - and in fact believe anyone that *is* afraid of=20 it, that does feel nervous about it, *should* stay the hell away from it,= =20 as the fear may very well be an intuitive signal that it is not=20 appropriate to *that person's path in that lifetime* ... I have not been=20 *selling* the idea that psychism is "good" as some general thing to=20 pursue ... in fact have only argued that I think it the height of=20 arrogance for someone to *make* generalized statements about what is=20 "right" for others to do. To portray me as an *advocate* of "psychism"=20 and yourself as one who warns people of its dangers is a false picture -=20 fact in the thousands of pages I've written in my lifetime there is not=20 *one sentence* in which I've even hinted that another person or general=20 group of people "should" engage in any such development.=20 =09What I *have* said is that within the TS *should exist an=20 environment in which the pursuit of the Third Object is possible*, and=20 that the condescending and dismissive tones and attitudes with which=20 so-called "traditional" Theosophy speaks about such things not only does=20 not create such an environment, but assures that any actual=20 *investigators* will not waste their time in Theosophical circles -=20 undoubtadly, of course, because they're not yet "ready" to be lead into=20 something "higher".=20 > I may make occasional remarks about > psychism being not such a good thing. Either of us may feel > it necessary, after reading enough of the other's comments, > to "set the record straight" with a detailed reply. It's > best, I think, when our replies deal with the ideas and > issues, and don't find it necessary to try to humble the > other by blasting their person, by putting them down and > trying to find significant character or behavioral flaws. =09A curious categorization. It has been a *long time* since I=20 stated anything at all about the "psychic". In fact, I determined not to.= =20 *You* seem unable to resist introducing what you call "stray comments",=20 often into discussions that don't even relate to psychism. Most of these=20 I have just let pass. Periodically I'll respond to one, (which you call=20 an "outburst", based on "resentment" that has alledgedly built up in me),= =20 not, however, to attempt to convince you of anything, but to make it=20 clear to any newcomers on the list that your view is *not* "the" only=20 Theosophical view.=20 =09Get real clear about this: *You* keep starting it; I *respond*.=20 If you want "us" to stop, then *you* stop. I personally don't care all=20 that much about styles of presentation. And generally I'll try to=20 *reflect* the attitudes I'm responding to. You seem to see yourself as=20 trying to maintain some sort of ground above the personality level, and=20 myself as descending to personal shots. From *my* perspective, I take=20 your personal shots and reflect them in and overt rather than covert=20 fashion. If you are serious about raising the level of discourse to that=20 of idea, then *do it*, and I'll respond in like fashion. Please think=20 *real hard* about this, Eldon, and contemplate whether there is not some=20 truth to it. =09From your last post:=20 "You mention that I've taught you to "throw aside all notions of=20 empathizing with the point of view of another, and to simply state=20 my own perspective as forcefully as possible." That certainly was=20 not something I either try to practice or teach others.=20 I suppose that you may get the feeling that I've been that way in=20 the past, because there have been times when you've posted things=20 and gotten praise. There have been times when I've been the only=20 person that attempts to contrast what you've said with a=20 traditional theosophical view, which you're quick to dismiss as=20 mere intellectual stuff." =09Examine the picture this paints. You appear as someone bodly=20 standing at times as the sole voice of "traditional Theosophy", without=20 any ill intent, and simply responding to me. I appear as someone who=20 *mistakes* that pure stance as a lack of empathy, because it apparently=20 puts a damper on the *praise* I receive from my postings. What, your=20 motive is to uphold the truth, and mine is simply to *get praise*? Good=20 grief. =09When *you* speak your mind, it is simply someone standing for=20 truth and trying nobly to lead people into something "higher", when *I*=20 respond, it is because resentment has built, and it is not an equally=20 valid *philosophical position*, but an "outburst".=20 =09Is this then, a demonstration of what you call "not putting=20 people down"?=20 =09You can determine how things go Eldon. If you keep making "stray=20 comments", I'll keep having "outbursts". If you keep categorizing *my=20 motives*, I'll keep "blasting away at your character". If you wish the=20 conversation to raise to the level you advocate, *then raise it*, and I=20 will respond in like fashion. =09=09=09=09=09=09=09Regards, -JRC =20 From rwheaton@bart.ccis.com Sun Apr 21 20:43:36 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 13:43:36 -0700 From: rwheaton@bart.ccis.com Message-Id: <317A9DF8.4441@bart.ccis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Golden Dawn References: <2.2.32.19960421055537.00687d60@mail.slip.net> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit alexis dolgorukii wrote: > > At 09:27 PM 4/20/96 -0400, you wrote: > >"The formation of an Esoteric Section (or school) of Theosophy was > >intimately connected with another influential force of the 19th century, > >the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn." Quote from (The Key of It All), > >by David Allen Hulse, page xxxii vol. 1. Does anyone know what school > >Hulse may be talking about? > > > >To the best of my knolwedge the only thing he was referring to has to be > The EsotericSection of The Theosophical Society as formed by Mmme. Blavatsky > during her lifetime. A number of the founding members of The Golden Dawn > were originally members of the Esoteric Section (Win Westcott for instance). > The section did not, but should have, died when it's only teacher did. > > alexis dolgorukii > member TI,FTSAThis is the most Egotistical, Dogmatic answer I have heard since Jerry Falwell talked about Mother Teresa going to hell if she did not except Jesus Christ. Who the hell are YOU? From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 21 12:06:22 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 13:06:22 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: vegetables and the voidance thereof In-Reply-To: <960421025509_379548613@emout09.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960421025509_379548613@emout09.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >if I inherited Grandpa's genes, I'll live a >lot longer. He lasted well into his nineties and never touched a vegetable >in his life, unlike my poor father whose diet required him to eat some and he >died in his early sixties. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Not a valid test. I know someone who has been a vegetarian since her late teens. She is now 92. You are more likely to live long 'cos of Grandpa's genes, whatever you eat. Good news either way! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon Apr 22 00:02:51 1996 Date: 21 Apr 96 20:02:51 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: female adepts Message-Id: <960422000250_76400.1474_HHL70-3@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: > An Adept is the same thing as a Mahatma if you remove all the religious >fol de rol. This is my understanding too. Jerry SS. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon Apr 22 00:02:50 1996 Date: 21 Apr 96 20:02:50 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: changeing your personality Message-Id: <960422000250_76400.1474_HHL70-2@CompuServe.COM> >To Liesel and Jerry and whomever else: > >Do the reviewers you've referred to specify what type of ritual magic may cause >these changes? Actually any type that employs invocation. When you invoke an entity, you bring it into yourself, and it becomes a part of you. One of the dangers of this sort of thing, is invoking something that you really don't want to become. I always advocate invoking friendly and helpful entities. But there is nothing (other than common sense) to stop someone from invoking a demon or suchlike beast, and becoming a nasty person. Jerry S. Member, TI From RIhle@aol.com Mon Apr 22 00:39:21 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 20:39:21 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960421203920_475022624@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Golden Dawn >> >To the best of my knolwedge the only thing he was referring to has to be >> The EsotericSection of The Theosophical Society as formed by Mmme. >Blavatsky >> during her lifetime. A number of the founding members of The Golden Dawn >> were originally members of the Esoteric Section (Win Westcott for >instance). >> The section did not, but should have, died when it's only teacher did. >> >> alexis dolgorukii >> member TI,FTSA rwheaton writes [???] >This is the most Egotistical, Dogmatic answer I have heard >since Jerry >Falwell talked about Mother Teresa going to hell if she did not except >Jesus Christ. Who the hell are YOU? Richard Ihle writes> The ~who is writing what~ in this thread got a little mixed up on my screen. Is it possible that rwheaton actually said this last part to Alexis? I guess we'll know soon enough. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 22 00:23:06 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:23:06 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Golden Dawn In-Reply-To: <317A9DF8.4441@bart.ccis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <317A9DF8.4441@bart.ccis.com>, rwheaton@bart.ccis.com writes >This is the most Egotistical, Dogmatic answer I have heard since Jerry >Falwell talked about Mother Teresa going to hell if she did not except >Jesus Christ. Who the hell are YOU? And this is the rudest and most impolite posting I have read since I joined this list - and we are short on saints. WHO THE HELL ARE *YOU*??!! Alan Bain --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 22 00:12:28 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:12:28 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: No Supremo In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960421081034.256fecac@pop.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.16.19960421081034.256fecac@pop.tiac.net>, Vegetarian Resource Center writes >Doesn't Theosophy teach that, because of reincarnation, >all persons alive are different manifefstations of the >supreme Person, and have metaphyically equal standing? > No. --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 22 00:10:22 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:10:22 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Ecclesia Skeptika In-Reply-To: <960421074530_474688106@emout18.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960421074530_474688106@emout18.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >Sorry, with the D.D. after your name I thought you had all the ecclesiastical >paraphenalia. I got miter and stuff - redundant now. > >Chuck the Barbaric Sinner MTI, FTSA That was for research into obscure byways of Christian History during my ecclesiastical period - like 1985. As I have said elsewhere, I've moved on from any kind of conventional Xtianity. Some time I must try to post an essay or two showing where I've been and where I've come to. To be more precise, I was awarded the D.D. for my "Bishops Irregular" - a directory of Independent Bishops. This includes all the known bishops of the Liberal Catholic Church up to that time, and a 1989 suppelement (printed privately to order) added quite a few more - in all there are around 1,500 names tracing various lines of apostolic succession (including mine) back to the 17th century in the Roman Church, when the first consecration took place that was to lead eventually to the phenomenon which, id the fulness of time, enabled film star Anthony Hopkins of "Psycho" fame to get a certificate of ordination and perform marriages. Other theosophically minded folk (like Stefan Hoeller) are bishops in some outfit or another. As one such said to me (speaking from California): "Shake a tree round here and ten bishops fall out." My book had the honor of becoming a standard work, so that students in this field still say "Have you got a copy of Bain?" - and I have *not* been cloned! :-) The issuing body was St. Ephrem's Institute for Eastern Christianity Studies in Sweden, which is actually my primary interest in the Xtian area - especially the Church of the East (as distinct from the Western Roman one) with its Aramaic and Pharisaic connections. I could witter on about that for hours ... [See my *The Nazarenes - a Speculative Enquiry into Christian Origins* - privately published and available by E-mail]. Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From JPROLSTON@aol.com Mon Apr 22 02:06:55 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 22:06:55 -0400 From: JPROLSTON@aol.com Message-Id: <960421220654_195830371@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: THEOSOPHY WORLD Doss writes, "In the meanwhile, can you enlighten us on: (1) who are the editors/moderators (2) who is (organization and/or person(s)) providing the financial and administrative support to the lists (3) are there going to be any charges to subscribe to these lists?" (1) The editors will be Jerry Hejka-Ekins, Eldon Tucker, and myself, John Paul Rolston. More editors may come aboard. So far we have representatives from the TS (Point Loma), ULT, and TS (Adyar). Two lists (news and articles) will be moderated, the discussion list will be unmoderated. (2) THEOSOPHY WORLD will be funded by the individuals responsible for carrying it out, and donations are very welcome. We are in the process of incorporating into a non-profit group. There will be no formal ties to any existing Theosophical organization. Editors and contributors will speak from their own points of view, and there will be no attempt to represent a certain "party line." (3) There will be no charges (other than whatever the individual pays for their general access to the Internet). -- J.P.R. From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Apr 22 03:45:26 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 22:45:26 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY WORLD In-Reply-To: <960421220654_195830371@emout15.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Thanks for the information. ...doss On Sun, 21 Apr 1996 JPROLSTON@aol.com wrote: > Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 22:09:01 -0400 > From: JPROLSTON@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: THEOSOPHY WORLD > > Doss writes, > > "In the meanwhile, can you enlighten us on: > > (1) who are the editors/moderators > (2) who is (organization and/or person(s)) providing the financial and > administrative support to the lists > (3) are there going to be any charges to subscribe to these lists?" > > > (1) The editors will be Jerry Hejka-Ekins, Eldon Tucker, and myself, John > Paul Rolston. More editors may come aboard. So far we have representatives > from the TS (Point Loma), ULT, and TS (Adyar). Two lists (news and articles) > will be moderated, the discussion list will be unmoderated. > > (2) THEOSOPHY WORLD will be funded by the individuals responsible for > carrying it out, and donations are very welcome. We are in the process of > incorporating into a non-profit group. There will be no formal ties to any > existing Theosophical organization. Editors and contributors will speak from > their own points of view, and there will be no attempt to represent a certain > "party line." > > (3) There will be no charges (other than whatever the individual pays for > their general access to the Internet). > > -- J.P.R. > From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 21 01:40:18 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 02:40:18 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Off world In-Reply-To: <199604202255.KAA06419@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604202255.KAA06419@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz>, Bee Brown writes > \\// > (o o) > --o00-(_)-00o-- > Stop the world,I wanna get off > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L Stopping world for five minutes on Wednesday. You will be able to get off then, I have no idea where you plan to go, but that is your problem, not mine - I just answer prayers (if I have time). God --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From am455@lafn.org Sun Apr 21 18:35:41 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 11:35:41 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199604211835.AA10609@lafn.org> Subject: Chohan's letter THE GREAT MASTER'S LETTER _________________________________________________________________ [This article was printed in Lucifer without signature as "An Important Letter," prefaced by the statement that it "was circulated by H.P.B. among many of her pupils, and some quotations from it have been published from time to time." The Letter belongs to the early days of the Theosophical Society in India and was part of the correspondence received (through H.P.B.) by A. P. Sinnett and A. O. Hume from the Theosophical Adepts. His Adept-teacher introduced the letter to Mr. Sinnett as "an abridged version of the view of the Chohan on the T.S. from his own words as given last night"--in reply to objections about the conduct of the Society and especially to the "Brotherhood plank." Although the text of the complete letter was not published until after H.P. Blavatsky and Wm. Q. Judge had left the scene, both provided a setting for the statements made, and both quoted in their magazines some passages for particular attention.--Eds.] *************************** The doctrine we promulgate being the only true one, must--supported by such evidence as we are preparing to give--become ultimately triumphant, like every other truth. Yet it is absolutely necessary to inculcate it gradually; enforcing its theories (unimpeachable facts for those who know) with direct inference, deduced from and corroborated by the evidence furnished by modern exact science. That is why Col. H. S. Olcott, who works to revive Buddhism, may be regarded as one who labours in the true path of Theosophy, far more than any man who chooses as his goal the gratification of his own ardent aspirations for occult knowledge. Buddhism, stripped of its superstition, is eternal truth; and he who strives for the latter is striving for eternal truth; and he who strives for the latter is striving for Theo-Sophia, divine wisdom, which is a synonym of truth. For our doctrines to practically react on the so-called moral code, or the ideas of truthfulness, purity, self-denial, charity, etc. , we have to preach and popularize a knowledge of Theosophy. It is not the individual and determined purpose of attaining Nirvana--the culmination of all knowledge and absolute wisdom, which is after all only an exalted and glorious selfishness--but the self-sacrificing pursuit of the best means to lead on the right path our neighbour, to cause to benefit by it as many of our fellow-creatures as we possibly can, which constitutes the true Theosophist. The intellectual portion of mankind seems to be fast dividing into two classes: the one unconsciously preparing for itself long periods of temporary annihilation or states of non-consciousness, owing to the deliberate surrender of intellect, and its imprisonment in the narrow grooves of bigotry and superstition--a process which cannot fail to lead to the utter deformation of the intellectual principle; the other unrestrainedly indulging its animal propensities with the deliberate intention of submitting to annihilation pure and simple, in case of failure, and to millenniums of degradation after physical dissolution. Those intellectual classes, reacting upon the ignorant masses--which they attract, and which look up to them as noble and fit examples to be followed--degrade and morally ruin those they ought to protect and guide. Between degrading superstition and still more degrading brutal materialism, the White Dove of Truth has hardly room whereon to rest her weary unwelcome feet. It is time that Theosophy should enter the arena. The sons of Theosophists are more likely to become in their turn Theosophists than anything else. No messenger of the truth, no prophet, has ever achieved during his life-time a complete triumph--not even Buddha. The Theosophical Society was chosen as the cornerstone, the foundation of the future religions of humanity. To achieve the proposed object, a greater, wiser, and especially a more benevolent intermingling of the high and the low, the alpha and the omega of society, was determined upon. The white race must be the first to stretch out the hand of fellowship to the dark nations, to call the poor despised "nigger" brother. This prospect may not smile for all, but he is no Theosophist who objects to this principle. In view of the ever-increasing triumph, and at the same time the misuse, of free thought and liberty (the universal reign of Satan, Eliphas Levi would have called it), how is the combative natural instinct of man to be restrained from inflicting hitherto unheard-of cruelty and enormous tyranny, injustice, etc., if not through the soothing influence of brotherhood, and of the practical application of Buddha's esoteric doctrines? For everyone knows that total emancipation from the authority of the one all-pervading power, or law--called God by the priests, and Buddha, Divine Wisdom and enlightenment or Theosophy, by the philosophers of all ages--means also the emancipation from that of human law. Once unfettered and delivered from their deadweight of dogmatism, interpretations, personal names, anthropomorphic conceptions, and salaried priests, the fundamental doctrines of all religions will be proved identical in their esoteric meaning. Osiris, Krishna, Buddha, Christ, will be shown as different means for one and the same royal highway to final bliss--Nirvana. Mystical Christianity teaches Self-redemption through one's own seventh principle, the liberated Paramatma, called by the one Christ, by others Buddha; this is equivalent to regeneration, or rebirth in spirit, and it therefore expounds just the same truth as the Nirvana of Buddhism. All of us have to get rid of our own Ego, the illusory, apparent self, to recognize our true Self, in a transcendental divine life. But if we would not be selfish, we must strive to make other people see that truth, and recognize the reality of the transcendental Self, the Buddha, the Christ, or God of every preacher. This is why even esoteric Buddhism is the surest path to lead men towards the one esoteric truth. As we find the world now, whether Christian, Mussulman, or Pagan, justice is disregarded, and honour and mercy are both flung to the winds. In a word, how--since the main objects of the Theosophical Society are misinterpreted by those who are most willing to serve us personally--are we to deal with the rest of mankind? with that curse known as the struggle for life, which is the real and most prolific parent of most woes and sorrows, and all crimes? Why has that struggle become almost the universal scheme of the universe? We answer,--because no religion, with the exception of Buddhism, has taught a practical contempt for this earthly life; while each of them, always with that one solitary exception, has through its hells and damnations inculcated the greatest dread of death. Therefore do we find that struggle for life raging most fiercely in Christian countries, most prevalent in Europe and America. It weakens in the Pagan lands, and is nearly unknown among Buddhist populations. In China during famine, and where the masses are most ignorant of their own or of any religion, it was remarked that those mothers who devoured their children belonged to localities where there was none; and where the Bonzes alone had the field, the population died with the utmost indifference. Teach the people to see that life on this earth, even the happiest, is but a burden and an illusion; that it is our own Karma [the cause producing the effect] that is our own judge--our Saviour in future lives--and the great struggle for life will soon lose its intensity. There are no penitentiaries in Buddhist lands, and crime is nearly unknown among the Buddhist Tibetans. The world in general, and Christendom especially, left for 2,000 years to the regime of a personal God, as well as to its political and social systems based on that idea, has now proved a failure. If the Theosophists say we have nothing to do with all this; the lower classes and the inferior races (those of India, for instance, in the conception of the British) cannot concern us, and must manage as they can, what becomes of our fine professions of benevolence, philanthropy, reform, etc.? Are those professions a mockery? And if a mockery, can ours be the true path? Shall we devote ourselves to teaching a few Europeans--fed on the fat of the land, many of them loaded with the gifts of blind fortune--the rationale of bell-ringing, of cup-growing, of the spiritual telephone, and astral body formation, and leave the teeming millions of the ignorant, of the poor and oppressed, to take care of themselves, and of their hereafter, as best they can? Never! perish rather the Theosophical Society with both its hapless Founders, than that we should permit it to become no better than an academy of magic, and a hall of occultism! That we, the devoted followers of that spirit incarnate of absolute self-sacrifice, of philanthropy, divine kindness, as of all the highest virtues attainable on this earth of sorrow, the man of men, Gautama Buddha, should ever allow the Theosophical Society to represent the embodiment of selfishness, the refuge of the few with no thought in them for the many, is a strange idea, my brothers! Among the few glimpses obtained by Europeans of Tibet and its mystical hierarchy of perfect Lamas, there was one which was correctly understood and described. The incarnations of the Bodhisattva Padmapani or Avolokiteshvara, of Tsong-ka-pa, and that of Amitabha, relinquished at their death the attainment of Buddhahood--i.e., the summum bonum of bliss, and of individual personal felicity--that they might be born again and again for the benefit of mankind. In other words, that they might be again and again subjected to misery, imprisonment in flesh, and all the sorrows of life, provided that they by such a self-sacrifice, repeated throughout long and weary centuries, might become the means of securing salvation and bliss in the hereafter for a handful of men chosen among but one of the many planetary races of mankind. And it is we, the humble disciples of these perfect Lamas, who are expected to allow the Theosophical Society to drop its noblest title, that of the Brotherhood of Humanity, to become a simple school of philosophy! No, no, good brothers, you have been labouring under the mistake too long already. Let us understand each other. He who does not feel competent to grasp the noble idea sufficiently to work for it, need not undertake a task too heavy for him. But there is hardly a Theosophist in the whole Society unable to effectually help it by correcting erroneous impressions of outsiders, by himself actually propagating this idea. Oh! for noble and unselfish men to help us effectually in that divine task! All our knowledge, past and present, would not be sufficient to repay him. Having explained our views and aspirations, I have but a few words more to add. The true religion and philosophy offer the solution of every problem. That the world is in such a bad condition, morally, is a conclusive evidence that none of its religions and philosophies, those of the civilized races less than any other, has ever possessed the truth. The right and logical explanations on the subject of the problems of the great dual principles, right and wrong, good and evil, liberty and despotism, pain and pleasure, egotism and altruism, are as impossible to them now as they were 1880 years ago. They are as far from the solution as they were; but to these problems there must be somewhere a consistent solution, and if our doctrines will show their competence to offer it, then the world will be the first to confess that there must be the true philosophy, the true religion, the true light, which gives truth and nothing but the truth. [Lucifer, August, 1896] ******************************* -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Sun Apr 21 20:29:12 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 08:29:12 +1200 From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Message-Id: <199604212029.IAA11809@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Off world >In message <199604202255.KAA06419@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz>, Bee Brown > writes >> \\// >> (o o) >> --o00-(_)-00o-- >> Stop the world,I wanna get off >> Bee Brown >> Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. >> Theos Int & L > >Stopping world for five minutes on Wednesday. You will be able to get >off then, I have no idea where you plan to go, but that is your >problem, not mine - I just answer prayers (if I have time). > >God >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > Thank you god. I wanna go play on a nice planet where everyone smiles and eats pancakes. Bee Brown> From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 22 00:28:00 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:28:00 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: Off world In-Reply-To: <199604212029.IAA11809@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604212029.IAA11809@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz>, Bee Brown writes >off then, I have no idea where you plan to go, but that is your >>problem, not mine - I just answer prayers (if I have time). >> >>God >>--------- >>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html >> >Thank you god. >I wanna go play on a nice planet where everyone smiles and eats pancakes. >Bee Brown> > Tried that once. The entire population became obese and died out, smiling. That was when we cancelled the eight-day week. There is a planet around somwhere where everyone smiles all the time. "Hell" I think they called it. I'll get one of the angels to check it out and let you have further info. God (yawn). --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 22 05:06:27 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:06:27 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960422010626_277754940@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: union Alan, No, Alex is going to be too busy to be the Antichrist. Besides, I have the Ark of the Covenant in my basement. Chuck the Antichrist--er--Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 22 08:27:08 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:27:08 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960422082708.006a9944@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: applied???? At 08:06 AM 4/21/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <960420133956_474266764@emout07.mail.aol.com>, >Drpsionic@aol.com writes >>Did you know that King Juan Carlos of Spain is the going to be the >>Antichrist? :-) >> >>Chuck MTI, FTSA > >I thought Alexis had applied for the job ... > >Alan :-) >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan: What do you mean applied???? It's me they apply to! alexis, ange de feu From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 23 00:17:55 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 20:17:55 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960422201755_475764146@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: applied???? Alex, YOu've got it wrong again. I'm the Antichrist. You're the False Prophet. Chuck the Barbaric Antichrist MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From rwheaton@bart.ccis.com Mon Apr 22 04:26:24 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 21:26:24 -0700 From: rwheaton@bart.ccis.com Message-Id: <317B0A70.14EA@bart.ccis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Golden Dawn References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > > In message <317A9DF8.4441@bart.ccis.com>, rwheaton@bart.ccis.com writes > >This is the most Egotistical, Dogmatic answer I have heard since Jerry > >Falwell talked about Mother Teresa going to hell if she did not except > >Jesus Christ. Who the hell are YOU? > > And this is the rudest and most impolite posting I have read since I > joined this list - and we are short on saints. > > WHO THE HELL ARE *YOU*??!! > > Alan Bain > --------- > THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: > Ancient Wisdom for a New Age > TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html I was responding to the remark made by Alexis who stated that the esoteric school should have died along with its teacher HPB. If this is not DOGMATIC intolerance tell me what is? And by the way, while we are talking about rudeness, that sexist remark you made about female Mahatmas doing what the male Mahatmas tell them was the height of rudeness. I have a legitimate reason for asking these questions and expect legitimate answers. From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Apr 22 04:37:49 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 23:37:49 -0500 (CDT) From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) (by way of ramadoss@eden.com) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960421234005.1abfa0b4@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Chohan's letter Comments by MK Ramadoss: The following message is from theos-roots. It may give some idea about what the "Founders" had in their mind when the TS was started. This letter is considered by many to be the most important letter ever received from the Adept Teachers as it communicates the views of the Great Master as regards the role of Theosophy and Theosophical Society. Many things said in it seems to be appropriate in 1996 as it was in 1880. ================================================================================ Following is the post by Nicholas Weeks (and credit is due to him): THE GREAT MASTER'S LETTER _________________________________________________________________ [This article was printed in Lucifer without signature as "An Important Letter," prefaced by the statement that it "was circulated by H.P.B. among many of her pupils, and some quotations from it have been published from time to time." The Letter belongs to the early days of the Theosophical Society in India and was part of the correspondence received (through H.P.B.) by A. P. Sinnett and A. O. Hume from the Theosophical Adepts. His Adept-teacher introduced the letter to Mr. Sinnett as "an abridged version of the view of the Chohan on the T.S. from his own words as given last night"--in reply to objections about the conduct of the Society and especially to the "Brotherhood plank." Although the text of the complete letter was not published until after H.P. Blavatsky and Wm. Q. Judge had left the scene, both provided a setting for the statements made, and both quoted in their magazines some passages for particular attention.--Eds.] *************************** The doctrine we promulgate being the only true one, must--supported by such evidence as we are preparing to give--become ultimately triumphant, like every other truth. Yet it is absolutely necessary to inculcate it gradually; enforcing its theories (unimpeachable facts for those who know) with direct inference, deduced from and corroborated by the evidence furnished by modern exact science. That is why Col. H. S. Olcott, who works to revive Buddhism, may be regarded as one who labours in the true path of Theosophy, far more than any man who chooses as his goal the gratification of his own ardent aspirations for occult knowledge. Buddhism, stripped of its superstition, is eternal truth; and he who strives for the latter is striving for eternal truth; and he who strives for the latter is striving for Theo-Sophia, divine wisdom, which is a synonym of truth. For our doctrines to practically react on the so-called moral code, or the ideas of truthfulness, purity, self-denial, charity, etc. , we have to preach and popularize a knowledge of Theosophy. It is not the individual and determined purpose of attaining Nirvana--the culmination of all knowledge and absolute wisdom, which is after all only an exalted and glorious selfishness--but the self-sacrificing pursuit of the best means to lead on the right path our neighbour, to cause to benefit by it as many of our fellow-creatures as we possibly can, which constitutes the true Theosophist. The intellectual portion of mankind seems to be fast dividing into two classes: the one unconsciously preparing for itself long periods of temporary annihilation or states of non-consciousness, owing to the deliberate surrender of intellect, and its imprisonment in the narrow grooves of bigotry and superstition--a process which cannot fail to lead to the utter deformation of the intellectual principle; the other unrestrainedly indulging its animal propensities with the deliberate intention of submitting to annihilation pure and simple, in case of failure, and to millenniums of degradation after physical dissolution. Those intellectual classes, reacting upon the ignorant masses--which they attract, and which look up to them as noble and fit examples to be followed--degrade and morally ruin those they ought to protect and guide. Between degrading superstition and still more degrading brutal materialism, the White Dove of Truth has hardly room whereon to rest her weary unwelcome feet. It is time that Theosophy should enter the arena. The sons of Theosophists are more likely to become in their turn Theosophists than anything else. No messenger of the truth, no prophet, has ever achieved during his life-time a complete triumph--not even Buddha. The Theosophical Society was chosen as the cornerstone, the foundation of the future religions of humanity. To achieve the proposed object, a greater, wiser, and especially a more benevolent intermingling of the high and the low, the alpha and the omega of society, was determined upon. The white race must be the first to stretch out the hand of fellowship to the dark nations, to call the poor despised "nigger" brother. This prospect may not smile for all, but he is no Theosophist who objects to this principle. In view of the ever-increasing triumph, and at the same time the misuse, of free thought and liberty (the universal reign of Satan, Eliphas Levi would have called it), how is the combative natural instinct of man to be restrained from inflicting hitherto unheard-of cruelty and enormous tyranny, injustice, etc., if not through the soothing influence of brotherhood, and of the practical application of Buddha's esoteric doctrines? For everyone knows that total emancipation from the authority of the one all-pervading power, or law--called God by the priests, and Buddha, Divine Wisdom and enlightenment or Theosophy, by the philosophers of all ages--means also the emancipation from that of human law. Once unfettered and delivered from their deadweight of dogmatism, interpretations, personal names, anthropomorphic conceptions, and salaried priests, the fundamental doctrines of all religions will be proved identical in their esoteric meaning. Osiris, Krishna, Buddha, Christ, will be shown as different means for one and the same royal highway to final bliss--Nirvana. Mystical Christianity teaches Self-redemption through one's own seventh principle, the liberated Paramatma, called by the one Christ, by others Buddha; this is equivalent to regeneration, or rebirth in spirit, and it therefore expounds just the same truth as the Nirvana of Buddhism. All of us have to get rid of our own Ego, the illusory, apparent self, to recognize our true Self, in a transcendental divine life. But if we would not be selfish, we must strive to make other people see that truth, and recognize the reality of the transcendental Self, the Buddha, the Christ, or God of every preacher. This is why even esoteric Buddhism is the surest path to lead men towards the one esoteric truth. As we find the world now, whether Christian, Mussulman, or Pagan, justice is disregarded, and honour and mercy are both flung to the winds. In a word, how--since the main objects of the Theosophical Society are misinterpreted by those who are most willing to serve us personally--are we to deal with the rest of mankind? with that curse known as the struggle for life, which is the real and most prolific parent of most woes and sorrows, and all crimes? Why has that struggle become almost the universal scheme of the universe? We answer,--because no religion, with the exception of Buddhism, has taught a practical contempt for this earthly life; while each of them, always with that one solitary exception, has through its hells and damnations inculcated the greatest dread of death. Therefore do we find that struggle for life raging most fiercely in Christian countries, most prevalent in Europe and America. It weakens in the Pagan lands, and is nearly unknown among Buddhist populations. In China during famine, and where the masses are most ignorant of their own or of any religion, it was remarked that those mothers who devoured their children belonged to localities where there was none; and where the Bonzes alone had the field, the population died with the utmost indifference. Teach the people to see that life on this earth, even the happiest, is but a burden and an illusion; that it is our own Karma [the cause producing the effect] that is our own judge--our Saviour in future lives--and the great struggle for life will soon lose its intensity. There are no penitentiaries in Buddhist lands, and crime is nearly unknown among the Buddhist Tibetans. The world in general, and Christendom especially, left for 2,000 years to the regime of a personal God, as well as to its political and social systems based on that idea, has now proved a failure. If the Theosophists say we have nothing to do with all this; the lower classes and the inferior races (those of India, for instance, in the conception of the British) cannot concern us, and must manage as they can, what becomes of our fine professions of benevolence, philanthropy, reform, etc.? Are those professions a mockery? And if a mockery, can ours be the true path? Shall we devote ourselves to teaching a few Europeans--fed on the fat of the land, many of them loaded with the gifts of blind fortune--the rationale of bell-ringing, of cup-growing, of the spiritual telephone, and astral body formation, and leave the teeming millions of the ignorant, of the poor and oppressed, to take care of themselves, and of their hereafter, as best they can? Never! perish rather the Theosophical Society with both its hapless Founders, than that we should permit it to become no better than an academy of magic, and a hall of occultism! That we, the devoted followers of that spirit incarnate of absolute self-sacrifice, of philanthropy, divine kindness, as of all the highest virtues attainable on this earth of sorrow, the man of men, Gautama Buddha, should ever allow the Theosophical Society to represent the embodiment of selfishness, the refuge of the few with no thought in them for the many, is a strange idea, my brothers! Among the few glimpses obtained by Europeans of Tibet and its mystical hierarchy of perfect Lamas, there was one which was correctly understood and described. The incarnations of the Bodhisattva Padmapani or Avolokiteshvara, of Tsong-ka-pa, and that of Amitabha, relinquished at their death the attainment of Buddhahood--i.e., the summum bonum of bliss, and of individual personal felicity--that they might be born again and again for the benefit of mankind. In other words, that they might be again and again subjected to misery, imprisonment in flesh, and all the sorrows of life, provided that they by such a self-sacrifice, repeated throughout long and weary centuries, might become the means of securing salvation and bliss in the hereafter for a handful of men chosen among but one of the many planetary races of mankind. And it is we, the humble disciples of these perfect Lamas, who are expected to allow the Theosophical Society to drop its noblest title, that of the Brotherhood of Humanity, to become a simple school of philosophy! No, no, good brothers, you have been labouring under the mistake too long already. Let us understand each other. He who does not feel competent to grasp the noble idea sufficiently to work for it, need not undertake a task too heavy for him. But there is hardly a Theosophist in the whole Society unable to effectually help it by correcting erroneous impressions of outsiders, by himself actually propagating this idea. Oh! for noble and unselfish men to help us effectually in that divine task! All our knowledge, past and present, would not be sufficient to repay him. Having explained our views and aspirations, I have but a few words more to add. The true religion and philosophy offer the solution of every problem. That the world is in such a bad condition, morally, is a conclusive evidence that none of its religions and philosophies, those of the civilized races less than any other, has ever possessed the truth. The right and logical explanations on the subject of the problems of the great dual principles, right and wrong, good and evil, liberty and despotism, pain and pleasure, egotism and altruism, are as impossible to them now as they were 1880 years ago. They are as far from the solution as they were; but to these problems there must be somewhere a consistent solution, and if our doctrines will show their competence to offer it, then the world will be the first to confess that there must be the true philosophy, the true religion, the true light, which gives truth and nothing but the truth. [Lucifer, August, 1896] ******************************* -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Apr 22 04:37:56 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 23:37:56 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960421234011.1abf83a4@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Theosophy/Theosophical Society In the letter from the Great Master (that is just posted), there are two statements which caught my attention. ======================================================================== 1. "As we find the world now, whether Christian, Mussulman, or Pagan, justice is disregarded, and honour and mercy are both flung to the winds." ======================================================================== 2. "And it is we, the humble disciples of these perfect Lamas, who are expected to allow the Theosophical Society to drop its noblest title, that of the Brotherhood of Humanity, to become a simple school of philosophy! No, no, good brothers, you have been labouring under the mistake too long already. Let us understand each other. He who does not feel competent to grasp the noble idea sufficiently to work for it, need not undertake a task too heavy for him. But there is hardly a Theosophist in the whole Society unable to effectually help it by correcting erroneous impressions of outsiders, by himself actually propagating this idea. Oh! for noble and unselfish men to help us effectually in that divine task! All our knowledge, past and present, would not be sufficient to repay him." ========================================================================== Several questions that comes up are: 1. When we all the wars and killing that is going on around the world in the name of nationalism, religion and pure politics, are things improving around the world? 2. Again and again, in many of the Mahatma Letters to Sinnett, the need for the establishing a Brotherhood of Humanity is mentioned as the most important objective of Theosophical Society. It is because of this, I believe, the First Object of the TS is this. Much valuable information was given out by HPB and other writers dealing with Man and the Universe. There seems to be an implication even then in 1880, there was some great emphasis on "school of philosophy" while unequivocally this letter states that what was expected of all of us is to work towards this noble idea of Brotherhood of Humanity. They were looking for noble and unselfish persons to help them in this very important task and how very grateful They are to any one who gives a helping hand in this task. 3. Considering the non increase in the membership (and possibly gradual decline), is there something that all of us are not doing right? Is there too much emphasis placed on the philosophy and not many are turned on to be unselfish to work towards the noble idea of Universal Brotherhood of Humanity. Let us brain storm on the above and any related and relevant items. May be we can learn from each other as to how we can more effectively work towards this noble idea of Brotherhood of Humanity. I welcome *all* discussion - from novices, experts, lurkers and all posters of messages. Cheers MK Ramadoss From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Mon Apr 22 04:38:24 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 22:38:24 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Golden Dawn In-Reply-To: <317B0A70.14EA@bart.ccis.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 22 Apr 1996 rwheaton@bart.ccis.com wrote: > Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > > > > In message <317A9DF8.4441@bart.ccis.com>, rwheaton@bart.ccis.com writes > > >This is the most Egotistical, Dogmatic answer I have heard since Jerry > > >Falwell talked about Mother Teresa going to hell if she did not except > > >Jesus Christ. Who the hell are YOU? > > > > And this is the rudest and most impolite posting I have read since I > > joined this list - and we are short on saints. > > > > WHO THE HELL ARE *YOU*??!! > > > I was responding to the remark made by Alexis who stated that the > esoteric school should have died along with its teacher HPB. If this is > not DOGMATIC intolerance tell me what is? And by the way, while we are > talking about rudeness, that sexist remark you made about female Mahatmas > doing what the male Mahatmas tell them was the height of rudeness. I > have a legitimate reason for asking these questions and expect legitimate > answers. > Well, you've certainly shown us who you are. -JRC From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Apr 22 07:07:20 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 00:07:20 -0700 From: MKR Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Subject: Theosophy/Theosophical Society X-Beyondmail-Priority: 1 Message-Id: Conversation-Id: There is a typo. The correct para is: 1. When we see all the wars and killing that is going on around the world in the name of nationalism, religion and pure politics, are things improving around the world? From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 22 05:07:27 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:07:27 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960422010726_277755428@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: some are, some aren't JRC, Have you been doing remote viewing again? Naughty naughty, some people might call that psychism and say you are not a true theosophist. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker Now let me see, where did I put that K Bomb? From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 22 05:07:17 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:07:17 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960422010714_277755332@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: some are, some aren't Maynard, It is very easy to be a theosophist and not be a vegetarian. HPB was. Chuck MTI, FTSA From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Mon Apr 22 05:14:16 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 17:14:16 +1200 From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Message-Id: <199604220514.RAA28938@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Ecclesia Skeptika >The issuing body was St. Ephrem's Institute for Eastern Christianity >Studies in Sweden, which is actually my primary interest in the Xtian >area - especially the Church of the East (as distinct from the Western >Roman one) with its Aramaic and Pharisaic connections. I could witter >on about that for hours ... [See my *The Nazarenes - a Speculative >Enquiry into Christian Origins* - privately published and available by >E-mail]. > >Alan :-) >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > How does one get an e-mail copy? Sounds like an interesting subject. I have a friend here who is a prison pastor and makes biblical history around the time of JC a hobby. He seems to have a lot of research already and at the moment is on study leave in Oxford doing some more.> \\// (o o) --o00-(_)-00o-- Stop the world,I wanna get off Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Apr 22 07:21:00 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 00:21:00 -0700 From: MKR Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Subject: Re: Golden Dawn X-Beyondmail-Priority: 1 Message-Id: Conversation-Id: In-Reply-To: On this msg, there is one fact that is overlooked. I have *personally* * known* *many many* members of the TS who are also members of Esoteric Section who have rendered invaluable services to Theosophy and Theosophical Society. In many countries and in many lodges, the vibrancy and the vitality of these lodges are due to these members. Even today this is the case all over the world (there may be some rare exceptions.). As these are *facts*, let us show our gratitude to these members for what they have done for Theosophy and Theosophical Society. Let "Ungratitude be not one of our vices." ....doss > From: JRC , on 4/22/96 12:44 AM: On Mon, 22 Apr 1996 rwheaton@bart.ccis.com wrote: > Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > > > > In message <317A9DF8.4441@bart.ccis.com>, rwheaton@bart.ccis.com writes > > >This is the most Egotistical, Dogmatic answer I have heard since Jerry > > >Falwell talked about Mother Teresa going to hell if she did not except > > >Jesus Christ. Who the hell are YOU? > > > > And this is the rudest and most impolite posting I have read since I > > joined this list - and we are short on saints. > > > > WHO THE HELL ARE *YOU*??!! > > > I was responding to the remark made by Alexis who stated that the > esoteric school should have died along with its teacher HPB. If this is > not DOGMATIC intolerance tell me what is? And by the way, while we are > talking about rudeness, that sexist remark you made about female Mahatmas > doing what the male Mahatmas tell them was the height of rudeness. I > have a legitimate reason for asking these questions and expect legitimate > answers. > Well, you've certainly shown us who you are. -JRC From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 22 07:54:45 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 00:54:45 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960422075445.0069ede0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: female adepts At 08:10 PM 4/21/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis: >> An Adept is the same thing as a Mahatma if you remove all the religious >>fol de rol. > > This is my understanding too. > > Jerry SS. > Member, TI > > >Jerry: I kind of thought we'd agree on this. alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 22 08:01:50 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:01:50 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960422080150.0067f3f4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: who? At 04:45 PM 4/21/96 -0400, you wrote: >alexis dolgorukii wrote: >> >> At 09:27 PM 4/20/96 -0400, you wrote: >> >"The formation of an Esoteric Section (or school) of Theosophy was >> >intimately connected with another influential force of the 19th century, >> >the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn." Quote from (The Key of It All), >> >by David Allen Hulse, page xxxii vol. 1. Does anyone know what school >> >Hulse may be talking about? >> > >> >To the best of my knolwedge the only thing he was referring to has to be >> The EsotericSection of The Theosophical Society as formed by Mmme. Blavatsky >> during her lifetime. A number of the founding members of The Golden Dawn >> were originally members of the Esoteric Section (Win Westcott for instance). >> The section did not, but should have, died when it's only teacher did. >> >> alexis dolgorukii >> member TI,FTSAThis is the most Egotistical, Dogmatic answer I have heard since Jerry >Falwell talked about Mother Teresa going to hell if she did not except >Jesus Christ. Who the hell are YOU? > >Well I'm neither Jerry Falwell or Mother Teresa! I don't know who you are, or what you do or do not know, but I know this: The Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society is not esoteric or hermetic but only political and when it lost it's only valid teacher (HPB) it lost it's right to exist. As Dr. Laurence J. Bendit used to say" "T.S. + E.S. = B.S." It is simply a political power game and it has long since assumed all control over the Adyar Society and because of that the society is kaput! alexis dolgorukii who doesn't give a hoot in hell for what Richard Wheaton thinks of him! From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 22 08:06:53 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:06:53 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960422080653.0069d2c8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Mille Grazie At 08:57 PM 4/21/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <317A9DF8.4441@bart.ccis.com>, rwheaton@bart.ccis.com writes >>This is the most Egotistical, Dogmatic answer I have heard since Jerry >>Falwell talked about Mother Teresa going to hell if she did not except >>Jesus Christ. Who the hell are YOU? > >And this is the rudest and most impolite posting I have read since I >joined this list - and we are short on saints. > >WHO THE HELL ARE *YOU*??!! > >Alan Bain >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > Thank you Alan, I appreciate your comments and, of course, agree with them. I've already had my "little say" to Mr. Wheaton. As to who he is, I think it safe to assume he belongs to the E.S. N'est-ce-pas? John and I and Michael Freestone had a wonderful day today at "Alexandria West" Jerry H-E's marvelous site for a fantastic library of Theosophy. alexis dolgorukii Member TI, FTSA ] From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 22 08:33:33 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:33:33 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960422083333.00699cd0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: vive la difference? At 08:10 AM 4/21/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960420053837.006dfd00@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>>The difference is that while Theosophy is sometimes silly, sometimes >>fatuous, and regularly just as smug as xtians, Theosophy has never been the >>sole cause of millions of murders > >Give it time ..... it could be argued (and probably has been) that the >mass-murders of the Nazis were connected to the racial ideas they had >derived from theosophy and its evolutionary theories regarding the >"superiority" of the Aryan race. Certainly theosophy promulgated such >ideas BEFORE Hitler used them. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Actually alan: The best evidence I've seen connects the Holocaust directly to centuries of anti-Jewish teaching by the Catholic Church at first, and then the schismatics later on. Martin Luther was surely a raging Jew Hater. On the other hand it's probably true that Guido von Liszt got some of his ideas from the S.D. it is equally true that his main inspiration was Friedrich Nietzsche and I would be enormously surprised if he was inspired by Blavatsky considering the dates involved. alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 22 08:34:46 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:34:46 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960422083446.006a8dbc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: No, no, no! At 07:58 AM 4/21/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.16.19960419223926.276f2310@pop.tiac.net>, Vegetarian >Resource Center writes >>Why not type out and post it "in toto" - >>such sharing is done on OTHER religious lists... > >This is a RELIGIOUS list? > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >No, no, no! Or atleast it better not be! alexis From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Mon Apr 22 13:29:11 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 9:29:11 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604221329.JAA04610@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Rigidity/Flexibility Dear theos-l participants: Lately I've been posting on Medit-l rather than theos-l, taking more interest in reading others there, and thinking about how theos-l reflects something in the character of the Theosophical movement. The bottom line is-- regardless of where they stand on the liberal-conservative spectrum, Theosophists tend to be inflexible. How often does anyone post here along the lines of "here's a new thought I never had before, a new book containing information I never knew before, an emotional response I never felt before"? Mostly, people tend to just repeat their strong allegiance to their own point of view, rather than yielding, modifying, growing. At least this is so in comparison to Medit-l, which is full of people more interested in daily practice than abstract theorizing, more concerned with understanding others of different viewpoints than with triumphing over them. That keeps the list fresh and alive, at least for now. I wish theos-l would have more of that spirit. So, a question I wish to throw out for discussion: What major recent changes in thoughts, feelings, intuitions or sensations do we have to share in relation to Theosophy? Is anyone out there deeply engaged in a *transformative* process that might inspire someone else? What is changing inside your head and heart? Frankly, I am sick of reading people reiterate the same things they've fervently believed for 5, 10, 15 or 30 years. OK, I already have figured out where you are *coming from*. But where are you going? From rdon@garlic.com Mon Apr 22 13:41:38 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 06:41:38 -0700 From: rdon@garlic.com (Rodolfo Don) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Chohan's letter Thank you for this posting. It is good to be reminded again and again, why we meet here. Rudy >Comments by MK Ramadoss: > > The following message is from theos-roots. It may give some idea >about what the "Founders" had in their mind when the TS was started. This >letter is considered by many to be the most important letter ever received >from the Adept Teachers as it communicates the views of the Great Master as >regards the role of Theosophy and Theosophical Society. Many things said in >it seems to be appropriate in 1996 as it was in 1880. > >=========================================================================== >===== >Following is the post by Nicholas Weeks (and credit is due to him): > > > > > THE GREAT MASTER'S LETTER > _________________________________________________________________ > > [This article was printed in Lucifer without signature as "An > Important Letter," prefaced by the statement that it "was circulated > by H.P.B. among many of her pupils, and some quotations from it have > been published from time to time." The Letter belongs to the early > days of the Theosophical Society in India and was part of the > correspondence received (through H.P.B.) by A. P. Sinnett and A. O. > Hume from the Theosophical Adepts. His Adept-teacher introduced the > letter to Mr. Sinnett as "an abridged version of the view of the > Chohan on the T.S. from his own words as given last night"--in reply > to objections about the conduct of the Society and especially to the > "Brotherhood plank." > > Although the text of the complete letter was not published until > after H.P. Blavatsky and Wm. Q. Judge had left the scene, both > provided a setting for the statements made, and both quoted in their > magazines some passages for particular attention.--Eds.] >*************************** > > The doctrine we promulgate being the only true one, must--supported by > such evidence as we are preparing to give--become ultimately > triumphant, like every other truth. Yet it is absolutely necessary to > inculcate it gradually; enforcing its theories (unimpeachable facts > for those who know) with direct inference, deduced from and > corroborated by the evidence furnished by modern exact science. That > is why Col. H. S. Olcott, who works to revive Buddhism, may be > regarded as one who labours in the true path of Theosophy, far more > than any man who chooses as his goal the gratification of his own > ardent aspirations for occult knowledge. Buddhism, stripped of its > superstition, is eternal truth; and he who strives for the latter is > striving for eternal truth; and he who strives for the latter is > striving for Theo-Sophia, divine wisdom, which is a synonym of truth. > For our doctrines to practically react on the so-called moral code, or > the ideas of truthfulness, purity, self-denial, charity, etc. , we > have to preach and popularize a knowledge of Theosophy. It is not the > individual and determined purpose of attaining Nirvana--the > culmination of all knowledge and absolute wisdom, which is after all > only an exalted and glorious selfishness--but the self-sacrificing > pursuit of the best means to lead on the right path our neighbour, to > cause to benefit by it as many of our fellow-creatures as we possibly > can, which constitutes the true Theosophist. > > The intellectual portion of mankind seems to be fast dividing into two > classes: the one unconsciously preparing for itself long periods of > temporary annihilation or states of non-consciousness, owing to the > deliberate surrender of intellect, and its imprisonment in the narrow > grooves of bigotry and superstition--a process which cannot fail to > lead to the utter deformation of the intellectual principle; the other > unrestrainedly indulging its animal propensities with the deliberate > intention of submitting to annihilation pure and simple, in case of > failure, and to millenniums of degradation after physical dissolution. > Those intellectual classes, reacting upon the ignorant masses--which > they attract, and which look up to them as noble and fit examples to > be followed--degrade and morally ruin those they ought to protect and > guide. Between degrading superstition and still more degrading brutal > materialism, the White Dove of Truth has hardly room whereon to rest > her weary unwelcome feet. > > It is time that Theosophy should enter the arena. The sons of > Theosophists are more likely to become in their turn Theosophists than > anything else. No messenger of the truth, no prophet, has ever > achieved during his life-time a complete triumph--not even Buddha. The > Theosophical Society was chosen as the cornerstone, the foundation of > the future religions of humanity. To achieve the proposed object, a > greater, wiser, and especially a more benevolent intermingling of the > high and the low, the alpha and the omega of society, was determined > upon. The white race must be the first to stretch out the hand of > fellowship to the dark nations, to call the poor despised "nigger" > brother. This prospect may not smile for all, but he is no Theosophist > who objects to this principle. > > In view of the ever-increasing triumph, and at the same time the > misuse, of free thought and liberty (the universal reign of Satan, > Eliphas Levi would have called it), how is the combative natural > instinct of man to be restrained from inflicting hitherto unheard-of > cruelty and enormous tyranny, injustice, etc., if not through the > soothing influence of brotherhood, and of the practical application of > Buddha's esoteric doctrines? > > For everyone knows that total emancipation from the authority of the > one all-pervading power, or law--called God by the priests, and > Buddha, Divine Wisdom and enlightenment or Theosophy, by the > philosophers of all ages--means also the emancipation from that of > human law. Once unfettered and delivered from their deadweight of > dogmatism, interpretations, personal names, anthropomorphic > conceptions, and salaried priests, the fundamental doctrines of all > religions will be proved identical in their esoteric meaning. Osiris, > Krishna, Buddha, Christ, will be shown as different means for one and > the same royal highway to final bliss--Nirvana. > > Mystical Christianity teaches Self-redemption through one's own > seventh principle, the liberated Paramatma, called by the one Christ, > by others Buddha; this is equivalent to regeneration, or rebirth in > spirit, and it therefore expounds just the same truth as the Nirvana > of Buddhism. All of us have to get rid of our own Ego, the illusory, > apparent self, to recognize our true Self, in a transcendental divine > life. But if we would not be selfish, we must strive to make other > people see that truth, and recognize the reality of the transcendental > Self, the Buddha, the Christ, or God of every preacher. This is why > even esoteric Buddhism is the surest path to lead men towards the one > esoteric truth. > > As we find the world now, whether Christian, Mussulman, or Pagan, > justice is disregarded, and honour and mercy are both flung to the > winds. In a word, how--since the main objects of the Theosophical > Society are misinterpreted by those who are most willing to serve us > personally--are we to deal with the rest of mankind? with that curse > known as the struggle for life, which is the real and most prolific > parent of most woes and sorrows, and all crimes? Why has that struggle > become almost the universal scheme of the universe? We > answer,--because no religion, with the exception of Buddhism, has > taught a practical contempt for this earthly life; while each of them, > always with that one solitary exception, has through its hells and > damnations inculcated the greatest dread of death. Therefore do we > find that struggle for life raging most fiercely in Christian > countries, most prevalent in Europe and America. It weakens in the > Pagan lands, and is nearly unknown among Buddhist populations. In > China during famine, and where the masses are most ignorant of their > own or of any religion, it was remarked that those mothers who > devoured their children belonged to localities where there was none; > and where the Bonzes alone had the field, the population died with the > utmost indifference. Teach the people to see that life on this earth, > even the happiest, is but a burden and an illusion; that it is our own > Karma [the cause producing the effect] that is our own judge--our > Saviour in future lives--and the great struggle for life will soon > lose its intensity. There are no penitentiaries in Buddhist lands, and > crime is nearly unknown among the Buddhist Tibetans. The world in > general, and Christendom especially, left for 2,000 years to the > regime of a personal God, as well as to its political and social > systems based on that idea, has now proved a failure. > > If the Theosophists say we have nothing to do with all this; the lower > classes and the inferior races (those of India, for instance, in the > conception of the British) cannot concern us, and must manage as they > can, what becomes of our fine professions of benevolence, > philanthropy, reform, etc.? Are those professions a mockery? And if a > mockery, can ours be the true path? Shall we devote ourselves to > teaching a few Europeans--fed on the fat of the land, many of them > loaded with the gifts of blind fortune--the rationale of bell-ringing, > of cup-growing, of the spiritual telephone, and astral body formation, > and leave the teeming millions of the ignorant, of the poor and > oppressed, to take care of themselves, and of their hereafter, as best > they can? Never! perish rather the Theosophical Society with both its > hapless Founders, than that we should permit it to become no better > than an academy of magic, and a hall of occultism! That we, the > devoted followers of that spirit incarnate of absolute self-sacrifice, > of philanthropy, divine kindness, as of all the highest virtues > attainable on this earth of sorrow, the man of men, Gautama Buddha, > should ever allow the Theosophical Society to represent the embodiment > of selfishness, the refuge of the few with no thought in them for the > many, is a strange idea, my brothers! > > Among the few glimpses obtained by Europeans of Tibet and its mystical > hierarchy of perfect Lamas, there was one which was correctly > understood and described. The incarnations of the Bodhisattva > Padmapani or Avolokiteshvara, of Tsong-ka-pa, and that of Amitabha, > relinquished at their death the attainment of Buddhahood--i.e., the > summum bonum of bliss, and of individual personal felicity--that > they might be born again and again for the benefit of mankind. In > other words, that they might be again and again subjected to misery, > imprisonment in flesh, and all the sorrows of life, provided that they > by such a self-sacrifice, repeated throughout long and weary > centuries, might become the means of securing salvation and bliss in > the hereafter for a handful of men chosen among but one of the many > planetary races of mankind. > > And it is we, the humble disciples of these perfect Lamas, who are > expected to allow the Theosophical Society to drop its noblest title, > that of the Brotherhood of Humanity, to become a simple school of > philosophy! No, no, good brothers, you have been labouring under the > mistake too long already. Let us understand each other. He who does > not feel competent to grasp the noble idea sufficiently to work for > it, need not undertake a task too heavy for him. But there is hardly a > Theosophist in the whole Society unable to effectually help it by > correcting erroneous impressions of outsiders, by himself actually > propagating this idea. Oh! for noble and unselfish men to help us > effectually in that divine task! All our knowledge, past and present, > would not be sufficient to repay him. > > Having explained our views and aspirations, I have but a few words > more to add. The true religion and philosophy offer the solution of > every problem. That the world is in such a bad condition, morally, is > a conclusive evidence that none of its religions and philosophies, > those of the civilized races less than any other, has ever possessed > the truth. The right and logical explanations on the subject of the > problems of the great dual principles, right and wrong, good and evil, > liberty and despotism, pain and pleasure, egotism and altruism, are as > impossible to them now as they were 1880 years ago. They are as far > from the solution as they were; but to these problems there must be > somewhere a consistent solution, and if our doctrines will show their > competence to offer it, then the world will be the first to confess > that there must be the true philosophy, the true religion, the true > light, which gives truth and nothing but the truth. > > [Lucifer, August, 1896] >******************************* > >-- >Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles >"Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight >cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble >presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL Web: http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From rdon@garlic.com Mon Apr 22 14:00:38 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 07:00:38 -0700 From: rdon@garlic.com (Rodolfo Don) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Theosophy/Theosophical Society >In the letter from the Great Master (that is just posted), there are two >statements which caught my attention. > >======================================================================== >1. "As we find the world now, whether Christian, Mussulman, or Pagan, > justice is disregarded, and honour and mercy are both flung to the > winds." >======================================================================== > >2. "And it is we, the humble disciples of these perfect Lamas, who are > expected to allow the Theosophical Society to drop its noblest title, > that of the Brotherhood of Humanity, to become a simple school of > philosophy! No, no, good brothers, you have been labouring under the > mistake too long already. Let us understand each other. He who does > not feel competent to grasp the noble idea sufficiently to work for > it, need not undertake a task too heavy for him. But there is hardly a > Theosophist in the whole Society unable to effectually help it by > correcting erroneous impressions of outsiders, by himself actually > propagating this idea. Oh! for noble and unselfish men to help us > effectually in that divine task! All our knowledge, past and present, > would not be sufficient to repay him." > > >========================================================================== > >Several questions that comes up are: > >1. When we all the wars and killing that is going on around the world in the >name of nationalism, religion and pure politics, are things improving around >the world? Definitely things are not improving in the world, nor in the Theosophical Society for that matter. If we look at the TS (all theosophical groups) as a world microcosm. Our human interactions become a battle of the egos. Any attempt to form a real Brotherhood of Humanity goes down the drain. > >2. Again and again, in many of the Mahatma Letters to Sinnett, the need for >the establishing a Brotherhood of Humanity is mentioned as the most >important objective of Theosophical Society. It is because of this, I >believe, the First Object of the TS is this. Much valuable information was >given out by HPB and other writers dealing with Man and the Universe. There >seems to be an implication even then in 1880, there was some great emphasis >on "school of philosophy" while unequivocally this letter states that what >was expected of all of us is to work towards this noble idea of Brotherhood >of Humanity. They were looking for noble and unselfish persons to help them >in this very important task and how very grateful They are to any one who >gives a helping hand in this task. Again, we see right here from the Chief Himself, that the main (maybe the only) reason for the founding of the Theosophical Society is to form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity. Everything else is unimportant. Do we keep that in mind when we interact with eachother? > >3. Considering the non increase in the membership (and possibly gradual >decline), is there something that all of us are not doing right? Is there >too much emphasis placed on the philosophy and not many are turned on to be >unselfish to work towards the noble idea of Universal Brotherhood of Humanity. My answer is YES. To work for Universal Brotherhood means real work. It means to make a commitment to our True Self as our only Authority, and listen to It. > >Let us brain storm on the above and any related and relevant items. May be >we can learn from each other as to how we can more effectively work towards >this noble idea of Brotherhood of Humanity. I'm ready to brainstorm about the subject any time. It may be the only subject worth the effort. Again, the motive behind all this should be "search for Truth", not to win any battle. > >I welcome *all* discussion - from novices, experts, lurkers and all posters >of messages. > >Cheers > > MK Ramadoss Thank you, Doss, Rudy THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL Web: http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Apr 22 14:08:26 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 09:08:26 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Rigidity/Flexibility In-Reply-To: <199604221329.JAA04610@leo.vsla.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, K. Paul Johnson wrote: > Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 09:33:32 -0400 > From: K. Paul Johnson > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Rigidity/Flexibility > > Dear theos-l participants: >>>>clip>>> > So, a question I wish to throw out for discussion: What major > recent changes in thoughts, feelings, intuitions or sensations do we > have to share in relation to Theosophy? MKR: Paul has brought out a very important issue for consideration. Paul, do you have any major recent changes in thoughts, feelings, intuitions or sensations you would like to share with all of us? Cheers ..doss From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Apr 22 14:27:01 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 09:27:01 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Running a maillist Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi Here is a very interesting message from the person responsible for J Krishnamurti maillist - listening-l. This msg gives the story as seen from the person who is *runs* the list. ....doss > Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 10:32:41 +0200 (MET DST) > From: Dirk Lutzebaeck > Subject: Re: Dirk michael@connectheworld.com.my writes: > > > Dirk said: > > >>Dear Rajendra, Dear Michael, > > please make sure that you post to listening-l@zrz.tu-berlin.de and *not* to > listening-l- owner@zrz.tu-berlin.de. I observed that you both seemed to use > this falsely address a couple of times lately. These messages go only to the > admin of the list and are not seen by the members of list. If you have > question please drop me a mail.<< > > How come you never get involved with discussions on listening-l which you so > selflessly and faultlessly run? You are the perfect butler; efficient and > unobtrusive, and never once took a look at the sumptuous spread on the table > let alone sampled the fare. I am suspicious. Is the poison in the soup or > the wine? Dear Michael, thinking a while I really have no concrete answer. I'm watching what is going on being interested, amused, irrated, bored, touched, untouched, whatever like anybody else I guess. Not feeling so confident in english writing, I'd rather see what's happening which isn't rather uncommon since the list always has about 100 members. Can't also follow all the threads as anybody I guess. At the beginning I was very worried if the list "succeeds" somehow. I didn't like to see the aggression which came up once in a while. Especially being touched personally ("my list" or so -> dropped that a while ago!). It is simply amazing to me that this list runs for two years now which such an enormous traffic. Some can keep track, some don't. I learned that nothing can be done about "how it has to run". I hope it's wine Michael, greetings to Malaysia(?) from Berlin! Dirk From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 22 14:45:22 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 10:45:22 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960422104521_519288497@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: vegetables and the voidance thereof Alan, I hope you're right about Grandpa's genes, but with my luck I probably have fathers. Chuck the Barbaric Carnivore MIT, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 22 14:46:14 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 10:46:14 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960422104613_519288804@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Ecclesia Skeptika Alan, And after all that they didn't give you a hair shirt? You got cheated! Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 22 14:46:33 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 10:46:33 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960422104632_519288938@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Golden Dawn RW, Great thunderbolts of Jupiter! I thought I was foul tempered. Calm down. If this keeps up my screen will melt. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 22 14:20:17 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 10:20:17 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604221524.LAA24352@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To Alan re DD Dear Alan, I think you came by the title of Bishop honestly, as your knowledge of Christian history, & just for instance, your contributions to theos-l & TI prove. I realize you don't agree with a lot other Bishops believe in & do, but that doesn't make you any less that. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canda, HR From nlporreco@bpa.gov Mon Apr 22 16:24:00 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 09:24:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: RE: Are theosophists vegetarians? Message-Id: <317BB256@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 25 TEXT Maynard ... As others have already stated, not all Theosophists are vegetarians. However being a vegetarian for a minimum of two years is a requirement of the ES which you have to be a theosophist to be a member of. Nick. > Date: Saturday, April 20, 1996 3:43PM > From: theos-l > Subject: Are theosophists vegetarians? Are theosophists vegetarians? I always thought so. If that has changed, I'm on the wrong list. Please RSVP with a positive response. (My reflection is that negative responses would be wrong.) - Maynard S. Clark From nlporreco@bpa.gov Mon Apr 22 16:24:00 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 09:24:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: Book Question Message-Id: <317BB259@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 6 TEXT Does anyone know if "Incidents In the Life of HPB" by Sinnett is still in print. I ran across an old expensive copy but would rather not buy it, if it is still in print. Nick. From nlporreco@bpa.gov Mon Apr 22 16:41:00 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 09:41:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" theos-l Subject: Re: Thoughts - To Alex Message-Id: <317BB666@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 114 TEXT Alex, I am passing on a response to your post from a friend of mine who is a theosophist but not a member of our group on the internet. Nick. > Date: Monday, April 22, 1996 2:29PM > From: Karl A Bryan I look at the aspect of fundamentalism as a response to the growing power of women. The triad of religion has been male dominated for thousands of years and prior to their ascendancy to power the women lead religions held sway (ie. the agrarian or fertility religions). With the increasing awareness of women's rights (which is only logical that they should have rights because the religions had always recognized these rights, the rulers of the religions chose to ignore these rights) the rank and file members of the religions are seeing a disconnect between the teachings and the actions of the religion. Thus the increasing loss of membership in religions. The fundamentalists are seeing an erosion in their power base and thus are turning towards the less educated and usually ignored group of members in their church. It is easy to stir up fanaticism in people if they have not learned to think (and thus to question authority) for themselves. Remember, an enlightened citizenry is harder to control than passive sheep are. (Makes you wonder about the motive behind the christian metaphor of honoring those who are like sheep, were they actually recognizing the ease in controlling the mobs?) This control issue can also be applied to our present school funding issue, note that the GI bill has been reduced in what it covers for education costs from when it was first introduced. These reductions were predominately driven by the republican party under the guise of cost control, but anyone with a brain knows that the biggest bang for the buck is in educating people (I have heard estimates in the realm of $12 - $16 return for every dollar spent). I think that a large portion of our governments repression of Cuba is the fear that their free higher education right will be recognized and demanded here in the gREAT u s OF a. karl > Subject: FW: Thoughts > Author: nlporreco@bpa.gov at Internet > Date: 4/19/96 8:14 PM At 10:26 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Alex, > >I have heard it speculated that the Moslem, Christian unrest today is a >revisit of the group karma created during the Crusades. What are your >thoughts? > >Nick. >Subject: Re:union >Date: Thursday, April 18, 1996 7:52PM >My thoughts? Well when I look at the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Triad I see many things. I see ancient mutual antagonisms that have never really been ameliorated. That's very old news, and it's nothing at all either unique of new. The situation current in Palestine today is the result of serious political misjudgements in 1948. But if by "unrest" ypou mean the fundamentalist phenomenon cureently very rife in all three religions, my thoughts are these. Fundamentalism is a symptom of the death throes of a religion. It is "circling the wagons" against change and new thoughts. It is an intense need to return things to a "simpler and more secure age". Of course such an age never existed. When members of a religion feel called upon to react against the ongoing evolution of that religion and return it to an entirely illusory "pure state" then the religion is moribund. I, as may be obvious consider the Judeo-Chrsitian-Islamic Triad as essentially a single religion with three major sects. It is the demise of that single religion that the "religious unrest" of our times foretells. alexis dolgorukii' Member TI, FTSA > > From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 22 18:44:36 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 11:44:36 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960422184436.006901ac@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Thank you At 12:35 PM 4/22/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Alex, > >I am passing on a response to your post from a friend of mine who is a >theosophist but not a member of our group on the internet. > >Nick. > ---------- Nick: Thank you very much for the posting from your friend Karl Bryan. I wish we had more posting of this quality. alexis To a major degree, it is true that one of the causes of fundamentalism is the growing influence and political strength of women. But it's a big world we live on and the Triad is a Western Phenomenon although Eastern Religions are as male dominated as the Triad it is for different historical reasons. In the West the male dominance is a function of the triumph of Judeo-Roman-Stoic ideals over the Celts of Northern Europe who were a society wherein women had full rights. Therefore in Northern and Western Europe the "male dominance" only dates to the Victory of Rome and Catholicism. Probably of much more importance is Christianity's enshrinement of "ignorance as ideal" and "sheepishness as a goal". Christianity's primary purpose during the time that has passed between the Council of Nicea and the Second Council of Constantinople and our present era, has been the unblinking support of authority and male authority at that. Obviously I agree with you and I'd like to point out that one of the primary goals of the "Religious Right" as it is manifesting in the world today, and especially in this country, is the absolute destruction of public education. Those so-called "Christian Academies" turn out absolutely nothing but ignorant bigots, who, as they have been inculcated and indoctrinated with a total "siege mentality" are incredibly dangerous to the rest of us. The leadership of the Christian Right are, for the most part, callous opportunists who peddle "snake oil' for the sake of the attainment of power and profit for themselves. The so-called "Christian Right" are as much a danger to mainstream Christians and Jews as they are to people who are part of the various alternative to religion communities. The only place where I might have some disagreement with you is vis a vis Cuba. While Free Education for all is a very good thing, and providing we find a way to pay for it (I have ideas about how) should be a feature of this country, along with free medical care. My reservations about Cuba have to do with personal and political liberties. There are far too many of my Gay and Lesbian brothers and sisters languishing in prison in Cuba, there is truly no freedom of thought and opinion in Cuba. Liberty is humankind's most urgent need and anywhere it is curtailed in any way I oppose it. In Cuba it is more curtailed than in many places. That is clearly not to say or imply that it is not curtailed or impaired in this country, it surely is. But then I have spent the last 41 years (since 1955) working for equal rights for all people in this country, so I can hardly turn a blind eye to the lack of rights and freedoms elsewhere. I think, however, that on most things you and I are in complete agreement. I am not only a theosophical revolutionary but a revolutionary in all things. cordially; alexis dolgorukii From am455@lafn.org Mon Apr 22 16:49:53 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 09:49:53 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199604221649.AA26562@lafn.org> Subject: Re: Book Question >Does anyone know if "Incidents In the Life of HPB" by Sinnett is still in >print. I ran across an old expensive copy but would rather not buy it, if >it is still in print. Dear Nick, The Arno Press, NYC, did a reprint in 1976. Whether they have reprinted again, or any remainders are left of that run or if anyone else has reprinted it, I don't know. Best, -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From nlporreco@bpa.gov Mon Apr 22 20:37:00 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 13:37:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: Re: Book Question Message-Id: <317BEDC6@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 31 TEXT Dear Nicholas, I tried to find Arno Press both on the internet and via information but could not locate them. Do you think they are out of business. Nick. > Date: Monday, April 22, 1996 3:00PM > From: theos-l > Subject: Re: Book Question >Does anyone know if "Incidents In the Life of HPB" by Sinnett is still in >print. I ran across an old expensive copy but would rather not buy it, if >it is still in print. Dear Nick, The Arno Press, NYC, did a reprint in 1976. Whether they have reprinted again, or any remainders are left of that run or if anyone else has reprinted it, I don't know. Best, -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From mike@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com Mon Apr 22 21:13:59 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 16:13:59 -0500 From: "Michael W. Grenier" Message-Id: <317BF697.6978@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com> Organization: Loral Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Thank you References: <2.2.32.19960422184436.006901ac@mail.slip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit alexis dolgorukii wrote: > Obviously I > agree with you and I'd like to point out that one of the primary goals of > the "Religious Right" as it is manifesting in the world today, and > especially in this country, is the absolute destruction of public education. With good reason at least here in the U.S. The performance of our public education, especially considering the amount of money spent, is dismal compared to other countries. The complete inability for parents to get involved in their childs education is another factor with more and more control moving to state and federal levels. Obviously, I'm a big supporter of alternative education including vouchers, tax credits for education expenses, etc. Here in Minnesota, gambling is tax deductable but education isn't! Even members of our local school board have told me that they wouldn't put their own kids into the public school...not to mention the number of student sucides lately here. I remember talking to the kindegarden teacher at the public school when considering to put my son there who told me that my son is too advanced and would only be entertained for a year since they teach to the lowest common demoninator. Granted, there is a fringe of radical right that would cut out education that does not agree with their views and I certainly don't support that. However, I can understand the views of concerned parents who are opposed to some of the stuff taught to their kids. -Mike Grenier mike@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Apr 22 21:47:40 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 16:47:40 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Sinnett's copy of Chohan's letter (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Here is a post which is self explanatory. ...doss > Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:03:50 -0400 > From: Nicholas Weeks > Subject: Sinnett's copy of Chohan's letter VIEW OF THE CHOHAN ON THE T.S. [This is a different version of the Chohan's letter than that published in *Lucifer* and reprinted by ULT as "The Great Master's Letter". By the way, I wrongly assumed the ULT version downloaded from the Theoslodge WWW site had been accurately typed. Some of the blunders are important. In the future I may fix it up and post it again. The following copy was made by AP Sinnett, the recipient, and is less (or even not) edited than later versions.. It is found in the chronological version of *The Mahatma Letters*.] *************************** Several good reasons given to K.H. by the Chohan why the T.S. should be a Brotherhood of Humanity. For the Simla Eclectic T.S. ________________ The doctrine we promulgate being the only true one, must, supported by such evidence as we are preparing to give become ultimately triumphant as every other truth. Yet it is absolutely necessary to inculcate it gradually enforcing its theories, unimpeachable facts for those who know, with direct inferences, deducted from and corroborated by the evidence furnished by modern exact science. That is why Col. H.S.O., who works to revive Buddhism may be regarded as one who labours in the true path of Theosophy, far more than any other man who chooses as his goal the gratification of his own ardent aspirations for occult knowledge. Buddhism stripped of its superstitions is eternal truth, and he who strives for the latter is striving for Theos-sophia, Divine Wisdom, which is a synonym of truth. For our doctrines to practically react on the so called moral code or the ideas of truthfulness, purity, self-denial, charity, etc., we have to preach and popularize a knowledge of theosophy. It is not the individual and determined purpose of attaining oneself Nirvana (the culmination of all knowledge and absolute wisdom) which is, after all only an exalted and glorious *selfishness,* but the self-sacrificing pursuit of the best means to lead on the right path our neighbour, to cause as many of our fellow-creatures as we possibly can to benefit by it, which constitutes the true Theosophist. The intellectual portions of mankind seems to be fast dividing into two classes, the one unconsciously preparing for itself long periods of temporary annihilation or states of non-consciousness, owing to the deliberate surrender of their intellect, its imprisonment in the narrow grooves of bigotry and superstition, a process which cannot fail to lead to the utter deformation of the intellectual principle; the other unrestrainedly indulging its animal propensities with the deliberate intention of *submitting* to annihilation pure and simple in case of failure, and to millenniums of degradation after physical dissolution. Those "intellectual classes," reacting upon the ignorant masses which they attract, and which look up to them as noble and fit examples to follow, degrade and morally ruin those they ought to protect and guide. Between degrading superstition and still more degrading brutal materialism, the white dove of truth has hardly room where to rest her weary unwelcome foot.... It's time that Theosophy should enter the arena. The sons of Theosophists are more likely to become in their turn Theosophists than anything else. No messenger of the truth, no prophet, has ever achieved during his life time a complete triumph--not even Buddha; The Theosophical Society was chosen as the corner stone, the foundation of the future religion of humanity. To achieve the proposed object, a greater, wiser, and especially a more benevolent intermingling of the high and the low, of the alpha and the omega of society, was determined upon. The white race must be the first to stretch out the hand of fellowship to the dark nations, to call the poor despised "nigger" brothers. This prospect may not smile to all. He is no Theosophist who objects to this principle. In view of the ever increasing triumph, and at the same time misuse, of free-thought and *liberty* (the Universal reign of Satan, Eliphas Levi would have called it), how is the combative *natural* instinct of man to be restrained from inflicting hitherto unheard of cruelties and enormities, tyranny, injustice, etc., if not through the soothing influence of a brotherhood, and of the practical application of Buddha's esoteric doctrines? For as everyone knows, total emancipation from authority of the one all pervading power or law called God by the Theists -- Buddha, Divine Wisdom and Enlightenment or Theosophy by the philosophers of all ages -- means also the emancipation from that of human law. Once unfettered [and] delivered from their deadweight of dogmatic interpretations, personal names, anthropomorphic conceptions and salaried priests, the fundamental doctrines of all religions will be proved identical in their esoteric meaning. Osiris, Chrishna, Buddha, Christ, will be shown as different means for one and [the] same royal highway to final bliss, *Nirvana.* Mystical Christianity, that is to say that Christianity which teaches *self* redemption through one's own *seventh* principle -- the liberated Paraatma (Augoeides) called by the one Christ, by others Buddha, and equivalent to regeneration, or rebirth in spirit -- will be found just the same truth as the Nirvana of mystical Buddhism. All of us have to get rid of our own Ego, the illusory apparent *self*, to recognize our true self in a transcendental divine life. But if we would not be selfish we must strive to make other people see that truth, to recognize the reality of that transcendental self, the Buddh, the Christ or God of every preacher. This is why even exoteric Buddhism is the surest path to lead men toward the one esoteric truth. As we find the world now, whether Christian, Mussulman, or Pagan, justice is disregarded, and honour and mercy both flung to the winds. In a word, how, since the main objects of the T.S. are misinterpreted by those who are most willing to serve us *personally*, are we to deal with the rest of mankind, with that curse known as the "struggle for life," which is the real and most prolific parent of most woes and sorrows and of all crimes? Why has that struggle become the almost universal scheme of the universe? We answer, because no religion, with the exception of Buddhism has hitherto taught a practical contempt for this earthly life, while each of them, always with that one solitary exception, has through its hells and damnations inculcated the greatest dread of death. Therefore do we find that struggle for life raging most fiercely in Christian countries, most prevalent in Europe and America. It weakens in the Pagan lands, and is nearly unknown among Buddhist populations. (In China during famine, and where the masses are most ignorant of their own or of any religion, it was remarked that those mothers who devoured their children belonged to localities where there were the most of Christian missionaries to be found. Where there were none and where the Bonzes alone had the field the population died with the utmost indifference.) Teach the people to see that life on this earth even the happiest is but a burden and an illusion, that it is but our own *Karma,* the cause producing the effect, that is our own judge, our Saviour in future lives, and the great struggle for life will soon lose its intensity. There are no penitentiaries in Buddhist lands and crime is nearly unknown among the Buddhist Tibetans. (The above is not addressed to you, and has naught to do with the work of the Simla Eclectic Society. It is meant only as an answer to the erroneous impression in Mr. Hume's mind of the "Ceylon work" as no *theosophy.*) The world in general and Christendom especially, left for two thousand years to the regime of a personal God as well as its political and social systems based on that idea, has now proved a failure. If the Theosophists say, we have nothing to do with all this, the lower classes and the inferior races (those of India for instance in the conception of the British) cannot concern us and must manage as they can, what becomes of our fine professions of benevolence, philanthropy, reform, etc.? Are these professions a mockery? And if a mockery, can ours be the true path? Shall we devote our selves to teaching a few Europeans fed on the fat of the land, many of them loaded with the gifts of blind fortune, the *rationale* of bell-ringing, of cup growing, of the spiritual telephone and astral body formation, and leave the teeming millions of the ignorant, of the poor and despised, the lowly and the oppressed, to take care of themselves, and of their hereafter the best they know how. Never. Perish rather the Theosophical Society with both its hapless founders, than that we should permit it to become no better than an academy of magic and a hall of occultism. That *we* the devoted followers of that spirit incarnate of absolute self sacrifice, of philanthropy, divine kindness, as of all the highest virtues attainable on this earth of sorrow, the man of men, Gautama Buddha, should ever allow the Theosophical Society to represent the *embodiment of selfishness,* the refuge of the few with no thought in them for the many, is a strange idea, my brothers. Among the few glimpses obtained by Europeans of Tibet and its mystical hierarchy of "perfect lamas," there is one which was correctly understood and described. "The incarnations of the Boddisatwa Padma Pani or Avalo-Kiteswara and of Tsong Kapa, that of Amitabha, relinquish at their death the attainment of Buddhahood -- i.e., the *summum bonum* of bliss, and of individual *personal* felicity -- that they might be born again and again for the benefit of mankind." [Rhys Davids.] In other words, that they might be again and again subjected to misery, imprisonment in flesh, and all the sorrows of life, provided that by such a self sacrifice repeated throughout long and weary centuries they might become the means of securing salvation and bliss in the hereafter for a handful of men chosen among but one of the many races of mankind. And it is we, the humble disciples of these perfect lamas, who are expected to allow the T.S. to drop its noblest title, that of the Brotherhood of Humanity to become a simple school of psychology? No, no, good brothers, you have been labouring under the mistake too long already. Let us understand each other. He who does not feel competent to grasp the noble idea sufficiently to work for it, need not undertake a task too heavy for him. But there is hardly a theosophist in the whole society unable to effectually help it by correcting erroneous impressions of the outsiders, if not by actually propagating himself the idea. Oh, for the noble and unselfish man to help us *effectually* in India in that divine task. All our knowledge past and present would not be sufficient to repay him.... Having explained our views and aspirations I have but a few words more to add. To be *true,* religion and philosophy must offer the solution of every problem. That the world is in such a bad condition morally is a conclusive evidence that none of its religions and philosophies, those of the *civilised* races less than any other, have ever possessed the *truth.* The right and logical explanations on the subject of the problems of the great dual principles -- right and wrong, good and evil, liberty and despotism, pain and pleasure, egotism and altruism -- are as impossible to them now as they were 1881 years ago. They are as far from the solution as they were but, --- To these there must be somewhere a consistent solution, and if our doctrines will show their competence to offer it, then the world will be the first one to confess *that must* be the true philosophy, the true religion, the true light, which gives truth and nothing but the *truth.* An abridged version of the view of the Chohan on the T.S. from his own words as given last night. My own letter, the answer to yours, will shortly follow. K.H. ******************************* -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 22 23:15:49 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:15:49 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: To Alan re DD In-Reply-To: <199604221524.LAA24352@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604221524.LAA24352@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. deutsch" writes >Dear Alan, > >I think you came by the title of Bishop honestly, as your knowledge of >Christian history, & just for instance, your contributions to theos-l & TI >prove. I realize you don't agree with a lot other Bishops believe in & do, >but that doesn't make you any less that. > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canda, HR > You are very kind! Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 22 23:14:17 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:14:17 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: The Aryan Race In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960422083333.00699cd0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960422083333.00699cd0@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >At 08:10 AM 4/21/96 -0400, you wrote: > it could be argued (and probably has been) that the >>mass-murders of the Nazis were connected to the racial ideas they had >>derived from theosophy and its evolutionary theories regarding the >>"superiority" of the Aryan race. Certainly theosophy promulgated such >>ideas BEFORE Hitler used them. >> >>Alan >>--------- >> >>Actually alan: The best evidence I've seen connects the Holocaust directly >to centuries of anti-Jewish teaching by the Catholic Church at first, and >then the schismatics later on. Martin Luther was surely a raging Jew Hater. >On the other hand it's probably true that Guido von Liszt got some of his >ideas from the S.D. it is equally true that his main inspiration was >Friedrich Nietzsche and I would be enormously surprised if he was inspired >by Blavatsky considering the dates involved. > >alexis > I was talking about Hitler, the Nazi Party, elected 1933 and its racial policies, which *specifically* used the idea of "Aryan Race" superiority as justification for mass-murder - not only of Jews. Theosophists were was using almost identical terminology with a similar implicit flavor since before Hitler was born. Did the Catholics, Luther included, or Liszt or Nietzche use this concept of Aryan supremacy in the same way? In 135 c.e. the Romans (who were not Christians) threw *all* the Jews, including the Christian ones (probably the only sort at that date) out of Jerusalem after the Bar Kochba rebellion, so the Xtian precedent for Jewish persecution is not unique. My comment related to a connection between theosophical racial ideas and Nazi racial ideas, which was the question I hoped to see addressed. That the Catholic Church and its successors were Jew-haters may be true, but it is not directly relevant to my question. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 22 22:30:14 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:30:14 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Golden Dawn In-Reply-To: <317B0A70.14EA@bart.ccis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <317B0A70.14EA@bart.ccis.com>, rwheaton@bart.ccis.com writes > I >have a legitimate reason for asking these questions and expect legitimate >answers. Try being polite Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 23 00:16:43 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 20:16:43 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960422201641_475763044@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: who? Alex, I just knew this was going to happen. My screen just caught fire. :-) Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 23 00:17:51 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 20:17:51 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960422201750_475764029@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: No, no, no! Alex, Well, let's see. There are some people who think that HPB was divinely inspired. There are some who think that the TS is going to be the groundwork for a world religion. There are some people who would like to see us go to hell, so maybe this does qualify as a religious list. NAH! Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 23 00:18:01 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 20:18:01 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960422201800_475764190@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Rigidity/Flexibility Paul, I think a lot of us have changed in our views and ways of doing things over the years but the changes were so gradual we did not realize them until long after they happened. My guess is that the truth is that most of us are far less dogmatic than we may come across on the list because of the nature of the list itself. The thread system tends to create a narrow dialogue that focuses on a single point of discussion, until that point is belabored to death and the thread runs on with the same title but about totally different things. The result is a hammering of ideas rather than a true discussion as would take place in a face to face meeting. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 23 00:18:04 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 20:18:04 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960422201803_475764247@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Running a maillist Doss, It is a truely a Herculean task and John Mead deserves both our eternal thanks and a gift certificate for valerian root (a natural tranquilizer that is the source of Valium). Chuck MTI, FTSA From eldon@theosophy.com Tue Apr 23 00:23:20 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 17:23:20 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960423002320.006b89e0@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Peaceful Reply to JRC JRC: Peace ... I don't have the energy (and time) to keep up with the lengthy debate that we have at times, and there are probably ways in which we could describe the subject where our views aren't too widely different. First, I'll attempt to summarize your position, as I read it from your 365-line posting. You've never called psychic development a path nor suggested anyone experiment with it. Your interest in the subject is in terms of research, by interviewing people and through some personal experiments. You read and respect the early theosophical literature, like the writings of HPB and "The Mahatma Letters". Your interest in the subject is from the standpoint of an investigative scientist, and would like to see that form of research found acceptable in theosophical circles. My posting to Daniel may have produced some productive results in our communication. In your response, you mention how you've ceased to hold back, and are now talking about your views rather than simply reacting defensively in response to what I've written. It's good to read the clarification of your background. I'd agree that the intellectual is dangerous, and not merely the psychical. In fact, in "The Mahatma Letters", it mentions that 1/3 of the world's evil arises from selfishness, but 2/3 from false, but sincerely held beliefs. And we read how the mind is the great slayer of the real. We agree on the value of Blavatsky's writings, but I would not put down as "lesser writers" some of the people that followed. I'd accord de Purucker a significant role in teaching and illuminating the theosophical philosophy, and in presenting it in a way that makes it possible to become a living reality in peoples' lives. (I'd suggest that you read one of his books before you dismiss him; there's a lot there that you may not know you're missing.) Do you really think that I may have gone overboard in the psychic in some previous lifetime, and am now spending a few lives deliberately avoiding it? Anything's possible. I think the case is true of humanity as a whole, since the Atlantean times. You speak of "a doctrine ... that winds up often being presented in such a fashion as to imply that HPB or the Adepts want everyone to spend their lives sitting around studying books, meditating, having calm 'deep' discussions of the intricacies of arcane 'truths' and studiously avoiding anything that might lead them into 'illusion'." This form of lifestyle can be quite useful to people at a certain stage. I can picture Tibetan monks, studying for the Geshe degree (something like a PhD in spiritual studies) doing just what you say. It would not appeal to most people, since they are still caught up in the busy whirl of external life, too busy making a life in the world and chasing personal enjoyment to feel divine discontent and start to desire a greater depth to life. While you indicate that I've misread your position on the psychic, I'm not sure from what you say that you've really heard what I've been writing about. Psychic powers are not evil per se, not any more than eyesight or the ability to walk across the street. They are nothing to fear; except if someone has psychological problems that might emerge when the person is exposed to greater unconscious content. They are one avenue of exploration of the world about it, both visible and invisible, and may at some point be of use to science. But they are quite distinct from mind, insight, spiritual knowing and development, although they may naturally appear individuals, as a foreshadowing of the sense faculties of future races. Meditation, direct insight, enlightenment, wisdom, understanding, a flowering spirituality, compassion, a knowledge of the unity of life, compassion in action, etc. are all awakening inner abilities, and are *something else* than the psychical. They do not depend upon psychical abilities to exist, and for many people may be easier to develop in the absence of the psychical. But on the other hand, at a certain point along the way, the psychical will appear, along with other changes to the personality and external lives of people. So there is a correlation, but no causal relation, I'd say, between the presence of the psychical and a flowering spirituality. You posed the question: How do adepts acquire their abilities? I'd pose a different question: What makes an adept into an adept? To my question, I'd say the awakening of higher faculties *of consciousness*, not of sense perception or the ability to do "physical things" on this, the astral, or perhaps yet another plane. Both a man and a wolf may be able to see into "invisible worlds", but a man may have the ability to understanding and think mathematics, to enjoy and compose music, etc. These understandings or appreciations of life are independent of "astral eyesight". Both a man and a wolf could walk into a library and look at a book, but only the man would *understand*. The next step in evolution, as I see it, is to greatly deepen our spirituality, our understanding of life, and to overcome the negative burden of the false notion of a personal self, the construct of "personality" as it tends to bias our unselfish and impersonal perception of life. In addition, I see yet unknown-to-us faculties of understanding and awareness of life open up. This does not require our ability to exist on the astral plane, nor our having enhanced sense perceptions. The important development is an awakening of consciousness, not in enhanced senses and the ability to produce physical phenomena. I'm not against the scientific investigation of the psychic, and find nothing wrong with societies for psychical research. And there should be room for some research to go on in theosophical groups as well. But by far the most important work for theosophical groups, I think, is in teaching the doctrines and in support of its members and friends in entering upon the spiritual path. Regards -- Eldon From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue Apr 23 01:07:49 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 21:07:49 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604230212.WAA08380@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: rigidity/flexibility Dear Paul, I agree 100% with your statement. I find medit-l most refreshing, after theos-l'srehashing over & over again the same darn garbage. People on medit-l say something new, bringing a fresh approach & from various backgrounds. When you ask for a statement from anyone who's undergoing a transformation, it just occurred to me that I'm just undergoing a very major one. But it also makes me vulnerable, so I'll be darned if I'd expose my vulnerability on theos-l & let someone hack away on it. But I think that maybe I'll try medit-l & see what kind of a response I get. Liesel >Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 9:29:11 EDT >From: "K. Paul Johnson" >To: theos-l@vnet.net >Subject: Rigidity/Flexibility >Message-ID: <199604221329.JAA04610@leo.vsla.edu> > >Dear theos-l participants: > >Lately I've been posting on Medit-l rather than theos-l, taking >more interest in reading others there, and thinking about how >theos-l reflects something in the character of the Theosophical >movement. The bottom line is-- regardless of where they stand >on the liberal-conservative spectrum, Theosophists tend to be >inflexible. How often does anyone post here along the lines of >"here's a new thought I never had before, a new book containing >information I never knew before, an emotional response I never >felt before"? Mostly, people tend to just repeat their strong >allegiance to their own point of view, rather than yielding, >modifying, growing. At least this is so in comparison to >Medit-l, which is full of people more interested in daily >practice than abstract theorizing, more concerned with >understanding others of different viewpoints than with >triumphing over them. That keeps the list fresh and alive, at >least for now. I wish theos-l would have more of that spirit. >So, a question I wish to throw out for discussion: What major >recent changes in thoughts, feelings, intuitions or sensations do we >have to share in relation to Theosophy? Is anyone out there >deeply engaged in a *transformative* process that might inspire >someone else? What is changing inside your head and heart? >Frankly, I am sick of reading people reiterate the same things >they've fervently believed for 5, 10, 15 or 30 years. OK, I >already have figured out where you are *coming from*. But >where are you going? > >Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 06:41:38 -0700 >From: rdon@garlic.com (Rodolfo Don) >To: theos-l@vnet.net >Subject: Re: Chohan's letter From RIhle@aol.com Tue Apr 23 03:11:55 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:11:55 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960422231153_278392908@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Rigidity/Flexibility In a message dated 96-04-22 09:40:47 EDT, Paul writes> >The bottom line is-- regardless of where they stand >on the liberal-conservative spectrum, Theosophists tend to be >inflexible. How often does anyone post here along the lines of >"here's a new thought I never had before, a new book containing >information I never knew before, an emotional response I never >felt before"? Mostly, people tend to just repeat their strong >allegiance to their own point of view, rather than yielding, >modifying, growing. At least this is so in comparison to >Medit-l, which is full of people more interested in daily >practice than abstract theorizing, more concerned with >understanding others of different viewpoints than with >triumphing over them. That keeps the list fresh and alive, at >least for now. I wish theos-l would have more of that spirit. Richard Ihle writes> Hi, Paul. I recently subscribed to Medit-l so I have an idea of what you are talking about--some very good people seem to be there. However, are the meditators more to be admired because of their "flexibility," "attempts to understand rather than triumph," etc. than the "ask-no-quarter-nor-give-any" man-o'-wars who often show up in the Theosophical (TS) context? Not necessarily, in my opinion. My reason for saying this is purely theosophical. In other words, it belongs to that category of knowledge which has no real empirical or logical basis: I simply have the same *growing certainty* about it as I do about the more standard theosophical ideas--karma, reincarnation, etc. I have "sensed" for many years that there is something very preternatural about the Theosophical Society. Perhaps saving most readers a lot of horizontal-head-shaking time, let me just short-cut and say that I am now more persuaded than not that the TS has served in the past--and still serves, albeit in perhaps a dangerously diminishing degree, in the present--as an "Esoteric Attraction Point" for a certain "subset" of "higher-degree souls." I honestly suspect that there is a possibility that the individuals who are drawn and continue to subject themselves to the sometimes hellish interactions of something like Theos-l may be actually more advanced in Self-awareness than those who may gather in more "benignant" and ostensively "spiritual" ambiences. How do I know this? Well, I don't know it; as I have said, I just have a growing theosophical certitude about it--the slowly creeping "peace which passeth understanding," perhaps. Here is at least one thought: The *age* question. My guess is that a sizeable percentage of those on Medit-l are in their twenties or thirties. If this is so, my prediction is that when they are in their fifties, only about 5% will still be meditating each day. This means nothing in itself, of course, but I have known more than a few seeming archangels of young adulthood whose completely pedestrian mode of travel in later adulthood showed that their previous wings had merely been those supplied by "the Sweet Bird of Youth." Let's not make too much of beatific smiles until they are put to the test by a little arthritis and geriatric ass-dragging. And according to "Psychogenesis," of course, the first five cycles in the progressive unfoldment of potential egoic delusion are not even completed until age thirty-five--and this assumes that the individual has a high enough Degree of Self-awareness that he or she will regularly be proded up to the Fifth Level to indulge the multiplicity of desire-free "semi-Selves" which potentially might form there. Thus, what we might be seeing on Medit-l may be many individuals who can overcome the delusion that they really ARE their desire-mental ideas, but who can not yet fight the good fight against the egoic mistake that they really ARE their dispassionate mentation. This is not a flaw or anything; it is simply the result of their possibly not yet being chronologically old enough to have "psychomatured" into the Fifth-Cycle Ego-Arena. Furthermore, there is typically a lot of "posturing" associated with the Desire-Mental (kama-manas) Cycle. Much of the "yielding, modifying, growing," etc. may indeed be the actual result of meditative practice temporarily elevating the individuals toward "less-differentiated" states of consciousness (toward the "Spiritual"); however, much of the "good behavior" could also simply be a result of making themselves behave according to the "idea of the Spiritual person"--the mental idea which attracted them in the first place. In both instances, "advancement" may be chimerical. In the first place, consciousness is an up-and-down situation, changing from day to day, sometimes moment to moment--especially if one stops meditating regularly. Incremental improvement in Degree of Self-awareness, on the other hand, is of much greater duration. It is impossible to tell whether one is a high degree soul merely on the basis of whether one is crabby and depressed or blissed-out and effervescent. All one can really guess at from these things is whether an individual has been indulging levels of consciousness which are "too far away" or close to the Degree of Self-awareness he or she has. By contrast, the majority of those on Theos-l appear to be a much older group; most seem to have long experience working at the first five levels (a younger person can *utilize* desire-free mentation, for example, but not *BE* the desire-free mentation in an egoic sense until he or she enters the appropriate age-related psychomaturational cycle). There is some desire-mentalism in evidence on Theos-l, of course (psychomaturing through all the levels merely means you are free to egoically delude yourself in any of them, any time you want), but there seems to be much material posted which has the character of "pure, dispassionate explication" (manas level). . . .Anyway, even I bore myself with explaining Psychogenesis nowdays; therefore suffice it to say that I have never personally experienced such a more suspiciously heavy-duty aggregation of possible higher types than I have run across on Theos-l. The ~I AM~ quality is not always pretty and pleasant when it sometimes "contaminates" itself at this level of consciousness or that; however, many of these people seem BIG . . . VERY BIG . . . to me. But then . . . why don't these big, "older souls" just get busy and meditate themselves into *nirvilkalpa samadhi*, thereby checking out of the Reincarnating Stream and not bothering other people with their arguments any longer? Well, that leads me to another one of my theosophical growing certitudes: I am actually starting to be persuaded that a certain small percentage of "Monads," for one reason or another, are drawn back into incarnation for "one extra Lap" (I believe *five* is it for the general mass). These oldest of souls, I am starting to be persuaded, will appear (and perhaps some *are* already appearing) in the Sixth Degree of Self-Awareness, and their remaining earthly task will be to make themselves Adepts by means of the discrimination this development provides. Who knows? Perhaps it is the theosophical enterprise itself--the *desire* to know that which can only be known by means of transcendental, mystical, intuitive, or higher perceptual insight--which is the "mechanism" which keeps calling them back into life again and again. . . . Indeed, who knows? There also might be a pack of future Adepts posting on Medit-l right now. (And if for some illogical and inexplicable reason they all start joining the Theosophical Society, I'll really start to wonder. . . .) For now, however, I am not willing to say that "flexibility" tells me very much. For now, at least, my Self-awareness money remains on the old Theos-l crowd (which includes you)--despite the fact that about two dozen of the "no-other-*I-AM*'s-higher-than-I-AM" types are just about getting ready to call me on the carpet for trying to patronize them. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From rwheaton@bart.ccis.com Tue Apr 23 03:47:15 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 20:47:15 -0700 From: rwheaton@bart.ccis.com Message-Id: <317C52C3.7A77@bart.ccis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Golden Dawn References: <960422104632_519288938@emout15.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > > RW, > Great thunderbolts of Jupiter! I thought I was foul tempered. > Calm down. If this keeps up my screen will melt. > > Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA > Heretic > Troublemaker I apologize to the group for allowing my rauch to get out of hand. It is my belief that the esoteric or practical teaching of the ancient mysteries are valuable. The theoretical teachings are important, but they're not the entire picture. In light of this can someone please tell how to find out more concerning the esoteric section of the Theosophical Society? Yours Truly, RW From am455@lafn.org Mon Apr 22 18:57:36 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 11:57:36 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199604221857.AA06269@lafn.org> Subject: Sinnett's copy of Chohan's letter VIEW OF THE CHOHAN ON THE T.S. [This is a different version of the Chohan's letter than that published in *Lucifer* and reprinted by ULT as "The Great Master's Letter". By the way, I wrongly assumed the ULT version downloaded from the Theoslodge WWW site had been accurately typed. Some of the blunders are important. In the future I may fix it up and post it again. The following copy was made by AP Sinnett, the recipient, and is less (or even not) edited than later versions.. It is found in the chronological version of *The Mahatma Letters*.] *************************** Several good reasons given to K.H. by the Chohan why the T.S. should be a Brotherhood of Humanity. For the Simla Eclectic T.S. ________________ The doctrine we promulgate being the only true one, must, supported by such evidence as we are preparing to give become ultimately triumphant as every other truth. Yet it is absolutely necessary to inculcate it gradually enforcing its theories, unimpeachable facts for those who know, with direct inferences, deducted from and corroborated by the evidence furnished by modern exact science. That is why Col. H.S.O., who works to revive Buddhism may be regarded as one who labours in the true path of Theosophy, far more than any other man who chooses as his goal the gratification of his own ardent aspirations for occult knowledge. Buddhism stripped of its superstitions is eternal truth, and he who strives for the latter is striving for Theos-sophia, Divine Wisdom, which is a synonym of truth. For our doctrines to practically react on the so called moral code or the ideas of truthfulness, purity, self-denial, charity, etc., we have to preach and popularize a knowledge of theosophy. It is not the individual and determined purpose of attaining oneself Nirvana (the culmination of all knowledge and absolute wisdom) which is, after all only an exalted and glorious *selfishness,* but the self-sacrificing pursuit of the best means to lead on the right path our neighbour, to cause as many of our fellow-creatures as we possibly can to benefit by it, which constitutes the true Theosophist. The intellectual portions of mankind seems to be fast dividing into two classes, the one unconsciously preparing for itself long periods of temporary annihilation or states of non-consciousness, owing to the deliberate surrender of their intellect, its imprisonment in the narrow grooves of bigotry and superstition, a process which cannot fail to lead to the utter deformation of the intellectual principle; the other unrestrainedly indulging its animal propensities with the deliberate intention of *submitting* to annihilation pure and simple in case of failure, and to millenniums of degradation after physical dissolution. Those "intellectual classes," reacting upon the ignorant masses which they attract, and which look up to them as noble and fit examples to follow, degrade and morally ruin those they ought to protect and guide. Between degrading superstition and still more degrading brutal materialism, the white dove of truth has hardly room where to rest her weary unwelcome foot.... It's time that Theosophy should enter the arena. The sons of Theosophists are more likely to become in their turn Theosophists than anything else. No messenger of the truth, no prophet, has ever achieved during his life time a complete triumph--not even Buddha; The Theosophical Society was chosen as the corner stone, the foundation of the future religion of humanity. To achieve the proposed object, a greater, wiser, and especially a more benevolent intermingling of the high and the low, of the alpha and the omega of society, was determined upon. The white race must be the first to stretch out the hand of fellowship to the dark nations, to call the poor despised "nigger" brothers. This prospect may not smile to all. He is no Theosophist who objects to this principle. In view of the ever increasing triumph, and at the same time misuse, of free-thought and *liberty* (the Universal reign of Satan, Eliphas Levi would have called it), how is the combative *natural* instinct of man to be restrained from inflicting hitherto unheard of cruelties and enormities, tyranny, injustice, etc., if not through the soothing influence of a brotherhood, and of the practical application of Buddha's esoteric doctrines? For as everyone knows, total emancipation from authority of the one all pervading power or law called God by the Theists -- Buddha, Divine Wisdom and Enlightenment or Theosophy by the philosophers of all ages -- means also the emancipation from that of human law. Once unfettered [and] delivered from their deadweight of dogmatic interpretations, personal names, anthropomorphic conceptions and salaried priests, the fundamental doctrines of all religions will be proved identical in their esoteric meaning. Osiris, Chrishna, Buddha, Christ, will be shown as different means for one and [the] same royal highway to final bliss, *Nirvana.* Mystical Christianity, that is to say that Christianity which teaches *self* redemption through one's own *seventh* principle -- the liberated Paraatma (Augoeides) called by the one Christ, by others Buddha, and equivalent to regeneration, or rebirth in spirit -- will be found just the same truth as the Nirvana of mystical Buddhism. All of us have to get rid of our own Ego, the illusory apparent *self*, to recognize our true self in a transcendental divine life. But if we would not be selfish we must strive to make other people see that truth, to recognize the reality of that transcendental self, the Buddh, the Christ or God of every preacher. This is why even exoteric Buddhism is the surest path to lead men toward the one esoteric truth. As we find the world now, whether Christian, Mussulman, or Pagan, justice is disregarded, and honour and mercy both flung to the winds. In a word, how, since the main objects of the T.S. are misinterpreted by those who are most willing to serve us *personally*, are we to deal with the rest of mankind, with that curse known as the "struggle for life," which is the real and most prolific parent of most woes and sorrows and of all crimes? Why has that struggle become the almost universal scheme of the universe? We answer, because no religion, with the exception of Buddhism has hitherto taught a practical contempt for this earthly life, while each of them, always with that one solitary exception, has through its hells and damnations inculcated the greatest dread of death. Therefore do we find that struggle for life raging most fiercely in Christian countries, most prevalent in Europe and America. It weakens in the Pagan lands, and is nearly unknown among Buddhist populations. (In China during famine, and where the masses are most ignorant of their own or of any religion, it was remarked that those mothers who devoured their children belonged to localities where there were the most of Christian missionaries to be found. Where there were none and where the Bonzes alone had the field the population died with the utmost indifference.) Teach the people to see that life on this earth even the happiest is but a burden and an illusion, that it is but our own *Karma,* the cause producing the effect, that is our own judge, our Saviour in future lives, and the great struggle for life will soon lose its intensity. There are no penitentiaries in Buddhist lands and crime is nearly unknown among the Buddhist Tibetans. (The above is not addressed to you, and has naught to do with the work of the Simla Eclectic Society. It is meant only as an answer to the erroneous impression in Mr. Hume's mind of the "Ceylon work" as no *theosophy.*) The world in general and Christendom especially, left for two thousand years to the regime of a personal God as well as its political and social systems based on that idea, has now proved a failure. If the Theosophists say, we have nothing to do with all this, the lower classes and the inferior races (those of India for instance in the conception of the British) cannot concern us and must manage as they can, what becomes of our fine professions of benevolence, philanthropy, reform, etc.? Are these professions a mockery? And if a mockery, can ours be the true path? Shall we devote our selves to teaching a few Europeans fed on the fat of the land, many of them loaded with the gifts of blind fortune, the *rationale* of bell-ringing, of cup growing, of the spiritual telephone and astral body formation, and leave the teeming millions of the ignorant, of the poor and despised, the lowly and the oppressed, to take care of themselves, and of their hereafter the best they know how. Never. Perish rather the Theosophical Society with both its hapless founders, than that we should permit it to become no better than an academy of magic and a hall of occultism. That *we* the devoted followers of that spirit incarnate of absolute self sacrifice, of philanthropy, divine kindness, as of all the highest virtues attainable on this earth of sorrow, the man of men, Gautama Buddha, should ever allow the Theosophical Society to represent the *embodiment of selfishness,* the refuge of the few with no thought in them for the many, is a strange idea, my brothers. Among the few glimpses obtained by Europeans of Tibet and its mystical hierarchy of "perfect lamas," there is one which was correctly understood and described. "The incarnations of the Boddisatwa Padma Pani or Avalo-Kiteswara and of Tsong Kapa, that of Amitabha, relinquish at their death the attainment of Buddhahood -- i.e., the *summum bonum* of bliss, and of individual *personal* felicity -- that they might be born again and again for the benefit of mankind." [Rhys Davids.] In other words, that they might be again and again subjected to misery, imprisonment in flesh, and all the sorrows of life, provided that by such a self sacrifice repeated throughout long and weary centuries they might become the means of securing salvation and bliss in the hereafter for a handful of men chosen among but one of the many races of mankind. And it is we, the humble disciples of these perfect lamas, who are expected to allow the T.S. to drop its noblest title, that of the Brotherhood of Humanity to become a simple school of psychology? No, no, good brothers, you have been labouring under the mistake too long already. Let us understand each other. He who does not feel competent to grasp the noble idea sufficiently to work for it, need not undertake a task too heavy for him. But there is hardly a theosophist in the whole society unable to effectually help it by correcting erroneous impressions of the outsiders, if not by actually propagating himself the idea. Oh, for the noble and unselfish man to help us *effectually* in India in that divine task. All our knowledge past and present would not be sufficient to repay him.... Having explained our views and aspirations I have but a few words more to add. To be *true,* religion and philosophy must offer the solution of every problem. That the world is in such a bad condition morally is a conclusive evidence that none of its religions and philosophies, those of the *civilised* races less than any other, have ever possessed the *truth.* The right and logical explanations on the subject of the problems of the great dual principles -- right and wrong, good and evil, liberty and despotism, pain and pleasure, egotism and altruism -- are as impossible to them now as they were 1881 years ago. They are as far from the solution as they were but, --- To these there must be somewhere a consistent solution, and if our doctrines will show their competence to offer it, then the world will be the first one to confess *that must* be the true philosophy, the true religion, the true light, which gives truth and nothing but the *truth.* An abridged version of the view of the Chohan on the T.S. from his own words as given last night. My own letter, the answer to yours, will shortly follow. K.H. ******************************* -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 23 06:02:32 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:02:32 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960423060232.0069c4cc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: NAH! At 08:24 PM 4/22/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >YOu've got it wrong again. I'm the Antichrist. You're the False Prophet. > >Chuck the Barbaric Antichrist MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Nah! You can't be the Anti-Christ you're Italian! It's J2p2 the space-age Pope, who's the Anti-Christ (because if Christ "showed up" he'd have him killed the way they did J1P1), and it's Ralph Reed who's the "False Prophet". I'm just poor misunderstood Lucifer, and you are the equally misunderstood Iscariotas. alexis From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 23 03:56:30 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 22:56:30 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Running a maillist In-Reply-To: <960422201803_475764247@emout16.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I agree. ...doss On Mon, 22 Apr 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 20:22:48 -0400 > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Running a maillist > > Doss, > It is a truely a Herculean task and John Mead deserves both our eternal > thanks and a gift certificate for valerian root (a natural tranquilizer that > is the source of Valium). > > Chuck MTI, FTSA > From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 23 04:04:41 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:04:41 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: The success of listening-l (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Here is a msg. Some of the things mentioned in the msg is relevant to theos-l too. Hope you enjoy reading it. ....doss > Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:00:23 -0400 > From: Vivanaut@aol.com > Subject: The success of listening-l While it is possible to evaluate listening-l by looking at its failures, I wonder if there is any way this can be done that doesn't depend on one's own expectations. A failure can exist only if there is some expectation that is not met. Some promise not kept. On the other hand, it seems possible to evaluate listening-l by looking at its successes - whatever they might be. And they can be different things for different people. I've been receiving the list for what feels like about five years, and it is always interesting. While it is vulnerable to "takeover" by madmen, they do burn out, one after another. Even when the focus is monopolized by someone with an agenda of their own, there continue to be other threads of discussion that a person can follow and to which one can contribute. When you consider that the structure of the list simply is that it retransmits anything sent to it to anyone subscribed, the fact that it retains its more-or-less "K" focus and continues, over all these years, to be a place where K's work and teachings are discussed, is quite a success. Most folks on the list have come to terms with the fact that we communicate in words, and that these mean different things to different participants. In spite of this limitation, we continually are able to hold the little jewels K left for us up to the light, to fondle them, and to pass them back and forth among us. I suspect that five years from now many of us will have little TV cameras mounted on our computers, and our letters will be accompanied by photos of ourselves slaving away at the keyboard. Where we now see through a monitor darkly, we will soon meet face to face. Dan Stevens continually There does always seem to be a designated madman. Now that Mo is gone, who shall we choose? From olcott@cedar.cic.net Tue Apr 23 04:21:50 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:21:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: Book Question In-Reply-To: <317BEDC6@mortar.bpa.gov> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Nick, Arno Press has been bought by Ayer. My hand-me-down Books in Print (1993/94) shows the book you are looking for (i.e. the reprint) as still in print at $25.50. Maybe it's out of print now, but you could see whether they have any copies left. The address is (as of the 1993/94 Books in Print) Ayer Co. Pubs. PO Box 958 Salem, NH 03079 603-669-5933 Try your local public library or the nearest book store for a more recent edition of Books in Print to check on the title and the publisher address. Elisabeth Trumpler Head Librarian Olcott Library & Research Center -------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, Porreco, Nick - CPMQ wrote: > > Dear Nicholas, > > I tried to find Arno Press both on the internet and via information but > could not locate them. Do you think they are out of business. > > Nick. > ---------- > From: theos-l > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Book Question > Date: Monday, April 22, 1996 3:00PM > > > >Does anyone know if "Incidents In the Life of HPB" by Sinnett is still in > >print. I ran across an old expensive copy but would rather not buy it, if > >it is still in print. > > Dear Nick, > > The Arno Press, NYC, did a reprint in 1976. Whether they have reprinted > again, or any remainders are left of that run or if anyone else has > reprinted it, I don't know. > > Best, > > -- > Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles > "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight > cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble > presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) > From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 23 04:26:10 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:26:10 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Golden Dawn In-Reply-To: <317C52C3.7A77@bart.ccis.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 22 Apr 1996 rwheaton@bart.ccis.com wrote: > Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:49:37 -0400 > From: rwheaton@bart.ccis.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Golden Dawn > > Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > > > > RW, > > Great thunderbolts of Jupiter! I thought I was foul tempered. > > Calm down. If this keeps up my screen will melt. > > > > Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA > > Heretic > > Troublemaker > > I apologize to the group for allowing my rauch to get out of hand. It is > my belief that the esoteric or practical teaching of the ancient > mysteries are valuable. The theoretical teachings are important, but > they're not the entire picture. > In light of this can someone please tell how to find out more > concerning the esoteric section of the Theosophical Society? > > Yours Truly, > RW You can contact the Theosophical Society in America at theos@netcom. Probably you can also call them toll free at 1-800-669-1571 and speak to some one in the membership who may provide some information. BTW, you may not be able to get much information other than some of the basic requirements such as at least two years of membership of the Theosophical Society, vegetarian life style, non use of alchohol or other mind altering drugs etc. Recently I posted a msg quoting a letter that was sent to A P Sinnett which is generally considered as the Charter for the Theosophical Society. In the letter, it is made very clear that the prime purpose of the Theosophical Society is to further the idea of Universal Brotherhood of Humanity and *not* the establishment of a philosophical (psychological) school for the benefit of a few. I believe you may be familiar with the above. In the above context, I am just curious about (1) how you came upon theos-l, (2) how you came across Theosophy/Theosophical Society and (3) what you would wish to achieve in the Esoteric School. If you prefer, you do not have to answer any of the above. But it would be very informative to all of us. Peace ....doss From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 23 04:40:42 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:40:42 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Rigidity/Flexibility In-Reply-To: <960422231153_278392908@emout16.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Richard: There are quit a few of us here who are *young* souls and who do not feel BIG and do feel SMALL and who are waiting here to pick up the crumbs of wisdom that may be dropped occassionally. So the *old* souls and who may feel BIG should have mercy on these less fortunate ones!!! ...doss On Mon, 22 Apr 1996 RIhle@aol.com wrote: > Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:12:37 -0400 > From: RIhle@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Rigidity/Flexibility > > In a message dated 96-04-22 09:40:47 EDT, Paul writes> > > >The bottom line is-- regardless of where they stand > >on the liberal-conservative spectrum, Theosophists tend to be > >inflexible. How often does anyone post here along the lines of > >"here's a new thought I never had before, a new book containing > >information I never knew before, an emotional response I never > >felt before"? Mostly, people tend to just repeat their strong > >allegiance to their own point of view, rather than yielding, > >modifying, growing. At least this is so in comparison to > >Medit-l, which is full of people more interested in daily > >practice than abstract theorizing, more concerned with > >understanding others of different viewpoints than with > >triumphing over them. That keeps the list fresh and alive, at > >least for now. I wish theos-l would have more of that spirit. > > Richard Ihle writes> > Hi, Paul. I recently subscribed to Medit-l so I have an idea of what you are > talking about--some very good people seem to be there. > > However, are the meditators more to be admired because of their > "flexibility," "attempts to understand rather than triumph," etc. than the > "ask-no-quarter-nor-give-any" man-o'-wars who often show up in the > Theosophical (TS) context? > > Not necessarily, in my opinion. > > My reason for saying this is purely theosophical. In other words, it belongs > to that category of knowledge which has no real empirical or logical basis: > I simply have the same *growing certainty* about it as I do about the more > standard theosophical ideas--karma, reincarnation, etc. > > I have "sensed" for many years that there is something very preternatural > about the Theosophical Society. Perhaps saving most readers a lot of > horizontal-head-shaking time, let me just short-cut and say that I am now > more persuaded than not that the TS has served in the past--and still serves, > albeit in perhaps a dangerously diminishing degree, in the present--as an > "Esoteric Attraction Point" for a certain "subset" of "higher-degree souls." > > I honestly suspect that there is a possibility that the individuals who are > drawn and continue to subject themselves to the sometimes hellish > interactions of something like Theos-l may be actually more advanced in > Self-awareness than those who may gather in more "benignant" and ostensively > "spiritual" ambiences. > > How do I know this? Well, I don't know it; as I have said, I just have a > growing theosophical certitude about it--the slowly creeping "peace which > passeth understanding," perhaps. > > Here is at least one thought: > > The *age* question. My guess is that a sizeable percentage of those on > Medit-l are in their twenties or thirties. If this is so, my prediction is > that when they are in their fifties, only about 5% will still be meditating > each day. This means nothing in itself, of course, but I have known more > than a few seeming archangels of young adulthood whose completely pedestrian > mode of travel in later adulthood showed that their previous wings had merely > been those supplied by "the Sweet Bird of Youth." Let's not make too much of > beatific smiles until they are put to the test by a little arthritis and > geriatric ass-dragging. > > And according to "Psychogenesis," of course, the first five cycles in the > progressive unfoldment of potential egoic delusion are not even completed > until age thirty-five--and this assumes that the individual has a high enough > Degree of Self-awareness that he or she will regularly be proded up to the > Fifth Level to indulge the multiplicity of desire-free "semi-Selves" which > potentially might form there. Thus, what we might be seeing on Medit-l may > be many individuals who can overcome the delusion that they really ARE their > desire-mental ideas, but who can not yet fight the good fight against the > egoic mistake that they really ARE their dispassionate mentation. This is not > a flaw or anything; it is simply the result of their possibly not yet being > chronologically old enough to have "psychomatured" into the Fifth-Cycle > Ego-Arena. > > Furthermore, there is typically a lot of "posturing" associated with the > Desire-Mental (kama-manas) Cycle. Much of the "yielding, modifying, > growing," etc. may indeed be the actual result of meditative practice > temporarily elevating the individuals toward "less-differentiated" states of > consciousness (toward the "Spiritual"); however, much of the "good behavior" > could also simply be a result of making themselves behave according to the > "idea of the Spiritual person"--the mental idea which attracted them in the > first place. > > In both instances, "advancement" may be chimerical. In the first place, > consciousness is an up-and-down situation, changing from day to day, > sometimes moment to moment--especially if one stops meditating regularly. > Incremental improvement in Degree of Self-awareness, on the other hand, is > of much greater duration. It is impossible to tell whether one is a high > degree soul merely on the basis of whether one is crabby and depressed or > blissed-out and effervescent. All one can really guess at from these things > is whether an individual has been indulging levels of consciousness which are > "too far away" or close to the Degree of Self-awareness he or she has. > > By contrast, the majority of those on Theos-l appear to be a much older > group; most seem to have long experience working at the first five levels (a > younger person can *utilize* desire-free mentation, for example, but not *BE* > the desire-free mentation in an egoic sense until he or she enters the > appropriate age-related psychomaturational cycle). There is some > desire-mentalism in evidence on Theos-l, of course (psychomaturing through > all the levels merely means you are free to egoically delude yourself in any > of them, any time you want), but there seems to be much material posted which > has the character of "pure, dispassionate explication" (manas level). > > . . .Anyway, even I bore myself with explaining Psychogenesis nowdays; > therefore suffice it to say that I have never personally experienced such a > more suspiciously heavy-duty aggregation of possible higher types than I have > run across on Theos-l. The ~I AM~ quality is not always pretty and pleasant > when it sometimes "contaminates" itself at this level of consciousness or > that; however, many of these people seem BIG . . . VERY BIG . . . to me. > > But then . . . why don't these big, "older souls" just get busy and meditate > themselves into *nirvilkalpa samadhi*, thereby checking out of the > Reincarnating Stream and not bothering other people with their arguments any > longer? Well, that leads me to another one of my theosophical growing > certitudes: I am actually starting to be persuaded that a certain small > percentage of "Monads," for one reason or another, are drawn back into > incarnation for "one extra Lap" (I believe *five* is it for the general > mass). These oldest of souls, I am starting to be persuaded, will appear > (and perhaps some *are* already appearing) in the Sixth Degree of > Self-Awareness, and their remaining earthly task will be to make themselves > Adepts by means of the discrimination this development provides. > > Who knows? Perhaps it is the theosophical enterprise itself--the *desire* to > know that which can only be known by means of transcendental, mystical, > intuitive, or higher perceptual insight--which is the "mechanism" which keeps > calling them back into life again and again. . . . > > Indeed, who knows? There also might be a pack of future Adepts posting on > Medit-l right now. (And if for some illogical and inexplicable reason they > all start joining the Theosophical Society, I'll really start to wonder. . . > .) For now, however, I am not willing to say that "flexibility" tells me > very much. For now, at least, my Self-awareness money remains on the old > Theos-l crowd (which includes you)--despite the fact that about two dozen of > the "no-other-*I-AM*'s-higher-than-I-AM" types are just about getting ready > to call me on the carpet for trying to patronize them. . . . > > Godspeed, > > Richard Ihle > > > From rwheaton@bart.ccis.com Tue Apr 23 05:04:52 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 22:04:52 -0700 From: rwheaton@bart.ccis.com Message-Id: <317C64F4.35A0@bart.ccis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Golden Dawn References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit M K Ramadoss wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Apr 1996 rwheaton@bart.ccis.com wrote: > > > Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:49:37 -0400 > > From: rwheaton@bart.ccis.com > > To: Multiple recipients of list > > Subject: Re: Golden Dawn > > > > Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > RW, > > > Great thunderbolts of Jupiter! I thought I was foul tempered. > > > Calm down. If this keeps up my screen will melt. > > > > > > Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA > > > Heretic > > > Troublemaker > > > > I apologize to the group for allowing my rauch to get out of hand. It is > > my belief that the esoteric or practical teaching of the ancient > > mysteries are valuable. The theoretical teachings are important, but > > they're not the entire picture. > > In light of this can someone please tell how to find out more > > concerning the esoteric section of the Theosophical Society? > > > > Yours Truly, > > RW > > You can contact the Theosophical Society in America at theos@netcom. > Probably you can also call them toll free at 1-800-669-1571 and speak to > some one in the membership who may provide some information. > > BTW, you may not be able to get much information other than some of the > basic requirements such as at least two years of membership of the > Theosophical Society, vegetarian life style, non use of alchohol or other > mind altering drugs etc. > > Recently I posted a msg quoting a letter that was sent to A P Sinnett > which is generally considered as the Charter for the Theosophical > Society. In the letter, it is made very clear that the prime purpose of > the Theosophical Society is to further the idea of Universal Brotherhood > of Humanity and *not* the establishment of a philosophical > (psychological) school for the benefit of a few. I believe you may be > familiar with the above. > > In the above context, I am just curious about (1) how you came upon > theos-l, (2) how you came across Theosophy/Theosophical Society and (3) > what you would wish to achieve in the Esoteric School. > > If you prefer, you do not have to answer any of the above. But it would > be very informative to all of us. > > Peace > > ....doss > Thank you for your considerate response. Answers to your questions: (1) I searched the mailing lists. (2) I have read a ton of Theosophical literature. I saw what I felt was truth and it gave me hope. (3) The idea of unselfish compassion appeals to me, however, it does not come naturally. In other words I feel a need for some help--a whole lot in fact. This is why I ask for more than theory. Theory is great, but I want an inside change. RW From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 23 05:31:08 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 22:31:08 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960423053108.00698508@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Thank you At 05:20 PM 4/22/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>cut<<<<<< >With good reason at least here in the U.S. The Religious Right objects to public education but for anything BUT the reasons which cause you and I to object to it. I have students in several countries and believe me education is in a parlous state in more places than the USA. But the point is, the Religious Right objects to our system as being not fit for THEIR agenda, and they could acre less about a proper education. All they're interested in is rigid discipline and pseudo-morality. > >The performance of our public education, especially >considering the amount of money spent, is dismal compared to other countries. >The complete inability for parents to get involved in their childs education >is another factor with more and more control moving to state and federal >levels. Money per capita, when compared with actual as opposed to statistical results is, in fact, dismal in the USA where we spend infinitely more money to get equally poor results. Parents however, are far more likely to be unwilling to be involved in their children's educational progress than they are unable to be so. Most of what's wrong both in education and in life itself here in the USA as it relates to children and their upbringing is almost total parental refusal to take responsibility for their children and to be responsible parents. > >Obviously, I'm a big supporter of alternative education including vouchers, >tax credits for education expenses, etc. Here in Minnesota, gambling is tax >deductable but education isn't! I would be willing to support a "voucher system" providing it was not possible to spend the vouchers at religious schools. Now as to "gambling is deductible" am I right in assuming you mean "gambling losses"? Well, of course, they should not be deductible. But educational costs are certainly appropriate deductions, even to religious institutions. I just don't want tax money to go to support some religious agenda. > >Even members of our local school board have told me that they wouldn't >put their own kids into the public school...not to mention the number >of student sucides lately here. I remember talking to the kindegarden >teacher at the public school when considering to put my son there who >told me that my son is too advanced and would only be entertained >for a year since they teach to the lowest common demoninator. I have two adopted sons, both of them extremely bright and talented kids (or rather they were Kids some years ago)They both had problems in high school because they were far brighter than their peers. One of them went on to Berkeley and got a degree in Slavic Languages, the other is currently in Yale, but he's really going to end up an artist-craftsperson. I myself went to public schools a very long time ago and frankly no public school system is geared for the bright child. > >Granted, there is a fringe of radical right that would cut out >education that does not agree with their views and I certainly don't >support that. However, I can understand the views of concerned >parents who are opposed to some of the stuff taught to their >kids. > > > -Mike Grenier > mike@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com > The problem, I think, is to radically improve education and to prevent the Radical Religious Right from coopting the situation for their own purposes. The kids aren't really the problem. Irresponsible parents are, and basically incompetent "time server" teachers are! That's what requires fixing. When parents become more responsible, and teachers become more competent, the kids will be well served. But there's one other question. Considering that our teachers in the USA are vastly underpaid considering the value of their product, and to go along with that they are the objects of almost totally disrespect by American society, what can we expect? alexis dolgorukii From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 23 05:51:07 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 22:51:07 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960423055107.006aa800@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: The Aryan Race At 07:29 PM 4/22/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>cut<<<<<<< >> >I was talking about Hitler, the Nazi Party, elected 1933 and its racial >policies, which *specifically* used the idea of "Aryan Race" >superiority as justification for mass-murder - not only of Jews. >Theosophists were was using almost identical terminology with a similar >implicit flavor since before Hitler was born. Did the Catholics, Luther >included, or Liszt or Nietzche use this concept of Aryan supremacy in >the same way? Actually Alan, they did. Guido von Liszt was a Teutonic Supremacist, and his ideas and indoctrination date back to the Vehm. He is one of the primary inspirations of Nazi Racism. As to Nietzsche, his "Ubermench", and "Blond Beast" theories and teaching were directly quoted by Hitler and his polemicists very frequently. There are many people, I agree who blame Theosophy for the Nazi Racial Theories, but I find most of those claims specious. One those racial connections, and they are referring to the anthropogenesis in the Secret Doctrine, were not particularly ubiquitous in Europe during Hitler's formative years. His hatred of the Jews was pathologically based by his view that it was a Jew who thwarted his acceptance into the Art School in vienna. I say pathologically, because his Grandmother was a Jewess. Now, I personally find the anthropogenesis in the Secret Doctrine to be absolute nonsense. BUT, I do not think it really contributed much if anything, to the holocaust. No, there it was Liszt, Nietzsche, the Vehm, The Vril, the OTO, and other German Pan Nationalist groups dating back into the 15 the century. I think the accusation that Blavatsky influenced Hitler is totally untrue. That he hated theosophy and Theosophists is historically clear. He hated anyone with occult connections who didn't actively support him, all too many of those people died in concentration camps. There is no actual proof that either Hitler or Goebbels or Rosenberg were at all aware of Blavatsky and her Secret Doctrine in any comprehensive way. They were all, however, members of the Vril. >>>>cut<<<<<< >My comment related to a connection between theosophical racial ideas and >Nazi racial ideas, which was the question I hoped to see addressed. >That the Catholic Church and its successors were Jew-haters may be true, >but it is not directly relevant to my question. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > There Alan, did that address your question more directly? I hope so, this is a major field of interest with me and I'd be glad to discuss it further with you at any time. Alexis dolgorukii From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 23 05:54:21 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 22:54:21 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960423055421.006934d8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: legitimate? At 07:45 PM 4/22/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <317B0A70.14EA@bart.ccis.com>, rwheaton@bart.ccis.com writes >> I >>have a legitimate reason for asking these questions and expect legitimate >>answers. > >Try being polite > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >He got a legitimate answer, and as far as I am concerned a perfectly valid one. He just didn't like the answer he got. But it's the truth all the same. Any esoteric school without an adept to lead it and teach it is totally invalid, and when HPB passed over, the Esoteric Section became the political plaything of power hungry political theosophists. alexis dolgorukii From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 23 05:55:31 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 22:55:31 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960423055531.0069c4b0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: fire At 08:18 PM 4/22/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I just knew this was going to happen. My screen just caught fire. :-) > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Oh well, that's what happens when you pal around with an Afrit! alexis From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 23 05:57:34 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 22:57:34 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960423055734.00697b30@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:NAH! is right! At 08:20 PM 4/22/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Well, let's see. There are some people who think that HPB was divinely >inspired. There are some who think that the TS is going to be the groundwork >for a world religion. There are some people who would like to see us go to >hell, so maybe this does qualify as a religious list. >NAH! > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >NAH! is right, and it's right cause you and Alan and JRC and Jerry Schueler and I won't let it! Alexis From jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org Tue Apr 23 05:11:56 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 22:11:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <199604230511.WAA07695@igc2.igc.apc.org> Subject: re: golden dawn >I have *personally* * known* *many many* members of the TS who >are also members of Esoteric Section who have rendered >invaluable services to Theosophy and Theosophical Society. In >many countries and in many lodges, the vibrancy and the vitality >of these lodges are due to these members. Even today this is >the case all over the world (there may be some rare >exceptions.). > >As these are *facts*, let us show our gratitude to these members >for what they have done for Theosophy and Theosophical Society. >Let "Ungratitude be not one of our vices." > > ....doss In my 30 plus years in the TS, I have never for one moment doubted the dedication and sincerity of the members of the ES. ES members have been among the hardest working people in the TS. Whether their hard work and dedication has always been constructive and in the best interest of the TS and the TM is another question. Personally, I believe that much that has been done in the TS has been counter productive to the original program, and the ES must share much of the blame for the sad state that the TS is in today. Perhaps a dialogue here might help to reveal why we have such divergent views here. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 23 06:22:52 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:22:52 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960423062252.00697d50@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Golden Dawn At 11:49 PM 4/22/96 -0400, you wrote: >Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: >> >> RW, >> Great thunderbolts of Jupiter! I thought I was foul tempered. >> Calm down. If this keeps up my screen will melt. >> >> Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >> Heretic >> Troublemaker > >I apologize to the group for allowing my rauch to get out of hand. It is >my belief that the esoteric or practical teaching of the ancient >mysteries are valuable. The theoretical teachings are important, but >they're not the entire picture. >In light of this can someone please tell how to find out more >concerning the esoteric section of the Theosophical Society? > >Yours Truly, >RW > >Let's try again. The Practical Esotericism of the Mystery School variety is indeed very valuable, but the Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society was only a place to receive such instruction and practice during the lifetime of it's Adept Level Teacher H.P.B. When she died the successorship was not determined as it should have been but rather it was gained through political chicanery as an avenue to power. The so-called Esoteric Section of the Theosophical society (and there are three which compete) is NOT a school of practical occultism. It is not a school of occultism at all. It is simply a place where deluded people study "dead letter" instructions allegedly written by Blavatsky, but it doesn't matter who wrote them, without an Adept Level person to interpret and demonstrate those teachings, they are valueless.Since 1891 when HPB died, there has been absolutely no one of either Adept or near adept status in the position of "outer Head" of the E.S. I think Annie Besant was a conscious fraud, I KNOW her "eminence gris" C.W.Leadbeater was a conscious and pathological fraud, and while SHE was officially "Outer Head" he was the power behind the throne. He was Edgar Bergen to her Charlie Mc Carthy. The people who followed in the office were all trained and indoctrinated by CWL and so they were unfortunate dupes rather than frauds. If you are looking for a valid mystery school try elsewhere. But I wish you good luck. Any group which claims to be a "mystery school" publicly isn't one! Any valid group has a full fledged Adept at it's head or it isn't anything at all. alexis dolgorukii From rwheaton@bart.ccis.com Tue Apr 23 06:55:35 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:55:35 -0700 From: rwheaton@bart.ccis.com Message-Id: <317C7EE7.E1A@bart.ccis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Golden Dawn References: <2.2.32.19960423062252.00697d50@mail.slip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit alexis dolgorukii wrote: > > At 11:49 PM 4/22/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > >> > >> RW, > >> Great thunderbolts of Jupiter! I thought I was foul tempered. > >> Calm down. If this keeps up my screen will melt. > >> > >> Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA > >> Heretic > >> Troublemaker > > > >I apologize to the group for allowing my rauch to get out of hand. It is > >my belief that the esoteric or practical teaching of the ancient > >mysteries are valuable. The theoretical teachings are important, but > >they're not the entire picture. > >In light of this can someone please tell how to find out more > >concerning the esoteric section of the Theosophical Society? > > > >Yours Truly, > >RW > > > >Let's try again. The Practical Esotericism of the Mystery School variety is > indeed very valuable, but the Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society > was only a place to receive such instruction and practice during the > lifetime of it's Adept Level Teacher H.P.B. When she died the successorship > was not determined as it should have been but rather it was gained through > political chicanery as an avenue to power. The so-called Esoteric Section of > the Theosophical society (and there are three which compete) is NOT a school > of practical occultism. It is not a school of occultism at all. It is simply > a place where deluded people study "dead letter" instructions allegedly > written by Blavatsky, but it doesn't matter who wrote them, without an Adept > Level person to interpret and demonstrate those teachings, they are > valueless.Since 1891 when HPB died, there has been absolutely no one of > either Adept or near adept status in the position of "outer Head" of the > E.S. I think Annie Besant was a conscious fraud, I KNOW her "eminence gris" > C.W.Leadbeater was a conscious and pathological fraud, and while SHE was > officially "Outer Head" he was the power behind the throne. He was Edgar > Bergen to her Charlie Mc Carthy. The people who followed in the office were > all trained and indoctrinated by CWL and so they were unfortunate dupes > rather than frauds. If you are looking for a valid mystery school try > elsewhere. But I wish you good luck. Any group which claims to be a "mystery > school" publicly isn't one! Any valid group has a full fledged Adept at it's > head or it isn't anything at all. > > alexis dolgorukiiThank you for your answer. It certainly sheds new light on the subject and I see what you mean now. LW From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Tue Apr 23 13:21:05 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 96 9:21:05 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604231321.JAA13478@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: This week's epiphany A post to medit-l was supposed to be forwarded to this list, which would have answered Doss's question about my own recent new thoughts, feelings, etc. Something went awry, so here's th gist: This Saturday I went kayaking in the Chesapeake Bay for the first time (tried once years ago but it was too rough). Even though the winds were up to 20 knots, since they were from shore the seas remained calm-- 1-2 feet. I was in Norfolk's Ocean View section, within sight of the meeting point of the bay and the Atlantic Ocean. It was an exciting new experience, after years of paddling, to be out in a body of water that filled the horizon, from which one could go all the way to Europe or Africa, gently rocking and rolling on the swells. There was something liberating about being able to lie back, stop paddling, and just bounce around relaxed. After playing in the bay for 45 minutes or so, I came back in and drove a few blocks to a friend's house where I was supposed to meet him and another friend to go out to dinner. Neither of them was there yet so I ended up sitting on the porch for 20 minutes waiting. Or rather, bouncing on the porch-- for the rocking of the bay continued to reverberate within my body for the whole time, especially when I closed my eyes. This sensation of still bouncing after coming out of the water was familiar because after ocean swimming, one feels this while lying on the sand. But the bouncing on the surface felt in a kayak apparently does more to one's inner ear than swimming does, since the post-bouncing sensation was very intense. This is related somehow to the way one sees red afterimages after staring at a green object and then looking at something white. But it also was remarkably similar in some ways to my recent meditation practice, which involves a transition from *hearing* the shabd or "audible sound current" or Voice of the Silence, to *feeling* it-- translating sound into tactile sensation, which is like *riding* or *surfing* the "sound." Conclusion: the inner ear is very significant to meditative practice, at least of the type I have been pursuing. Implication: keep observing the "flowing current" physical sensations of meditation in relation to those felt during kayaking, seeking for the connections both physically, psychologically and spiritually. From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Tue Apr 23 14:30:27 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 96 10:30:27 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604231430.KAA05475@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Live or Memorex? Thanks to Richard for a thought-provoking essay on why Theosophists are so combative. However, I'm not at all sure that the people as individuals are in control of the group patterns. The same people in different contexts behave in different ways. It's out of character for me to beat the drum insisting on a particular point of view, or challenge other people's ideas in a confrontational way, or get into public arguments. Most anyone I know personally would say that I'm diplomatic, non-confrontational, conciliatory, in discussing spiritual matters, even controversial ones. Yet on theos-l I have often hardened into rigid defense of a position with which I was identifying-- precisely because of the nature of the attacks on said position. And then ended up attacking someone else's position because it was one from which I had been attacked. My point is that I neither blame Theosophists as individuals for being dogmatic and combative and unyielding, nor do I credit them as spiritual pilgrims whose obnoxiousness proves their elect status. (As Richard seems to do). Instead, I see an ingrained, longstanding pattern of opposition to change and suspicion of anyone who advocates it, combined with frustration and anger on the part of those who want change. This is a quality of the group, and will infect any individual who is drawn into its karmic web. It will be interesting to see what Radha has to say about members' freedom and the unity of the society. If it runs true to form, her talk will ignore all the real issues involved in this question, heap blame upon those who raise it, and avoid taking any responsibility for resolving it. But maybe it's too soon to assume a cynical stance, since anyone-- according to K, who should have some say in the matter-- is capable of instantaneous, radical change of consciousness. From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Tue Apr 23 17:59:04 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 10:59:04 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9604231759.AA01566@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Coulterville Judge Conference and Alexandria West Dedication Last night I posted the following message on theos-news, but it neither appeared nor did it bounce, so I'm re-posting it on theos-l. JHE ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Centennial celebration of William Quan Judge and the dedication of the new site for Alexandria West Academy on April 12-14th at Coulterville California has now become a part of Theosophical history. The conference took place at the Jeffery Hotel in Coulterville. Coulterville is a gold mining town from the days of the gold rush. The town's population during the 1850's was over 5,000, but today it only has 115 permanent residents. Gold however, is still mined from "them thar hills." The Jeffery Hotel was first built in 1851 as a dance hall, but was soon converted. Its 19th century decor has been carefully maintained, along with that of the entire town. The hotel is also still owned and maintained by the same family who founded it. The town served as a perfect backdrop to give a feeling for the times that Judge had lived. Registration for the Judge conference began at 3 p.m. in the meeting hall at the Jeffery Hotel. A vegetarian dinner was served in the Hotel dining room at 5:00. The Conference began at 7:00 P.M. with welcomes and introductions followed by an ice breaker led by Vivian Caccione. The main presentation for Friday was a series of dramatic readings of memoirs from people who had known Judge, and from Judge's own letters. The Dramate Personae were: Annie Besant: April Hejka-Ekins H.P. Blavatsky: Lisa Lepperd J.H. Connelly, and E.T. Hargrove: Jerry Hejka-Ekins C.A. Griscom: Lee Renner William Q. Judge: Dale Ramey Julia Keightley: Marie Ramey Master M.: Dennis Gottschalk Colonel Olcott: Brett Forray The meeting broke up sometime after 9 pm. Some of the more adventuresome guests continued their activities in the Coulterville Saloon where they got acquainted with the local cowboys and miners. Saturday's activities began at 7:30 am with a continental breakfast in the Hotel dining room. The conference re-convened at 8:30 am in the meeting hall, where we began with greetings from the Pasadena and Adyar Theosophical Societies and reports on other Judge conferences. Following the greetings and reports, was a series of presentations beginning with Gabriel Blechman (ULT) who spoke on the special relationship between HPB and WQJ. Emmett Small (Point Loma) followed with a presentation entitled: "Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva." His presentation concerned the relationship of Blavatsky, Judge and G. de Purucker. Dara Eklund (Adyar/Point Loma) spoke on "WQJ: The Greatest of all Exiles," and Brett Forray (Adyar/Pasadena) spoke on the "Future of WQJ." Both presentations concerned various aspects of the "Judge Case." These two presentations were followed by discussion groups, organized by April Hejka-Ekins (Adyar/ULT/Pasadena). Lunch was served at noon, and the afternoon sessions concerned Theosophy in application. Lee Renner (Independent) conducted an interactive presentation on a comparison of the "principles" between Judge and Blavatsky. Alex Pappas (Adyar) gave a presentation of "Psychological and Spiritual growth," illustrating teaching by Judge on this subject. Richard Hiltner (Independent) gave a very unusual talk on Judge's teachings concerning healing. A vegetarian dinner was served at 6:00 pm., and we re- convened afterwards for stories from the "Occult Tales" written by Judge. These were presented by Tammey Gianini (Independent) and Lisa Leppert (Independent). Spontaneous contributions were invited, and Sobha Cherukuri (Independent) shared some thoughts on Judge's ~Bhagavad Gita.~ and read some passages in Sanskrit. The conference broke up for the night sometime after 9:30 pm. Sunday began at 7:30 am with a breakfast of strawberry crepes. Following breakfast, April gave an interactive discussion on Judge's teachings concerning theosophical ethics, followed by group dialogues on WQJ's contributions. At 10 am, we all caravaned to the 160 acre future site of Alexander West Academy for the dedication. The caravan stretched along the highway 134, moving away from the town for about a mile, then turned into the upper gate of the site. We then all drove another mile in from the highway over the Academy's scenic private road and arrived at the second gate. Beyond this gate, the road branches into three to access different ares of the property. We then all took a short walk along one of the roads, and again through a third gate, to the future site of the library building. The site was especially chosen because of its breathtaking view overlooking lake McClure and California's great central valley. The future building site is surrounded on three sides by hills covered with oak and pine trees, giving it a sense of being very remote from all civilization. Sobha Cherukuri opened the dedication by reciting the Gayatri and some other prayers in Sanskrit. Lee Renner then spoke on the history of the ranch site, which was first deeded under a Spanish grant in 1853. Jerry Hejka-Ekins then answered questions concerning the land and spoke about the goals and activities of Alexandria West. April gave thanks to the many "invisible helpers" who have made possible what has so far been accomplished. Jerry then unveiled the dedication monument. We then all had a picnic lunch on the site. After lunch, those wishing to explore the lands broke up into two groups. Lee led one group on a hike along one of the three springs on the property. Jerry, Bob Guiterrez, and April drove the second group up the very steep road (4 wheel drive only) to the top of Mt. Fuqua, the highest point (2700 feet) on the property. We then led hikes along the ridge, where we all took in spectacular views of the untouched tree covered rolling hills. Also the views of the lakes Mc. Clure, Don Pedro and Turlock on one side of the ridge, and of the Yosemite range of mountains on the other. Some also lingered to watch the hang gliders who use the summit of Fuqua as a jumping off place. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 23 18:18:41 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 11:18:41 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960423181841.00684734@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: re: The E.S. At 02:01 AM 4/23/96 -0400, you wrote: >>I have *personally* * known* *many many* members of the TS who >>are also members of Esoteric Section who have rendered >>invaluable services to Theosophy and Theosophical Society. In >>many countries and in many lodges, the vibrancy and the vitality >>of these lodges are due to these members. Even today this is >>the case all over the world (there may be some rare >>exceptions.). >> >>As these are *facts*, let us show our gratitude to these members >>for what they have done for Theosophy and Theosophical Society. >>Let "Ungratitude be not one of our vices." >> >> ....doss > > > In my 30 plus years in the TS, I have never for one moment >doubted the dedication and sincerity of the members of the ES. >ES members have been among the hardest working people in the TS. >Whether their hard work and dedication has always been >constructive and in the best interest of the TS and the TM is >another question. Personally, I believe that much that has been >done in the TS has been counter productive to the original >program, and the ES must share much of the blame for the sad >state that the TS is in today. Perhaps a dialogue here might >help to reveal why we have such divergent views here. > >JHE > >------------------------------------------ > |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | > |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | > |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | > |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | > ------------------------------------------ > > > >I'm going to respond to both Jerry and doss herein: In my time with the T.S. I too have known many people who were members of the E.S. Some of them were people who I really loved and cared for and others were people I felt were simply "ego-tripping". They were all very sincere and veru dedicated. But their Dedication was primarily to the Esoteric Section and it's views of it's own agenda and needs. Doss says that the "vibrancy and vitality" of many lodges is due to these members, and that in fact, is probably true. But that is the place where we part company. A thing may be both "vibrant" and "vital" and dreadfully sincere, and also have an eventual totally negative impact. When we talk about "sincerity" we must always remember that some of the most harmful people in human istory were both absolutely sincere in their beliefs and dreadfully dedicated to attaining the agendas pertaining to those beliefs. Adolf Hitler and Ignacio de Torquemada are the EXTREME instances of that fact. Now I do not equate the E.S. and it's members with those two monsters but, nonehtless, as I see it, the E.S. and it's goal, reached long ago I fear, of garnering complete political control over the Theosophical Movement, has had a totally negative effect on that movement. One of the primary reasons for that negativity is that stasis is death. The E.S., as I have expereinced it from without, is a crystalized and totally static structure with strongly puritannical overtones. It may have been valid when H.P.B. was alive to explain and demonstrate the actual meaning and relevancy of her E.S. Material, but then, as I see it, she was an adept (It was Helena Blavatsky who was a Chela), and such a "school" requires an Adept as it's leader. Since her death, in my estimation there has been no really valid leader and a couple of spectacularly counter-productive leaders. It is my very strongly held belief that the approaching demise of the Theosophical Movement is a tragedy that can be clearly lain at the E.S.'s doorstep. Many good people, in the past 26 years of my experience, have been drawn towards theosophy and driven right away from it by the arrogance, elitism, and exclusionary policies of the E.S. My major complaint regarding the E.S. and it's "leadership" is this: It is the E.S. who have made a dogmatic religion out of theosophy which was never planned or intended to be anything of the kind. From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 23 18:19:40 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 11:19:40 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960423181940.00687400@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Golden Dawn At 02:58 AM 4/23/96 -0400, you wrote: >alexis dolgorukii wrote: >> >> At 11:49 PM 4/22/96 -0400, you wrote: >> >Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >> RW, >> >> Great thunderbolts of Jupiter! I thought I was foul tempered. >> >> Calm down. If this keeps up my screen will melt. >> >> >> >> Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >> >> Heretic >> >> Troublemaker >> > >> >I apologize to the group for allowing my rauch to get out of hand. It is >> >my belief that the esoteric or practical teaching of the ancient >> >mysteries are valuable. The theoretical teachings are important, but >> >they're not the entire picture. >> >In light of this can someone please tell how to find out more >> >concerning the esoteric section of the Theosophical Society? >> > >> >Yours Truly, >> >RW >> > >> >Let's try again. The Practical Esotericism of the Mystery School variety is >> indeed very valuable, but the Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society >> was only a place to receive such instruction and practice during the >> lifetime of it's Adept Level Teacher H.P.B. When she died the successorship >> was not determined as it should have been but rather it was gained through >> political chicanery as an avenue to power. The so-called Esoteric Section of >> the Theosophical society (and there are three which compete) is NOT a school >> of practical occultism. It is not a school of occultism at all. It is simply >> a place where deluded people study "dead letter" instructions allegedly >> written by Blavatsky, but it doesn't matter who wrote them, without an Adept >> Level person to interpret and demonstrate those teachings, they are >> valueless.Since 1891 when HPB died, there has been absolutely no one of >> either Adept or near adept status in the position of "outer Head" of the >> E.S. I think Annie Besant was a conscious fraud, I KNOW her "eminence gris" >> C.W.Leadbeater was a conscious and pathological fraud, and while SHE was >> officially "Outer Head" he was the power behind the throne. He was Edgar >> Bergen to her Charlie Mc Carthy. The people who followed in the office were >> all trained and indoctrinated by CWL and so they were unfortunate dupes >> rather than frauds. If you are looking for a valid mystery school try >> elsewhere. But I wish you good luck. Any group which claims to be a "mystery >> school" publicly isn't one! Any valid group has a full fledged Adept at it's >> head or it isn't anything at all. >> >> alexis dolgorukiiThank you for your answer. It certainly sheds new light on the subject >and I see what you mean now. > >LW > > From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 23 18:27:08 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 11:27:08 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960423182708.00687400@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Welcome At 02:58 AM 4/23/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>cut<<<<< >> alexis dolgorukiiThank you for your answer. It certainly sheds new light on the subject >and I see what you mean now. > >LW > >Dear L.W.: You're entirely welcome. I am very glad you can see what I was getting at. The entire history of the "Mystery School Tradition" on this planet, and that of "The Mystery Religions" themselves, and they are not identical traditions, upholds my theory. It's very simple "No Adept - No Mystery". I have spent more than thirty years being an eclectic occultist, I have sampled and tested every single tradition that could possibly be included in that category. What I have to say, and sadly I am forced to be critical more frequently than approving, is based upon that search. I truly wish the E.S. was, exactly what it claims to be, but it isn't, and as a dedicated philalethian I am compelled to tell the truth as I see it. Don't worry about your temper, we Dolgorukiis are historically noted for having the most hair trigger tempers on the planet and HPB while only a minor member of the family, was no exception. alexis dolgorukii From mike@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com Tue Apr 23 18:52:23 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 13:52:23 -0500 From: "Michael W. Grenier" Message-Id: <317D26E7.2948@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com> Organization: Loral Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: education - was Thank you References: <2.2.32.19960423053108.00698508@mail.slip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit alexis dolgorukii wrote: > But there's one other question. Considering that > our teachers in the USA are vastly underpaid considering the value of their > product, and to go along with that they are the objects of almost totally > disrespect by American society, what can we expect? The private school where my kids now go to have teachers who get paid less than their public school counterparts and yet the kids are getting a much better education. Actually, I don't blame the teachers - they as individuals have little say. My wife is heavily involved in what you call the religious right with most of her friends either home schooling or trying to pay for private education. None of those families has any big agenda - they just want a good education for their kids and the public school isn't providing it. Families locally got so upset that they suceeded in putting in their own school board but then we find that it too has little control. All of the real control is at the state and federal levels, not to mention teachers unions. Yes, I agree that there is a big problem with parents who are too busy in their own lives to get involved with their own children. Its really sad. But its also sad that for those parents that want to get involved, there is little opportunity unless they have the financial resources to support it (e.g. go private). Except of course for the obvious like reading to your children when they are young - which I find to be lots of fun (my kids are 4, 6, and 8). > > I would be willing to support a "voucher system" providing it was not > possible to spend the vouchers at religious schools. > I hope you would support a voucher at a Catholic or other religous school as long as it was not spent on religous education. Anyway, thanks for your views. I suspect we could get along fine. -Mike From nlporreco@bpa.gov Tue Apr 23 19:16:00 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 96 12:16:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: THOU SHALT LIGHTEN UP Message-Id: <317D4ACF@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 41 TEXT The following is something I was given at Orcas Island one year. If you already have it, I apologize, if not I hope it gives you a smile. Nick. THOU SHALT LIGHTEN UP So, you've dabbled in the occult, burned candles gave up sex, You've traveled to Sedona to visit the vortex. You've meditated, visualized affirmed with love and grace, You've forgiven all your irritants 'till you're blue in the face. You've been est-ed and you've tested tarot and astrology, You've met your guides from the other side and did past-life therapy. So, you've been Rolfed and hypnotized, there's nothing you've avoided, You've tried acupuncture, heavy breathing, been even Sigmond Freuded. You've chanted mantras and you've om'ed and journeyed near and far, You've seen many of the channels and taken every seminar. You've floated in a tank and have gone the psychic route, You've had your cards and wrinkles read, did Primal Scream to shout. You burn incense in the afternoon, sometimes reflex your feet, You've become a vegetarian and very seldom cheat. You gave up salt and sugar and your diets really pure, Although at times you still get gas, just why you are not sure. You drink herb tee until you see the best in all, at last, Your Kundalini's straightened and no longer at half mast. You've had your aura cleaned and your Chakras lubed and tuned, You've seen E.T. at least four times and two times for Cocoon. You go to sleep with crystals and you wake up with a tape, That subliminally instructs you, to get your mind in shape. You've gone here and there and everywhere, tried everything you know, The path that's called ENLIGHTENMENT is such a busy show. So much to do and see and know, there are so many places, For you to go so you are sure you cover all the bases. But after all that's said and done and all the things you tried, There is a truth that you should know, while you are on your ride. The light you see that seems to be, coming from things you do, Is only as bright as is the light that radiates from you. From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Tue Apr 23 20:22:14 1996 Date: 23 Apr 96 16:22:14 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: legitimate? Message-Id: <960423202214_76400.1474_HHL66-2@CompuServe.COM> >Any esoteric school without an adept to lead it and teach it is totally >invalid James Long realized this fact, and ended the ES within the Pasadena TS. After the initial shock wore off, I think the result is a better and more open TS. The only real alternative to this is to find an Adept willing to lead an ES. But this too has potential problems-- what if the Adept teaches something new? Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Tue Apr 23 20:22:11 1996 Date: 23 Apr 96 16:22:11 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Rigidity/Flexibility Message-Id: <960423202211_76400.1474_HHL66-1@CompuServe.COM> Richard: > I am now >more persuaded than not that the TS has served in the past--and still serves, >albeit in perhaps a dangerously diminishing degree, in the present--as an >"Esoteric Attraction Point" for a certain "subset" of "higher-degree souls." History shows that this is true. However, history also shows that the TS cannot hold these folks for very long. They tend to leave in disgust and set up their own organizations. > Let's not make too much of >beatific smiles until they are put to the test by a little arthritis and >geriatric ass-dragging. As a geriatric ass-dragger with arthritis myself, I wholeheartedly agree. > ....however, much of the "good behavior" >could also simply be a result of making themselves behave according to the >"idea of the Spiritual person"--the mental idea which attracted them in the >first place. >In both instances, "advancement" may be chimerical. This idea is a traditional magical technique, and should not be lightly disregarded. Role models are important in any endeavor which seeks to change the ego-personality into something new. While such advancement may be chimerical at the outset, in time it can become cemented into place in a more lasting form. One idea is to cultivate better skandhas with which to use next time around, or at the least, this could be an unforseen fallout. > In the first place, >consciousness is an up-and-down situation, changing from day to day, >sometimes moment to moment--especially if one stops meditating regularly. > Incremental improvement in Degree of Self-awareness, on the other hand, is >of much greater duration. I think that this up-and-down roller-coaster road is a natural one, and I am rather sceptical of any claims that suggest a steady upward progress with no backsliding. I believe that backsliding is part of our human nature. However, we almost never backslide all the way down to our foremost lowest levels, and so there is a general progression within the spirals that I think we all undergo. Personally, I have always been unable to meditate every day--at least not successfully. I think that those who do, are kidding themselves if they think each day is a benefit. On the other hand, we aught not get depressed when we do have a bad day or two, and not let this cause us to lose sight of the goal. We must take the downs with the ups, and keep TRYing. >It is impossible to tell whether one is a high >degree soul merely on the basis of whether one is crabby and depressed or >blissed-out and effervescent. All one can really guess at from these things >is whether an individual has been indulging levels of consciousness which are >"too far away" or close to the Degree of Self-awareness he or she has. Whether one is a high soul or not, will tend to show up in the results, sooner or later, if one persists. However, even if results are shallow, this aught not to daunt us from TRYing. Everyone has to start somewhere. And at some point, maybe after 50+ years of persistent effort, a door will open and we will wonder why it took us so long to see what was right before us all along, and know for a fact that the effort was all worthwhile. Sometimes I think that what we get out of meditation is proportional to the effort that we have put into it. >By contrast, the majority of those on Theos-l appear to be a much older >group; most seem to have long experience working at the first five levels (a >younger person can *utilize* desire-free mentation, for example, but not *BE* >the desire-free mentation in an egoic sense until he or she enters the >appropriate age-related psychomaturational cycle). While this is true (speaking in generalities) I doubt that most of the younger members would agree (I probably wouldn't have, when I was young). Age-related stages and stages are difficult to understand or accept, at times, until you actually get there yourself. But I am preaching to the choir here. > I have never personally experienced such a >more suspiciously heavy-duty aggregation of possible higher types than I have >run across on Theos-l. I think this is a compliment, gang. Thanks. >But then . . . why don't these big, "older souls" just get busy and meditate >themselves into *nirvilkalpa samadhi*, thereby checking out of the >Reincarnating Stream and not bothering other people with their arguments any >longer? I hate to admit this, but in my youth, I did, in fact, have this as my goal in life. Somewhere along the line, I changed my mind (my wife helped twist me arm a bit). Probably I am simply not an "older soul" in the first place. But anyway, I decided to stick around and learn as much as I can, and maybe do some good for other people along the way. Death, after all, comes soon enough anyway. Why hasten it? Actually, I am more afraid ot rebirth, than I am of death (which would be a release from my arthritis). > Well, that leads me to another one of my theosophical growing >certitudes: I am actually starting to be persuaded that a certain small >percentage of "Monads," for one reason or another, are drawn back into >incarnation for "one extra Lap" (I believe *five* is it for the general >mass) Richard, I am curious. Why "five" and not seven? As for "one extra Lap" I have never doubted this, and the "powers that be" seem to love to goad some Monads into it. > These oldest of souls, I am starting to be persuaded, will appear >(and perhaps some *are* already appearing) in the Sixth Degree of >Self-Awareness, and their remaining earthly task will be to make themselves >Adepts by means of the discrimination this development provides. Agreed. But when haven't there been Adepts? >Who knows? Perhaps it is the theosophical enterprise itself--the *desire* to >know that which can only be known by means of transcendental, mystical, >intuitive, or higher perceptual insight--which is the "mechanism" which keeps >calling them back into life again and again. . . . I suspect that you are on to something. The desire to Know leads to the desire to Help. And all it takes, is desire itself. > ...about two dozen of >the "no-other-*I-AM*'s-higher-than-I-AM" types are just about getting ready >to call me on the carpet for trying to patronize them. . . . You might want to borrow one of Chuck's helmets. Thanks for the interesting post. Jerry S. Member, TI From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 23 22:14:40 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 17:14:40 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960423171655.190785ce@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: TS/Theosophy/Theos-l Responding to Richard's recent post, Paul responded. There are some thoughts that I want to share with you all. 1. It is a fact of life that the only thing one can be sure of is change. We all change, some slow and some fast. Some of the changes that takes place in an individual may not externally manifest itself until such time a set of circumstances arise and the individual acts or reacts. Such action or reaction could be subtle or could be glaring and may even surprise everybody even those whom the person could have known very closely for a long time. Even if a radical or important change has taken place in one of the participants in theos-l, such a change may not be apparent from reading one or more messages posted here. 2. It is also a fact that it is easy to change any blind belief. Once can substitute one blind belief by another without much difficulty. However, if some of the beliefs held are based on actual personal experience or based on a reasonable hypothesis, it is not going to be easy to change such belief. It would require a better reasonable hypothesis or a new personal experience to change the belief. One thing that Theosophy can do is to make people think. Consequently they tend to take very independent attitudes and such independent thinkers are not easy to convince and make them change their opinions or views. 3. On the question of member's freedom and the Society, recently we had the good fortune of a post of the Letter to AP Sinnett which describes the objectives of the Founders of the Society. It is very clearly laid out in that letter that the main object of the TS is to work for the noble idea of the Brotherhood of Humanity and *not* to become a simple school of psychology. They are looking for noble and unselfish men to help them to work for the noble idea. To me, the practical implication of this is that how each one of us is able to implement this from moment to moment of our daily life in our interaction and relationship with our fellow humans. Such practical application does not need any organization's approval or assent or the direction of any leader of any organization. Each one of us have to find out our own creative ways of working this idea in each circumstance we are put in. Any and all philosophy, IMHO, is worthless unless it translates into some practical help to improve the conditions of fellow humans. An organization can help in a limited way. The organization can provide a forum to present information as well as a place for like minded individuals. With any formal organization comes with it the inherent problems such as bureaucratic (inefficient) administration, political problems, and the perceived power that formal title provides, as well as the power that control over money and other assets bring. If one recognizes these inherent problems of organizations and also the realization that none of the problems stand in the way of each one of us acting in the best interests of everybody - friend and foe alike, then we can all easily help in furthering the idea of Brotherhood of Humanity. ...doss At 10:34 AM 4/23/96 -0400, "K. Paul Johnson" wrote: >Thanks to Richard for a thought-provoking essay on why >Theosophists are so combative. However, I'm not at all sure >that the people as individuals are in control of the group >patterns. The same people in different contexts behave in >different ways. It's out of character for me to beat the drum >insisting on a particular point of view, or challenge other >people's ideas in a confrontational way, or get into public >arguments. Most anyone I know personally would say that I'm diplomatic, >non-confrontational, conciliatory, in discussing spiritual >matters, even controversial ones. Yet on theos-l I have often >hardened into rigid defense of a position with which I was >identifying-- precisely because of the nature of the attacks on >said position. And then ended up attacking someone else's >position because it was one from which I had been attacked. > >My point is that I neither blame Theosophists as individuals >for being dogmatic and combative and unyielding, nor do I >credit them as spiritual pilgrims whose obnoxiousness proves >their elect status. (As Richard seems to do). Instead, I see >an ingrained, longstanding pattern of opposition to change and >suspicion of anyone who advocates it, combined with frustration >and anger on the part of those who want change. This is a >quality of the group, and will infect any individual who is >drawn into its karmic web. > >It will be interesting to see what Radha has to say about >members' freedom and the unity of the society. If it runs true >to form, her talk will ignore all the real issues involved in this >question, heap blame upon those who raise it, and avoid taking >any responsibility for resolving it. But maybe it's too soon >to assume a cynical stance, since anyone-- according to K, who >should have some say in the matter-- is capable of >instantaneous, radical change of consciousness. > From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 23 16:00:23 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 17:00:23 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: The Aryan Race In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960423055107.006aa800@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960423055107.006aa800@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >There Alan, did that address your question more directly? I hope so, this is >a major field of interest with me and I'd be glad to discuss it further with >you at any time. > >Alexis dolgorukii Yes, thank you! - now why didn't you say that in the first place :-) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 23 15:49:51 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 16:49:51 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Rigidity In-Reply-To: <960422231153_278392908@emout16.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960422231153_278392908@emout16.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes > Let's not make too much of >beatific smiles until they are put to the test by a little arthritis and >geriatric ass-dragging. .. and we never even met! Alan :-) - 63 last Monday! --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Richtay@aol.com Tue Apr 23 23:35:06 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 19:35:06 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960423193505_197457125@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Anthropogenetic "Nonsense" This is a question for Alexis, but anyone of course should feel free to jump in. Alexis wrote, > the Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society > was only a place to receive such instruction and practice during the > lifetime of it's Adept Level Teacher H.P.B. If HPB was, in your opinion, truly an Adept, with the large (but not infinite) degree of knowledge and power that assumes, why then is the Anthropogenesis of her S.D. (volume two), considered to be "absolute nonsense." Why would an Adept teach (or be ALLOWED to teach) ideas that are so far off track? While I may indeed be accused of blind and even foolish faith in HPB, I do not actually know of any scientific evidence being brought forward which would disprove her claims -- nor do I see much evidence (at this point) which supports it, unless we turn to the writings of Edgar Cayce etc. The Darwinian theory is under much attack these days, and not merely by mindless Christian "creationists." Stephen Jay Gould, leading paleontologist at Harvard, has re-introduced the long-forgotten theory that "ontogeny recapitulates philogeny". We see more and more books like "Darwin On Trial" and Denton's "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" documenting vicious disputes between paleontologists and molecular biologists, and the disintegration of a dominant model of physical (let along spiritual) evolution. The gaps in the fossil record are massive, not occasional, and we have unaccountable phenomena such as the sudden emergence of the wing, of feathers, of hemoglobin, of the eye, or prokaryotic cells -- totally unaccountable by current theory. We futher have emerging new paradigms like Rupert Sheldrake (morphogenetic fields) Michael Murphy ("The Future of the Body") and Ken Wilber documenting an alternative, "holistic" view of evolution where consciousness, not random mutation and "survival of the fittest," are primary. Again, I think scientific documentation for HPB's theory, in detail, is very very slim just now. But given the radical failure of traditional (reductionistic) theory to account for the obvious phenomena, I find myself willing to give HPB the benefit of the doubt, at least for the time being. Yet I am perfectly willing to attend to counter-evidence, if such can be brought forward (in DETAIL, not in sweeping generalizations), which weakens or entirely ruins HPB's stand. In conclusion, I reiterate that I find it odd to refer to HPB as an Adept, and then dismiss major portions of her teachings as "nonsense." It seems one is welcome to one's opinions, but one can't have it both ways. From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Tue Apr 23 23:43:02 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 16:43:02 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9604232343.AA00230@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: re: the ES Alexis writes: >In my time with the T.S. I too have known many people who were >members of the E.S. Some of them were people who I really loved >and cared for and others were people I felt were simply >"ego-tripping". They were all very sincere and veru dedicated. >But their Dedication was primarily to the Esoteric Section and >it's views of it's own agenda and needs. JHE On the other hand, the ES is supposed to be dedicated to the needs of the TS. But here is where I think the SNAFU set in: After the Judge split, the Adyar TS fell into complete control of Annie Besant who kept the organization at a low key until Olcott died. Remember, Olcott did not approve of the ES, and was afraid that his successor might gain control of both the Presidency of the TS and the Outer Headship of the ES, thus giving that person too much power. Olcott's worst fear is, of course, what actually happened. But when Besant attained the Presidency in 1907, she was already running out of new material to give to her ES students. Between 1895 and 1907 she wrote commentaries on HPB's ES Instructions. She got a lot of mileage out of them, and even spun of a book or two (~The Ancient Wisdom~ and ~A Study in Consciousness~). But after a while, endless playing off of the six ES Instructions gets rather old, and evidently Besant lacked the knowledge (or access to it) to create new ES Instructions that would expand upon and go more deeply into the body of teachings already extant. My sense of HPB's original Instructions is that they were very quickly moving towards some very profound correlations that would have introduced a whole deeper layer of study and insight. Though Besant (IMO) lacked the knowledge to go more deeply into the Theosophical teachings, she did have an associate who had the imagination to take these teachings into a very different direction. In 1908, Besant brought exiled CW Leadbeater back into the ES fold, though it was under the protest of some of the most important members. Among others, A.P. Sinnett, G.R.S. Mead, and Bertram Keightley left the TS in protest to CWL's reinstatement. Therefore, CWL with the help of GS Arundale became the source for the new ES revelations, that included the establishment of a new religion (Liberal Catholic Church) as a vehicle for the return of the Christ (Krishnamurti), and a whole litany of ceremonies for the creation of spiritual forms for the spiritual upliftment of the world (e.g. Co-Masonry and the Egyptian Rite). That early material speaks endlessly of the initiations of CWL, GSA, AB, K, not to mention Oscar Kollestrom. Revelations from the Maitreya (an individual in neo-theosophy), M., KH, and the Maha Chohan himself praising the work of the Theosophical Workers. When this became tiresome, Besant was always at hand to answer the latest anti-Leadbeater flair up, and to expel members and Lodges who didn't play her game. Thus, the new ES material came to replace the rather heady philosophical discussions written in HPB's day. By 1929, Krishnamurti's role as the world teacher put into obscuration the original intents of the TS as outlined in HPB's writings, and clearly shown in the Mahatma Letters. The Theosophical Society was no longer a provocative and progressive philosophical school, but became a cult dedicated to the adoration of its World Teacher. With Krishnamurti in the foreground, there was no longer a need for an ES, so it was closed. But Krishnamurti's resignation in 1930 necessitated its reopening after only a year. By this time, AB and CWL were getting old. CWL was already withdrawing into his LCC activities in Australia--becoming more are more remote from the TS. This transition had been building up for some time, so C. Jinarajadasa became more and more involved in the continuation of the ES. With the death of CWL in 1934, CJ was on his own to produce new ES material--but apparently he lacked CWL's vivid and detailed imagination. Arundale was still supplying some material, but with the loss of Krishnamurti, things were much less exciting, and K's defection was hard to explain. Fortunately, the war in Europe saved good ol' CJ from having to dwell upon the Krishnamurti question. With the new political developments, he was able to focus attention on a new subject-- the infiltration of the Black magicians into the TS and world affairs. Black magicians were everywhere. They were more numerous than cockroaches in a Calcutta roadside kitchen, and they were the blame for every change that did not meet with CJ's personal approval. Not only were the Black Magicians influencing European and American political leaders, but even worse, they created Jazz and Modern Art! Even Mahatma Gandhi was influenced by Black Magicians--how else can you explain why he did not agree with Besant's plans for India? ES material during this period was utterly pre-occupied with the plots of Black Magicians, and CJ had lots of political advice concerning who were the good guys and who where the badies on the political scene. Sri Ram took over in 1954, and the ES material changed again to a banal and devotional form of Hinduism, but became a little more intellectual when Taimni finally took over. Now it appears that Radha has shifted the ES towards an even more contentless Krishnamurtisque "truth in within yourself" philosophy. Yet, through this whole incredible history, from 1895 onwards, the ES was responsible for the well being of the TS. ES Members were expected to be active in TS Lodges and to make sure that they stayed on the right track. But what is the "right track" today? Arundale abandoned all mention of Krishnamurti once the World Teacher resigned his post. CW Leadbeater's writings remained popular from the 1930's through the 60's, and became the trademark of Adyar Theosophy. But with the publication of Tillett's ~The Elder Brother,~ CWL is no longer realistically defensible, and his writing are being de- emphasized. Blavatsky and her original program was long ago abandoned to lip service. Further, the ES today has grown so weak that it can no longer fill its role as guardian of the TS. For the first time, the Lodges are left without direction and content. Some Lodges have occupied themselves with Sufi dancing, others with Alice Bailey, others with Sai Baba, others with the Celestine Prophesy. When I first joined theos-l over two years ago, one of the first messages I recall was a member saying that the TS has no dogma--therefore no teachings. That the TS has no dogma is happily correct, after a period of covert dogma from 1910 to 1970. But unhappily, he was also correct that the TS has no teachings. For they were abandoned almost 90 years ago for a new set of teachings that blew up in everyone's face in 1930. And the dust is still yet to clear. So, Alexis, sadly, I have to agree with you. The ES had a negative impact on the TS because it veered from the original aims, and never found its way back. Sincere and devoted workers with the best of motivations can work to further the aims of the most ill conceived plans as well as the productive ones. IMO, its time to start over. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 23 23:20:49 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 00:20:49 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: legitimate? In-Reply-To: <960423202214_76400.1474_HHL66-2@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960423202214_76400.1474_HHL66-2@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >The only real alternative to this is to find >an Adept willing to lead an ES. But this too has potential problems-- >what if the Adept teaches something new? > > Jerry S. > Member, TI Oh Boy! Wouldn't the s... hit the fan in some quarters! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue Apr 23 23:16:41 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 19:16:41 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604240021.UAA22479@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: from medit-l >From: MACDOUGLEE@aol.com >Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 07:32:08 -0400 >Subject: control/meditation >In medit-l today: > >Nice post Susan- >I believe that the soul does recognize truth but it is the outer person or >what you refer to as a mental thing that often resents and rejects criticism. > In fact "I just know" that God is All Knowing, All Wise, etc. and when >someone comes across as an authority on this or that in terms of criticism >there is this inuiting thing that kind of says, "wait a minute God is the >authority and parental figure, you are my peer, another servant and have no >right to join partners with Him and condemn or criticize what I do or say." > In knowing and feeling this I take the responsibility for how I should >spiritually react to the situation and to this other soul in seed form like >me, struggling in their own way to become something "better than best" so to >speak. > >However much of our current behavior is automatic, out of preconditioning in >experiences far less spiritual that we should have. Embarking on a >spiritual path is just that, a beginning, and we can meditate, study >spiritual and heavenly realities, receive inspirations and inner teachings >all we want but if we do not translate these into actions they are nothing >more than nice thoughts. To me faith is conscsious knowledge and righteous >deeds and this comes about by a process of belief plus experience. No matter >how clear my meditation appears to me in my human consciousness they are just >beliefs until I put them into action and when finding they work I have >increased my conscious knowledge and it reinforces the practice. To me >meditation is not an end in itself for the purpose of relaxation or insights, >it is a means of connectedness to something both outside and inside of >ourselves. > >There is a vast difference between true spiritual guidance than >ego-prompted-imaginations. It takes action to separate the two because in >reality I believe we are fallible creatures and trial and error is our mode >of behavior. With meditation, prayer, service to humanity and study of the >spiritual information available we open more choices and can become more >successful beings by acqiring virtues to replace these human faults and >character deficiencies born out of our natural process from physical to >rational and finally spiritual development. The all work together as one if >we keep focused on spirit and not giving in to our automatic reactions and >yet seeing these reactions as signals that we need something from another >level to solve the situation. Reacting from a purely physical level, or from >our rational level, is not enough for effective human relations. I feel we >need to get upstairs, so to speak, and see more of reality and respond to our >fellow and kindred souls form a spiritual level for the way of the animal in >fight and flight, or from rationalizing our attack and defend behaviors does >not produce good human relations. >On a higher or spiritual level these same powers can be used to attack a >problem, defend our friends and faith with peaceful means or reject things >that can stunt our spiritual growth and take in things which are conducive to >this growth but the stict use of these lower level powers to attack a fellow >or run from the pain of human interrelations is to use these powers against >ourselves. We say human relations yet I wonder if in reality they are soul >relations. > >Much love, >Doug >- - >To switch to the digested list, >send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body >- - >unsubscribe medit-l From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Apr 24 00:03:26 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 20:03:26 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604240107.VAA16076@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: to Paul Johnson Dear Paul, I agreed with your message re how much more interesting & dynammic medit-l is. I love you account of sailing on Chesapeake Bay. What a beautiful experience! I think your attempts at perking up theos-l are very worthwhile, but it's my considered opinion that you're beating a dead horse. At least for the time being, there are a number of people on theos-l who have very negative views, & have nothing dynamic or constructive to contribute, & since they also make the most noise, they debase the whole mailing list. I think trying to perk this thing up is a humoungous waste of time. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From eldon@theosophy.com Wed Apr 24 01:39:06 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 18:39:06 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424013906.006798a8@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Egotistical Remarks, Discussion Groups, Female Mahatmas Richard Wheaton: (I'm not sure I've seen your name...) I suspect that you may be new to email discussions such as we have on theos-l. It takes perhaps a month to get accustomed to this manner of communication. Until then, it's easy to misread things, to overreact, or to be too sensitive to remarks that are made. It is possible for someone to make an extreme remark, like that the E.S. should never have been formed. From the point of view of the writer of that remark, that statement may make sense. Others may find fault with it. Without some supporting arguments to back up the statement, though, the remark can simply be ignored as an expression of someone's personal views. The same would be true if I were to make an extreme statement like "psychic powers should *never* be taught in theosophical groups". Without explaining myself and offering some supporting arguments, people can accept or dismiss my statement as they please. The extreme statements people sometimes make are more for dramatic effect, to provoke or inspire another discussion, than to intentionally hurt others. Sometimes, though, people are simply expressing disagreement at something they've heard, and a short statement of outright rejection is all they have time to make. For example, if I wanted to enter into the vegetarian discussion, I could mention that I've been vegetarian since 1968, and find the thought of eating meat to be awful. I've heard that 10 times the amount of land must be dedicated to producing meat-based food, so the eating of meat is contributing to the wasting of scarce world resources and contributing to world hunger, as well as harming sentient life (the animals). I could state these items and more, as a basis for discussion, and then people would reply. Or I could simply blast and condemn meat eaters, and get angry, defensive replies, along with some counter attacks like "potatoes have feelings too!" or "HPB ate meat so that means it's ok!" etc. With the thousands of postings monthly, there will be some that are objectionable, many that are chat-line style small talk, and some that have more substance to them. We can pick and choose what we'll read and respond to. The important thing is to be careful to not assume someone else's attitude and intent. We cannot easily read someone's state of mind as they write, and see if they are red with anger, smiling, or have a devilish gleam in their eyes as they prepare to play trickster and see if they can provoke someone. When someone finds fault with a spiritual group, like the E.S., it's possible to respond with kindness and compassion, as the Dalai Lama might recommend, or get angry. For myself, when I'm seeing red, I find it best to wait a few days until I'm back to normal before writing. I want it to be *me* writing and not my anger that directs my words. Instead of giving Alexei your evaluation of his ideas (I'd assume you've given him a "D-" from what you've written), do you think it might not be better to give examples of where the ideas don't work, and offer counter arguments? If we're not careful, anger can infect others around us and soon people are going after each other, rather than dealing with more important things like making the spiritual a living reality in the world. Alan, for instance, responds in Alexei's defense, and writes to you "who the hell are *you*". I heard a story about a Samurai that had been tracking an enemy for quite a long period of time. He finally caught his enemy, and raised his sword to slay him. The enemy spat in his face and the Samurai became enraged. The Samurai had to let him go, and deal with tracking him down again. Why? Because slaying him then would have been an act of rage, and not be honorable. It would have been the anger acting, rather than an act of honor. Many people on theos-l have strong views, any many of them diverge from the traditional theosophical doctrines in different ways. There seems to be little overt intolerance, in the sense that anyone may write about what they like, and usually there's no flaming in reply. As to covert intolerance, I'm not sure. People will begin to feel gun shy and avoid certain topics if they feel they'll receive an icy reception and be blasted for their ideas. Not everyone feels comfortable writing about whatever crosses their minds. As to the comment someone made about female Mahatmas doing what the mail Mahatmas tell them, I'm sure that was intended as a joke. Sometimes people may need to add "" or "ha, ha!" to their writings to make it clear. I know, though, that some things I've read that people take seriously should have been a joke! Regarding female Mahatmas, I assume that like everyone else, Mahatmas are subject to karma. They do certain things in their lives and have certain ties to people and places that they've established in the past. They are not free of karma, but have made their karma and themselves into occult scholars and gurus and spiritual social workers, etc. With them, gender wouldn't make any difference in how they lived their lives, except if they were born into a culture where their ability to do things in society was affected by it. A male Mahatma would be better able to act in an Islamic country, perhaps, and that might affect gender at birth. Gender does not determine spiritual standing, nor does it confer the ability to think, feel, intuit, or otherwise live life. The only difference is that if one is born female, one can carry babies and have periods. If one is not interested in having a family, though, this ability means little. My advice regarding how easy it is to become tense, and offended by the remarks on theos-l, is to stop, take a breath, and have a good laugh. Life sometimes plays jokes on us, and it's hard to make it through the corruptible, imperfect physical world without a light heart. Dark clouds sometimes fill the sky, but it's always possible for a gleam of sunlight to break through... -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Wed Apr 24 01:39:20 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 18:39:20 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424013920.006a57a0@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Tropical Fish and Semi-Selves Richard Ihle: [Writing to the renowned -- reNOUNed? -- humorist Chuck] >When I think of you, I am often reminded of the company which wanted to >import expensive tropical fish from across the ocean. This would have >been a very profitable venture except for the fact that more than half >the fish would always be found dead in their tanks upon their arrival >in the United States. > >The solution was simple: the company just started putting a bullhead >in each tank. > >While it was true that the bullheads ate a few of the tropical fish, the >great aeration of the water created as the bullheads chased their >victims during the long voyage enabled 99% of the rest to survive. . . . This is a very good story, one that I will try to remember and repeat later when called upon to do so. In reading your analysis, which follows, though, I found it difficult to wade through, not being completely conversant with your home-made terminology. I'm sure that if you translated the same ideas into Buddhist or traditional theosophical terms, I'd readily pick up on it. When you write certain ideas, they may be clear and brilliant in your mind's eye, as you contemplate them, but it's important to chose the type of words that will convey that brilliance to the reader's mind. The desired result of communication is "Ah Ha!", not "Huh?" Writing to different audiences, different terms may be appropriate. If you were starting another school of thought, you could invent new terms for everything and give just the right spin to the ideas rolling off your lips. This would give you complete accord between your inner thinking and your outer expressions. In an imperfect world, though, we have to adopt shared languages and terms, and compromise our outer expressions. You're great at story telling, a light touch of humor, and giving us new words to look up in the dictionary! I'm not sure, though, that you look for feedback regarding how effectively you communicate your psychological and metaphysical analyses. This is something that you'll need to review as you prepare, someday, to vastly out do your last book, and reach the minds of untold thousands! -- Eldon From jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org Tue Apr 23 05:07:29 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 22:07:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <199604230507.WAA07284@igc2.igc.apc.org> Subject: re: golden dawn q maiHeld 58 messages in /usr/spool/mail/jhe jhe@toto.csustan.edu % l Mail $Revision: 4.2.4.2 $ Type ? for help. "/usr/spool/mail/jhe": 58 messages 40 unread >U 19 liesel@dreamscap Sun Apr 21 11:49 30/962 "listening" U 20 jrcecon@selway.u Sun Apr 21 12:18 143/6787 "Re: to Daniel regarding psy" U 21 rwheaton@bart.cc Sun Apr 21 13:47 38/1746 "Re: Golden Dawn" U 22 guru@nellie2.dem Sun Apr 21 16:40 38/1467 "vegetables and the voidance" U 23 76400.1474@Compu Sun Apr 21 17:16 28/939 "Re: female adepts" U 24 76400.1474@Compu Sun Apr 21 17:18 36/1394 "Re: changeing your personal" U 25 RIhle@aol.com Sun Apr 21 17:47 57/1639 "Re: Golden Dawn" U 26 TI@nellie2.demon Sun Apr 21 17:54 47/1699 "Re: Off world" From nlporreco@bpa.gov Tue Apr 23 19:16:00 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 96 12:16:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: THOU SHALT LIGHTEN UP Message-Id: <317D4ACF@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 41 TEXT The following is something I was given at Orcas Island one year. If you already have it, I apologize, if not I hope it gives you a smile. Nick. THOU SHALT LIGHTEN UP So, you've dabbled in the occult, burned candles gave up sex, You've traveled to Sedona to visit the vortex. You've meditated, visualized affirmed with love and grace, You've forgiven all your irritants 'till you're blue in the face. You've been est-ed and you've tested tarot and astrology, You've met your guides from the other side and did past-life therapy. So, you've been Rolfed and hypnotized, there's nothing you've avoided, You've tried acupuncture, heavy breathing, been even Sigmond Freuded. You've chanted mantras and you've om'ed and journeyed near and far, You've seen many of the channels and taken every seminar. You've floated in a tank and have gone the psychic route, You've had your cards and wrinkles read, did Primal Scream to shout. You burn incense in the afternoon, sometimes reflex your feet, You've become a vegetarian and very seldom cheat. You gave up salt and sugar and your diets really pure, Although at times you still get gas, just why you are not sure. You drink herb tee until you see the best in all, at last, Your Kundalini's straightened and no longer at half mast. You've had your aura cleaned and your Chakras lubed and tuned, You've seen E.T. at least four times and two times for Cocoon. You go to sleep with crystals and you wake up with a tape, That subliminally instructs you, to get your mind in shape. You've gone here and there and everywhere, tried everything you know, The path that's called ENLIGHTENMENT is such a busy show. So much to do and see and know, there are so many places, For you to go so you are sure you cover all the bases. But after all that's said and done and all the things you tried, There is a truth that you should know, while you are on your ride. The light you see that seems to be, coming from things you do, Is only as bright as is the light that radiates from you. From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue Apr 23 22:44:00 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 18:44:00 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604232348.TAA02634@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: THOU SHALT LIGHTEN UP That's nice. Can I pass it on to medit-l? I think they'd enjoy it. I'm going to make a paper copy so I can read it some times. Thanks. Liesel ............................................................................ > >The following is something I was given at Orcas Island one year. If you >already have it, I apologize, if not I hope it gives you a smile. > >Nick. > > > > > THOU SHALT LIGHTEN UP > >So, you've dabbled in the occult, burned candles gave up sex, >You've traveled to Sedona to visit the vortex. > You've meditated, visualized affirmed with love and grace, > You've forgiven all your irritants 'till you're blue in the face. >You've been est-ed and you've tested tarot and astrology, >You've met your guides from the other side and did past-life therapy. > So, you've been Rolfed and hypnotized, there's nothing you've avoided, > You've tried acupuncture, heavy breathing, been even Sigmond Freuded. >You've chanted mantras and you've om'ed and journeyed near and far, >You've seen many of the channels and taken every seminar. > You've floated in a tank and have gone the psychic route, > You've had your cards and wrinkles read, did Primal Scream to shout. >You burn incense in the afternoon, sometimes reflex your feet, >You've become a vegetarian and very seldom cheat. > You gave up salt and sugar and your diets really pure, > Although at times you still get gas, just why you are not sure. >You drink herb tee until you see the best in all, at last, >Your Kundalini's straightened and no longer at half mast. > You've had your aura cleaned and your Chakras lubed and tuned, > You've seen E.T. at least four times and two times for Cocoon. >You go to sleep with crystals and you wake up with a tape, >That subliminally instructs you, to get your mind in shape. > You've gone here and there and everywhere, tried everything you know, > The path that's called ENLIGHTENMENT is such a busy show. >So much to do and see and know, there are so many places, >For you to go so you are sure you cover all the bases. > But after all that's said and done and all the things you tried, > There is a truth that you should know, while you are on your ride. >The light you see that seems to be, coming from things you do, >Is only as bright as is the light that radiates from you. From RIhle@aol.com Wed Apr 24 04:03:55 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 00:03:55 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960424000355_520668412@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Tropical Fish and Semi-Selves In a message dated 96-04-23 21:46:32 EDT, Eldon writes> >In reading your analysis, which follows, though, I found it difficult >to wade through, not being completely conversant with your home-made >terminology. I'm sure that if you translated the same ideas into >Buddhist or traditional theosophical terms, I'd readily pick up on it. Richard Ihle writes> I think I get credit for *semi-Selves* and for possibly being the first one to use *Psychogenesis* (however, this is a little shaky considering that it is such a "natural" following *Cosmogenesis* and *Anthropogenesis*). *Self* ("Undifferentiated Consciousness," *Atman*, *Purusha*, "Primordial *I AM") is widely used, of course. *Substance*, capitalized, (*Prakriti*, "Primal Matter") has been used by others. *semi-Self* merely refers to an "false ego-formation" which can result from the interaction ("contamination") of the Self with the "circular interpenetrating continuum" of Substance (energy/matter up through Spirit). It is the *I AM* deluded in the sense of "I am [something or other]." The reason I try to stay away from traditional terminology is that I long ago had to face the fact that my meditatively derived understandings did not always correspond very well with the conventional definitions for terms I thought applied to them. Thinking that it was unlikely, for example, that I could get the whole religious world to suddenly accept "Spirit" as the equivalent for *Buddhi*, I more or less just dropped the latter term. [Even worse than this, however, is the fact that the "sequence" in my version of Psychogenesis does not correspond to the conventional "order" of the *chakras* in a very crucial respect: the *Svadhishthana* should have, in my view, the "first position," not the second (it can "look" like the lowest anyway using a standing diagram). I regard it as a "latent" center until a certain point in physical maturation when it then can operate as "point of egress" for the "animating force" (*prana*). In this view, the *kundalini* would begin toward the front of the body near the genitals almost between the legs, pass through the legs, striking the *muladhara* and then proceed upwards as conventionally described.] Anyway, you can start to see what the problem is with conventional terminology when one's own theosophy simply won't cooperate. All this notwithstanding, here is a little table of correspondences (*Chronological Age* [potential egoic delusions of the next Cycle begin at the mid-point of the present]; *Cycle*; *Possible Eastern Term*): 1-7. . . . .Animating. . . . .*Prana* 7-14. . . . .Physical. . . . .*Sthula* 14-21. . . . .Desire-Feeling. . . . .*Kama* 21-28. . . . .Desire-Mental. . . . .*Kama-Manas* 28-35. . . . .Mental. . . . .*Manas* *35-42. . . . .Spirit-Mental. . . . .*Buddhi-Manas* *42-49. . . . .Spirit. . . . .*Buddhi* *Doubtful that these last two have any "cyclic significance" Thank you for your passing interest, Eldon. However, I think it is a bad sign for my "brand" of Psychogenesis that even I start to fall asleep when I start explaining it. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org Tue Apr 23 02:44:24 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 19:44:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <199604230244.TAA21337@igc2.igc.apc.org> Subject: re: rigidity/flexibility Paul Johnson writes: >The bottom line is-- regardless of where they stand >on the liberal-conservative spectrum, Theosophists tend to be >inflexible. How often does anyone post here along the lines of >"here's a new thought I never had before, a new book containing >information I never knew before, an emotional response I never >felt before"? Mostly, people tend to just repeat their strong >allegiance to their own point of view, rather than yielding, >modifying, growing. At least this is so in comparison to >Medit-l, which is full of people more interested in daily >practice than abstract theorizing, more concerned with >understanding others of different viewpoints than with >triumphing over them. Paul, It is interesting how we have such a different view of theos-l. My experience has been that I learn something new almost every time I call up this list. After all, the opinions and views are amazingly divergent here. We have the points of views of Kabbalists, Magicians, Mystics, students of Theosophical doctrines of many varieties and schools, etc. The fields of interests and knowledge here goes far beyond my own small areas of knowledge. As far as flexablilty--like humanity in general, some participants seem to be more flexible than others--but I wouldn't call them "inflexible." At any rate, I'm pleased to hear that you have found a board that better meets your needs. Enjoy. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org Tue Apr 23 02:47:22 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 19:47:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <199604230247.TAA21865@igc2.igc.apc.org> Subject: re: golden dawn > >To the best of my knolwedge the only thing he was referring to >has to be The EsotericSection of The Theosophical Society as >formed by Mmme. Blavatsky during her lifetime. A number of the >founding members of The Golden Dawn were originally members of >the Esoteric Section (Win Westcott for instance). The section >did not, but should have, died when it's only teacher did. > > alexis dolgorukii > member TI,FTSA Richard Wheaton replies: >This is the most Egotistical, Dogmatic answer I have heard since >Jerry Falwell talked about Mother Teresa going to hell if she >did not except Jesus Christ. Who the hell are YOU? Richard, Would you mind explaining in what way this answer is "egotistical" and "dogmatic." Also, how does this answer relate to Jerry Falwell's statement? thanks JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org Tue Apr 23 02:52:01 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 19:52:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <199604230252.TAA22447@igc2.igc.apc.org> Subject: re: survival Halcyon is alive and well and still sends out a quarterly magazine called ~The Temple Artisan.~ Where the Organization lacks in actual members, they more than make up in assets. The Organization's real estate holdings are rather impressive. "The Point Loma group" is not really an organization, but a non membership--nonprofit corporation formed in 1971, and dedicated to publishing books. There are seven members on the board. U.L.T. does not exist as a legal entity, therefore there is no membership at all. U.L.T. is a group of people associated together for the purpose of promoting the Theosophical Movement. Since there is no Organization, no membership, and no membership dues, the question of how many "members" or rather associates is a moot question. The Membership of the Pasadena TS is a well kept secret. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org Tue Apr 23 02:48:31 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 19:48:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <199604230248.TAA21978@igc2.igc.apc.org> Subject: re: president jimmy Alexis, You are right. There is a letter where Judge specifically objects to being addressed as "Bill." He preferred "William." JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 05:38:50 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 22:38:50 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424053850.0069a208@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Coulterville Judge Conference and Alexandria West Dedication At 02:01 PM 4/23/96 -0400, you wrote: Thank you Jerry, that was an interesting report. I'm so sorry that Jury duty kept us from attending. I want to thank you and April and Lee Renner and all for your wonderful welcome and hospitality this past Sunday. The site of Alexandria West is truly wondrous and the view from Mt. Fuqua is one of the most spectacular things I have ever seen, It's almost too perfect to be real. The Library that's going to go there is a very special and wonderful thing and it will prove an invaluable resource for long into the future. I feel privileged to have seen it. You certainly have full supports in your efforts from both John and myself. Thank you again fro a really wonderful day,Denali sends his thanks too! alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 24 05:58:09 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 01:58:09 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960424015808_197761804@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The E.S. Alex, I think it's Tomas de Torquemada. Chuck the Inquisitor Troublemaker Nobody expects the Theosophical Inquisition! From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 24 05:59:09 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 01:59:09 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960424015909_197762177@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: THOU SHALT LIGHTEN UP Very nice. Thanks for posting it. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 24 05:59:22 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 01:59:22 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960424015921_197762241@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: legitimate? Jery, And what if the person REALLY is an adept? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 24 05:59:28 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 01:59:28 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960424015927_197762288@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Rigidity/Flexibility You really know you have made it when you can look at a mountain and say "take a little off the top and leave the sideburns," and it happens without even having to put your helmet on. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 24 05:59:32 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 01:59:32 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960424015931_197762326@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The Aryan Race Alex and Alan, If you don't have it already, get your hands on a copy of James Webb's "The Occult Establishment." He goes into great detail about the matter you have been discussing. Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 24 05:59:38 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 01:59:38 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960424015937_197762349@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Rigidity Dear Alan, Good Lord you're old! :-) A few more years and you'll qualify for the Young Theosophists. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 06:20:51 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 23:20:51 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424062051.006912c4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:I'm sure we would At 02:59 PM 4/23/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>cut<<<<< >> >> I would be willing to support a "voucher system" providing it was not >> possible to spend the vouchers at religious schools. >> > >I hope you would support a voucher at a Catholic or other religous school >as long as it was not spent on religous education. > >Anyway, thanks for your views. I suspect we could get along fine. > -Mike > >Mike: My only question is how do you separate just plain instruction from religious instruction at an institution whose entire focus is religious? That proved to be one of the primary problems experienced by Jewish Children who were sheltered in convent and monastic schools during the Nazi period. Their lives were spared, and that is wonderful, but many of them experienced much identity confusion. How do I make sure my tax dollars, when spent at a religious institution aren'f spent on religious instruction? I'm sure we would get along fine. Actually, I get along fine with most folks. In a more balanced environment I'm not nearly the curmudgeon I may seem here. alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 06:20:53 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 23:20:53 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424062053.0069bae0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Anthropogenetic "Nonsense" At 07:37 PM 4/23/96 -0400, you wrote: >This is a question for Alexis, but anyone of course should feel free to jump >in. > >Alexis wrote, > >> the Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society >> was only a place to receive such instruction and practice during the >> lifetime of it's Adept Level Teacher H.P.B. > > >If HPB was, in your opinion, truly an Adept, with the large (but not >infinite) degree of knowledge and power that assumes, why then is the >Anthropogenesis of her S.D. (volume two), considered to be "absolute >nonsense." Why would an Adept teach (or be ALLOWED to teach) ideas that are >so far off track? I think Rich, that our definitions of an adept are somewhat different. First, who is there to "ALLOW" an adept to do anything. As I see it an Adept does what seems right to themselves, one assumes they have the ability to decide what's correct. Now, as to Anthropogenesis being nonsense. One: I don't see that as a flaw or failure in HPB in any way. In the first case she lived in an age that was almost totally ignorant of any science at all. Two: She was, I believe, trying to enact a kind of "shock therapy" on western intellectuality. Three: She was also trying to effect a kind of "shock therapy" on Western Religion. Four: She was also trying to effect a kind of "shock therapy" on Western Materialism. In actuality she succeeded beyond her wildest dreams. But, that doesn't mean the contents of the Secret doctrine were or are intended to be contrasted with the scientific knowledge of over a century later. I have always believed that the "Shock Therapy" which the secret Doctrine was, I believe, intended to effect, was primarily intended to get the Western segment of Humanity to begin actually thinking about their belief structures. It clearly "worked". I know that she was also disturbed by the materialistic bias of Darwinian Evolutionism, and rightfully so. An Adept teaches to reach certain goals that really have nothing to do with the absolute accuracy of what they teach. Now, it does seem to me that in light of what modern anthropology, Paleontology, etc. are discovering, and the newspapers are full of it quite regularly. If the Human Race per se is only from 70,000 to 100.000 years old, and if one leaves out, as one must for lack of proof, any reference to a precursor civilization, then the times and dating in Anthropogenesis may easily be described as "absolute nonsense". Another point I want to make is that there is only one human race, the majority of current opinion insists that the division of humankind into Africa, Mongol, Caucasian etc, is due to the effects of environmental mutation and that the Human Race per se is monolithic. If one accepts this as a "near truth" and I do (I say "near truth" because of course, all the information isn't in) then the rigid divisiveness of Anthropogenesis must be rejected intellectually. > >While I may indeed be accused of blind and even foolish faith in HPB, I do >not actually know of any scientific evidence being brought forward which >would disprove her claims -- nor do I see much evidence (at this point) which >supports it, unless we turn to the writings of Edgar Cayce etc. > >The Darwinian theory is under much attack these days, and not merely by >mindless Christian "creationists." Stephen Jay Gould, leading paleontologist >at Harvard, has re-introduced the long-forgotten theory that "ontogeny >recapitulates philogeny". We see more and more books like "Darwin On Trial" >and Denton's "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" documenting vicious disputes >between paleontologists and molecular biologists, and the disintegration of a >dominant model of physical (let along spiritual) evolution. It is my impression that Darwin has long been replaced by Alfred Wallace's competing theory and other's far more contemporary in our scientific thought. Arguing with Darwin is like arguing with Karl Marx they are both hopelessly outdated. I've read a lot of Stephen Jay Gould's stuff and frankly I find him less than impressive. As far as "vicious disputes between Paleontologists and Molecular Biologists" are concerned. You've been recently enough a denizen of Akademe to not be aware of what a total "snake pit" it is. > >The gaps in the fossil record are massive, not occasional, and we have >unaccountable phenomena such as the sudden emergence of the wing, of >feathers, of hemoglobin, of the eye, or prokaryotic cells -- totally >unaccountable by current theory. That is all true, but they are also not adequately accounted for by the Secret Doctrine. > >We futher have emerging new paradigms like Rupert Sheldrake (morphogenetic >fields) Michael Murphy ("The Future of the Body") and Ken Wilber documenting >an alternative, "holistic" view of evolution where consciousness, not random >mutation and "survival of the fittest," are primary. I see these as speculative philosophy except for Ken Wilbur whose philosophy is entirely religion based/biased. In my view mutation is sometimes random and sometimes environmentally responsive, and "survival of the fittest" is, I believe, only rejected a priori because of religious bias against the seemingly violent attributes of the idea. > >Again, I think scientific documentation for HPB's theory, in detail, is very >very slim just now. But given the radical failure of traditional >(reductionistic) theory to account for the obvious phenomena, I find myself >willing to give HPB the benefit of the doubt, at least for the time being. Rich: I doubt if she'd want it. It is my belief that the S.D. wasn't ever intended to be taken to be the last word on any subject, especially by it's author. > >Yet I am perfectly willing to attend to counter-evidence, if such can be >brought forward (in DETAIL, not in sweeping generalizations), which weakens >or entirely ruins HPB's stand. I think, or should I say I hope, I've responded to this point. > >In conclusion, I reiterate that I find it odd to refer to HPB as an Adept, >and then dismiss major portions of her teachings as "nonsense." It seems one >is welcome to one's opinions, but one can't have it both ways. I really don't think my point of view of Adepts and error is as dichotomous as you think it is. I think we differ very widely in both our expectations of them and our definition of them.If one doesn't think of Adepts as necessarily or even as intentionally "infallible" then Adepts can indeed make mistakes and even utter nonsense. Aristotle was an Adept and a lot of his natural science is nonsense. alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist > > From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 06:27:49 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 23:27:49 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424062749.00684198@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:New? New? At 05:55 PM 4/23/96 -0400, you wrote: >>Any esoteric school without an adept to lead it and teach it is totally >>invalid > > James Long realized this fact, and ended the ES within the >Pasadena TS. After the initial shock wore off, I think the result is a >better and more open TS. The only real alternative to this is to find >an Adept willing to lead an ES. But this too has potential problems-- >what if the Adept teaches something new? > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > Heavens to betsy Jerry, that'd be awful wouldn't it? You know, and I know, that if an Adept was foolish enough to try to start an actual School of Esotericism he or she would either be ignored or crucified. You're absolutely correct about James Long and as a result of his action the Pasadena Society is the "best of the bunch". alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 06:32:17 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 23:32:17 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424063217.00681994@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Happy Birthday At 07:05 PM 4/23/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <960422231153_278392908@emout16.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com >writes >> Let's not make too much of >>beatific smiles until they are put to the test by a little arthritis and >>geriatric ass-dragging. > >.. and we never even met! > >Alan :-) - 63 last Monday! >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan: Happy birthday! Think of it if you had my family genetics you'd have some 40 years to go! My Mother will be 90 on May 4th and to hear her talk about it she isn't pleased! I went to Alexandria West Sunday and it's the most totally heavnely place! I also saw Jerry Hejka-ekins library...."Oh Lord did I lusteth!" It's totally fantastic, if I didn't live so far from him I be there every day from morning to night. Studying my butt off! alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 06:41:01 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 23:41:01 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424064101.006a87b4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Arthritis I enjoyed your "string" with Richard Ihle and while I wouldn't want him to think I'm getting "soft" in my old age, I find a good deal of what he says very sensible but I want to talk about Arthritis. I know the "Powers-that-be" don't approve of psychism and that means they surely don't approve of Shamanism. But, I also know this: I had a terrible case of Osteo-Arthritis which was "taken completely away" by the "spirits". I also know I have had very good effects on othe people's arthritis via the very same agency. (Other diseases as well) Anyone who lives near me I will happily help with any kind of "healing" they need. I've been doing this for some years and never charged a penny for it. I believe a spiritual healer who charges is a snake oil salesman. For those who are not in my vicinity, I suggest you go find a reputable healer, perferably a Shaman, who doesn't charge for any of his or her sefrvices and "give it a try". It works, this I don't believe, this I know! alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist Shaman and Healer From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 06:46:38 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 23:46:38 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424064638.0068a164@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: why? At 07:04 PM 4/23/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960423055107.006aa800@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>There Alan, did that address your question more directly? I hope so, this is >>a major field of interest with me and I'd be glad to discuss it further with >>you at any time. >> >>Alexis dolgorukii > >Yes, thank you! - now why didn't you say that in the first place :-) > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan: I know very few people who are interested in the phenomonolgical aspects of the Nazi Era. I am. I have views on this subject which would shock the bejabbers out of most theosophists. When asked questions vis a vis the Nazis I always go slowly at first "testing the waters" as it were. This business of HPB being the inspiration for the Nazis is a very old cabal. Pauwels and Bergier first mentioned it to a wider public in "Morning of the Magicians" but there's a of of literature regarding both the intellectual inspiration of Nazism and the Occult inspiration. The German OTO is a major player. alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist Shaman, Healer, History Buff From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 06:55:27 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 23:55:27 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424065527.006a9c78@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: re: the ES At 07:45 PM 4/23/96 -0400, you wrote: Jerry: What you have written below is a fantastically accurate and very concise history of Theosophy. If the TI doesn't have an official historian I nominate you. Ther is clearly no one around who is more conversant with theosophical history. I also, sadly must agree with you that the time has come to start anew. Between Theosophy International and Alexandria West I think we really do have a nucleus for not only a new manifestation of the theosophical movement, but, as this time it WILL be a totally SERVICE TO HUMANITY ORIENTED nucleus for the promotion of universal amity and peace. alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist Shaman, Healer, Bibliophile >JHE > On the other hand, the ES is supposed to be dedicated to the >needs of the TS. But here is where I think the SNAFU set in: >After the Judge split, the Adyar TS fell into complete control of >Annie Besant who kept the organization at a low key until Olcott >died. Remember, Olcott did not approve of the ES, and was afraid >that his successor might gain control of both the Presidency of >the TS and the Outer Headship of the ES, thus giving that person >too much power. Olcott's worst fear is, of course, what >actually happened. > But when Besant attained the Presidency in 1907, she was >already running out of new material to give to her ES students. >Between 1895 and 1907 she wrote commentaries on HPB's ES >Instructions. She got a lot of mileage out of them, and even >spun of a book or two (~The Ancient Wisdom~ and ~A Study in >Consciousness~). But after a while, endless playing off of the >six ES Instructions gets rather old, and evidently Besant lacked >the knowledge (or access to it) to create new ES Instructions >that would expand upon and go more deeply into the body of >teachings already extant. My sense of HPB's original >Instructions is that they were very quickly moving towards some >very profound correlations that would have introduced a whole >deeper layer of study and insight. > Though Besant (IMO) lacked the knowledge to go more deeply >into the Theosophical teachings, she did have an associate who >had the imagination to take these teachings into a very different >direction. In 1908, Besant brought exiled CW Leadbeater back >into the ES fold, though it was under the protest of some of the >most important members. Among others, A.P. Sinnett, G.R.S. Mead, >and Bertram Keightley left the TS in protest to CWL's >reinstatement. > Therefore, CWL with the help of GS Arundale became the >source for the new ES revelations, that included the >establishment of a new religion (Liberal Catholic Church) as a >vehicle for the return of the Christ (Krishnamurti), and a whole >litany of ceremonies for the creation of spiritual forms for the >spiritual upliftment of the world (e.g. Co-Masonry and the >Egyptian Rite). That early material speaks endlessly of the >initiations of CWL, GSA, AB, K, not to mention Oscar Kollestrom. >Revelations from the Maitreya (an individual in neo-theosophy), >M., KH, and the Maha Chohan himself praising the work of the >Theosophical Workers. When this became tiresome, Besant was >always at hand to answer the latest anti-Leadbeater flair up, and >to expel members and Lodges who didn't play her game. Thus, the >new ES material came to replace the rather heady philosophical >discussions written in HPB's day. > By 1929, Krishnamurti's role as the world teacher put into >obscuration the original intents of the TS as outlined in HPB's >writings, and clearly shown in the Mahatma Letters. The >Theosophical Society was no longer a provocative and progressive >philosophical school, but became a cult dedicated to the >adoration of its World Teacher. With Krishnamurti in the >foreground, there was no longer a need for an ES, so it was >closed. But Krishnamurti's resignation in 1930 necessitated its >reopening after only a year. > By this time, AB and CWL were getting old. CWL was already >withdrawing into his LCC activities in Australia--becoming more >are more remote from the TS. This transition had been building >up for some time, so C. Jinarajadasa became more and more >involved in the continuation of the ES. With the death of CWL in >1934, CJ was on his own to produce new ES material--but >apparently he lacked CWL's vivid and detailed imagination. >Arundale was still supplying some material, but with the loss of >Krishnamurti, things were much less exciting, and K's defection >was hard to explain. > Fortunately, the war in Europe saved good ol' CJ from having >to dwell upon the Krishnamurti question. With the new political >developments, he was able to focus attention on a new subject-- >the infiltration of the Black magicians into the TS and world >affairs. Black magicians were everywhere. They were more >numerous than cockroaches in a Calcutta roadside kitchen, and >they were the blame for every change that did not meet with CJ's >personal approval. Not only were the Black Magicians influencing >European and American political leaders, but even worse, they >created Jazz and Modern Art! Even Mahatma Gandhi was influenced >by Black Magicians--how else can you explain why he did not agree >with Besant's plans for India? ES material during this period >was utterly pre-occupied with the plots of Black Magicians, and >CJ had lots of political advice concerning who were the good guys >and who where the badies on the political scene. > Sri Ram took over in 1954, and the ES material changed again >to a banal and devotional form of Hinduism, but became a little >more intellectual when Taimni finally took over. Now it appears >that Radha has shifted the ES towards an even more contentless >Krishnamurtisque "truth in within yourself" philosophy. > Yet, through this whole incredible history, from 1895 >onwards, the ES was responsible for the well being of the TS. >ES Members were expected to be active in TS Lodges and to make >sure that they stayed on the right track. But what is the "right >track" today? Arundale abandoned all mention of Krishnamurti >once the World Teacher resigned his post. CW Leadbeater's >writings remained popular from the 1930's through the 60's, and >became the trademark of Adyar Theosophy. But with the >publication of Tillett's ~The Elder Brother,~ CWL is no longer >realistically defensible, and his writing are being de- >emphasized. Blavatsky and her original program was long ago >abandoned to lip service. Further, the ES today has grown so >weak that it can no longer fill its role as guardian of the TS. >For the first time, the Lodges are left without direction and >content. Some Lodges have occupied themselves with Sufi dancing, >others with Alice Bailey, others with Sai Baba, others with the >Celestine Prophesy. > When I first joined theos-l over two years ago, one of the >first messages I recall was a member saying that the TS has no >dogma--therefore no teachings. That the TS has no dogma is >happily correct, after a period of covert dogma from 1910 to >1970. But unhappily, he was also correct that the TS has no >teachings. For they were abandoned almost 90 years ago for a new >set of teachings that blew up in everyone's face in 1930. And >the dust is still yet to clear. > So, Alexis, sadly, I have to agree with you. The ES had a >negative impact on the TS because it veered from the original >aims, and never found its way back. Sincere and devoted workers >with the best of motivations can work to further the aims of the >most ill conceived plans as well as the productive ones. IMO, >its time to start over. > >JHE > >------------------------------------------ > |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | > |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | > |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | > |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | > ------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > From jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org Tue Apr 23 02:55:48 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 19:55:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <199604230255.TAA22941@igc2.igc.apc.org> Subject: To Jerry S--re HPB and CWL JHE >> For HPB, bodies are independent entities that >>come into existence either at the death of the physical body, >>or through an extraordinary act of will. JS >This is certainly true for the kama-rupa, but not so >for all bodies--the mayavi-rupa being used during life by those >who know how. JHE Yes--as I wrote above--"through an extraordinary act of will." JHE >> "Mental body" would >>also be an incorrect equivalent of "manas," because the they do >>not have independent existences as entities. JS >You have lost me here. No bodies, however we >want to define them, have "independent existences." JHE You lost me too. You already admitted in your first comment above that the kama rupa is an independent entity that comes into [independent] existence after the death of the physical body. JS >I don't >think that anyone taught that. Manas simply means mind. >We don't normally think of our mind as having or being a "body" >as such, but that is because we all tend to equate consciousness >with mind. JHE For HPB, you are right--she didn't teach that about manas. But look again at diagram II in CWL's ~Man Visible and Invisible.~ His "Mental Body" is "rupic" in its lower sub- principles, and "arupic" in it higher sub-principles. CWL's mental body indeed has a "`body' as such." JS >When consciousness is seen as something >other than mind, then mind can be considered a "body" or >vehicle for it when it focuses on the third cosmic plane. JHE A vehicle (as I think I explained earlier), according to HPB, is not necessarily a body. She makes a distinction between a vehicle (vahan) and a body (upadhi). JS >Now, all of this stuff is flakey. G de P, for example, >on pages 442-443 describes the mayavi-rupa (one of our >bodies acknowleged by HPB) as "the body of thought >and feeling" which makes it a combination of astral >and mental. JHE What do you find "flakey" about this statement? JS >Many occultists and magicians (ok, Alexis, >and Shamans) experience only a single Body of Light. >These are all models or terminology that we give to our >experiences, and clearly demonstrate the subjectivity >of such experiences. JHE You and Alexis know more about that than I do about magicians' terminology. I'm just a poor student of theosophy. JHE >> Further, HPB's >>bodies each have their own cycle of existence. They never >>exist beyond a single cycle of incarnation and disincarnation >>(with the exception of the Causal Body, which exists for a >>manvantara). JS > Agreed, but where does this differ from anything CWL >taught? JHE Only in the primary point I was trying to make: I believe that HPB's "Principles" are more akin to CWL's "bodies" than CWL's "bodies" to HPB's "bodies." HPB's "bodies," are composed of two are more principles. Those principles are derived from the elements (in the platonic sense). CWL's "bodies" are, as you say, made up of the tattwas. CWL's "bodies" come together to form a living human being. HPB's "bodies" have no objective existence until either the physical body dies, or the bodies are created through an extraordinary act of will (by mediums, adepts or "magicians" if you will). JHE My server (toto) at the unversity crashed for about a week. As a result, I lost the rest of your post before I was able to finish responding to it. However, as I recall, you had raised a final point that HPB creates confusion by changing her terminology. Actually, my experience is that her terminology and the meanings are quite consistent, but her explanations became more detailed as she revised the subject. The enumeration and order of her seven principles also changed, but I found that by following her explanations in order for that earliest to the latest, with an awareness of her interaction with A.P. Sinnett and Subba Row, it is very evident that her changes were made to further clarify obscure points, or to correct misunderstandings that were arising from 1880 to 1890. I hope this helps. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 07:08:15 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 00:08:15 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424070815.00694380@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Fatherly corrections At 09:44 PM 4/23/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>cut<<<<<<< >You're great at story telling, a light touch of humor, and >giving us new words to look up in the dictionary! I'm not sure, >though, that you look for feedback regarding how effectively >you communicate your psychological and metaphysical analyses. >This is something that you'll need to review as you prepare, >someday, to vastly out do your last book, and reach the minds >of untold thousands! > >-- Eldon > > Eldon: There is something I really would like for you to contemplate. Chuck, no matter how idiosyncratic his linguistics, and no matter how idiosyncratic his method of communication may be, NEVER BORES ANYONE! He says everything he has to say short and perhaps nastily, but, I think, most people chuckle (no pun intended) and go on to think about his point. I really wish you yourself would think about how your long and tedious fatherly corrections effect the folks on this list. Most people, (JRC for instance) do not need their words reiterated in a new context to tell them what they have just said. I can see that it irritates John Crocker immensely. I also think it irritates Chuck. You apparently see yourself as a kind of moderator, but who asked you? Condescension is always annoying, and Eldon, there is an absolutely unavoidable aura of Condescension in so many of your postings. I come at this as a neutral observer for you've not yet done it to me. So I think I can tell you things from that neutral position that others might view as "places angels fear to tread". You are obviously a nice, intelligent, well-read theorist but i do believe you yourself would be better off if you were not condescending, patronizing and tedious. alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist Shaman, Healer, From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 07:19:02 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 00:19:02 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424071902.006bb620@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: re: president jimmy At 01:35 AM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis, > > You are right. There is a letter where Judge specifically >objects to being addressed as "Bill." He preferred "William." > > >JHE > >------------------------------------------ > |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | > |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | > |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | > |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | > ------------------------------------------ > > >Jerry: It was sheer intuition but I was pretty sure I was right about that. some people are "Bill" and some are only "William", and WGJ seemed definately the more formal type, alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 07:21:58 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 00:21:58 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424072158.006905d0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: The E.S. At 02:00 AM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I think it's Tomas de Torquemada. > >Chuck the Inquisitor >Troublemaker >Nobody expects the Theosophical Inquisition! > >Nope! Ith Fray Ignathio! (Fra Ignacio de Torquemada y Molinas). Have you ever seen his portrait? Yccch! alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist Shaman, Healeer, Psychic From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 07:23:52 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 00:23:52 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424072352.0067ab8c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: THOU SHALT LIGHTEN UP At 02:01 AM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >Very nice. Thanks for posting it. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > >The only thing about that poem is that, even though it is amusing, there's a very strong overtone of superiority on the part of the poet who is clearly superior to all those searching fools. Do you not think so? alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Thesohist Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Wiccan, Pagan From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 07:24:44 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 00:24:44 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424072444.00687fa0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: The Aryan Race At 02:03 AM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex and Alan, >If you don't have it already, get your hands on a copy of James Webb's "The >Occult Establishment." He goes into great detail about the matter you have >been discussing. > >Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Roger wilco From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Wed Apr 24 14:29:37 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 10:29:37 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604241429.KAA24841@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: HPB's anthropology Rich responded to Alexis's comments on the second volume of the S.D., and made a comment that seems to me illustrative of difficulties in Theosophical dialogue; also illustrative of inflated ideas about adepts. Rich writes, "I do not actually know of any scientific evidence being brought forward that would disprove her claims...I find myself willing to give HPB the benefit of the doubt, at least for the time being. Yet I am perfectly willing to attend to counter-evidence, if such can be brought forward (in DETAIL, not in sweeping generalizations), which weakens or entirely ruins HPB's stand." Sounds quite reasonable. But when contemplating a response, I realized that the burden of proof here was immense and unfair. What the position seems to come down to, Rich, is "I refuse to believe that HPB was wrong about anything unless you prove it to me by exhaustive demonstration and argument." And the person who tries to prove it to you gets the dubious pleasure of being immediately perceived as an "attacker" of HPB and the Masters. Since I have a very slim knowledge of evolution myself, the challenge is doubly intimidating. To make the obvious point (obvious to anyone without a vested interest in the matter) that HPB's anthropology is hopelessly incompatible, not just with prevalent scientific *theories* but with amply demonstrated *facts*-- I have to run the risk of sectarian anger and hostility, as well as condemnation as an ignorant amateur. And for what possible benefit, to me or anyone else? Responding is triply difficult because the library is being carpeted today and I cannot even run to the reference shelves for a book from which I could select some counterevidence. So what I will do instead is ask Mike Mueckler, a research biologist, to comment on the evolutionary scenario laid out in the Secret Doctrine and its compatibility with scientific knowledge as opposed to theory. I hope he is willing to offer a moderately detailed commentary. As for how an adept could believe in or purvey doctrines that are "absolute nonsense" from a scientific point of view, I don't see any conflict here at all. Only an inflated view of adepts' knowledge would make it seem inconsistent. Tibetan Buddhist lamas, Sufi shaykhs, Vedantist gurus, Rosicrucian adepts, etc. etc. have preserved esoteric transmissions through the centuries while also purveying unscientific theories about various subjects. Since it is relatively easy to identify people in history who qualify as "adepts" in various traditions, and not one of them can be shown to have demonstrated a complete grasp of what-is-now-contemporary science, the burden of proof should be shifted here. Rather than, "Prove that an adept can possibly be wrong about a scientific matter," the challenge should be "Prove that there has ever been a single adept who was *not* wrong about *lots* of scientific matters." If you turn around and say, "but by definition, an adept is always right," the inevitable riposte is, "by *that* definition, adepts have never existed." From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Apr 24 00:17:52 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 01:17:52 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: the ES In-Reply-To: <9604232343.AA00230@toto.csustan.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <9604232343.AA00230@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes >Sincere and devoted workers >with the best of motivations can work to further the aims of the >most ill conceived plans as well as the productive ones. IMO, >its time to start over. > >JHE Sadly, yes. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From blafoun@azstarnet.com Wed Apr 24 15:06:16 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 08:06:16 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604241506.IAA13315@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB's anthropology blafoun@azstarnet.com Paul Johnson writes: So what I will do instead is ask Mike Mueckler, a research >biologist, to comment on the evolutionary scenario laid out in >the Secret Doctrine and its compatibility with scientific >knowledge as opposed to theory. I hope he is willing to offer >a moderately detailed commentary. Daniel comments: Mike Mueckler, from what he has written on alt.religion.eckankar, and from what little I posted here on theos-l, is what I would call a materialist. He believes humans are just material bodies. There is nothing to leave or survive the death of the body. Consciousness is just part of the workings of the brain and nervous system. There is no soul, spirit or consciousness to leave the body during life or even at death. Furthermore, there are no "higher" or "lower" planes of existence, however you might want to phrase it. Muecker does NOT believe in the existence of any psychic or paranormal phenomena, even of telepathy. It would be interesting to see what he would write about the SD, etc. BUT I would rather , for example, see Mueckler and David Lane for example have an intelligent discussion and debate on their differing points of view when it comes to what consciousness is, are there psychic phenomena, is there life after death, are there "worlds" or dimensions or planes beyond the physical, etc. Paul, it would be interesting to see you engage in a dialogue or discussion with Mueckler on these subjects of the paranormal, etc. HINT, HINT! Daniel Caldwell From am455@lafn.org Wed Apr 24 15:55:19 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 08:55:19 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199604241555.AA20454@lafn.org> Subject: Lucifer's version of Maha Chohan's letter >>On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, Rodolfo Don wrote: >>> >>> I didn't know that there was more than one "version" of this important >>> letter. The differences between the two versions that you posted are very >>> upsetting. The one that I am acquainted with through the TS/Adyar is the >>> latest one. I guess I didn't pay attention to the wording to the first one >>> that you sent to theos-l. >>> >>> If the first "version" is the one that was published in Lucifer, how could >>> have it been wrong? Could you elaborate on this? Rudy, Firstly I must apologize to the Universal Theosophy Fellowship at the Theoslodge WWW site. They copied from Lucifer accurately enough, I believe. The reason I thought they did not, is because I have an 1930s era Bombay ULT pamphlet of "The Great Master's Letter" and it is quite different from the modern ULT pam. Apparently the Los Angeles ULT, at some point in time, decided to use the sanitized Lucifer version instead of the more accurate ones. With ULT's fondness for original sources this does puzzle me. Why did GRS Mead &/or Annie Besant alter the letter in 1896, in Lucifer? Why did they edit in 1893 *The Secret Doctrine* and edit & abridge also the *Key* in the same year? Others on Theos-l can give a more complete historical view. One reason was to protect Xtian sensibilities from, in their minds, the too harsh or mistaken words of HPB and her Gurus -- even the Guru of their Gurus, evidently. Compare the Chohan's remarks about the Chinese attitude to death during famine times, in the two versions that were posted on Theos-roots, (and here too, thanks to Doss) and you will see. Best, -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Wed Apr 24 16:20:34 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 12:20:34 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604241620.MAA23963@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: New ideas, new feelings In response to JHE's comment that theos-l is a place where one can learn new things: it missed my point. The problem with theos-l in particular and Theosophists in general isn't that there is no assimilation of new information going on; of course there is. My comparison to medit-l was not focused on whether it is possible to gather informative nuggets, but rather on the possibility of engaging in discussion with people who are *actively in process of transforming their minds, emotions, bodies...* rather than defending their boundaries. The rigid vs. flexible continuum is the objectively-observed result of a subjective tense vs. relaxed continuum. People who are psychologically or mentally tense are prone to behave in ways that manifest this outwardly. For example, taking rigid positions and defying the world to disprove them. Or describing everything that is not "in-group" approved as being an attack by infidels. Whereas, psychologically and mentally relaxed people, who are more common in ARE than in Theosophical groups, tend to *act that way* in being more open to new ideas, less easily threatened, less defensive. From nlporreco@bpa.gov Wed Apr 24 16:48:00 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 09:48:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: Re: THOU SHALT LIGHTEN UP Message-Id: <317E5B1B@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 28 TEXT I'm sorry it effected you negatively Alex, To me it simply says that you get out of a situation what you bring to it. And I think this applies on all levels. And that we need to spend more time looking within then without. So take a half full glass and have a drink of "Lighten Up" . Nick. > Date: Wednesday, April 24, 1996 3:25AM > From: theos-l > Subject: Re: THOU SHALT LIGHTEN UP At 02:01 AM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >Very nice. Thanks for posting it. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > >The only thing about that poem is that, even though it is amusing, there's a very strong overtone of superiority on the part of the poet who is clearly superior to all those searching fools. Do you not think so? alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Thesohist Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Wiccan, Pagan From nlporreco@bpa.gov Wed Apr 24 18:01:00 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 11:01:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: To alex from karl (1) Message-Id: <317E6C36@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 60 TEXT Alex, I am passing this on from Karl. Nick. > Date: Wednesday, April 24, 1996 3:29PM > From: Karl A Bryan > Subject: Re: from Alex alexis To start off with, I notice that you choose to sign your name in small caps. This is how I prefer to sign, it lends more credence to my belief that my name (like my body) is only a transitory phenomena in my life wave. It never ceases to amaze me, the large number of religions that held women in equal status with men. Yet if you were to ask the average citizen here, what is the major religious belief system in the world. They would probably answer, christianity. (the same goes for what is the most widely spoken non-oriental language, most people do not realize that it is Spanish). My point is, it is hard for people to accept women in an equal status when the basic core beliefs place women in a distant second position (with alternative lifestyles in the far distance if even on the board). Womens rights movements do have one thing in their favor, easy access to communication. The struggle for equality on multiple fronts is easier when you realize that you are not the only one struggling. I am in total agreement with your statement of christianities "enshrinement of ignorance". I left the catholic church after I was chastised for reading books that were on the banned books reading list. The priest told me that the list was to protect the parishoners from ideas that could lead us astray. I argued that GOD had given me a brain to use and for me to blindly follow anothers ideas without using my own GOD given abilities was an affront to GOD. Needless to say, the discussion broke down shortly after that. About your comment on Cuba; I believe that if the US had not been so arrogant and had recognized Cuba (after all, the Cubans had just done what the US had done to England centuries earlier). The seige mentality that Cuba has been living under would not have happened. With the massive education of the populace, the powers within Cuba would not have been able to keep in place all of the restrictions on personal a political liberties. It is the seige mentallity that has been used to enforce the restrictions. The lack of education in the US is why it is easy to convince people that the anti-terrorism bill is for our own good. Little do the people know that the bill will restrict our rights and do very little (if anything at all) to prevent terrorism. karl From nlporreco@bpa.gov Wed Apr 24 18:01:00 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 11:01:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: To alex from karl (2) Message-Id: <317E6C3B@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 135 TEXT Alex, I am passing this on from Karl. Nick. > Date: Wednesday, April 24, 1996 3:30PM > From: Karl A Bryan > Subject: Re: FW: Thank you I would like to add the following: I feel that we should not be supporting the athletics industry by the heavy promoting and special treatment that sports gets in school. The academics get cut before the football and basketball are cut. We do need an outlet for stored up physical energy, but the outlet does not need to be in school. And as far as sports teaching team work and cooperation, bull crap. The team mentality is an us against them with a strong emphasis on dehumanizing the opponent (just listen to some of the cheers that the sanctioned cheerleader squads shout). The player with the most points is the school hero, eventhough the rest of the team set the stage for the making of points. And pity the team players who sit on the bench, they are recipients of derisive remarks. So, where is the team building and cooperation being taught? I feel that they are best taught in the classroom when you have assignments that require a collaborative effort to accomplish. But the pro sports would not have the screening (weeding out) of potential players if it were not from highschool and college athletics. Plus, the alumni are more inclined to donate money to their alma-mater if the school has a winning team. Our countries focus on sports is an escape from focusing on the real problems of society. karl > Subject: FW: Thank you > Author: nlporreco@bpa.gov at Internet > Date: 4/23/96 7:13 PM > From: theos-l > Subject: Re: Thank you > Date: Tuesday, April 23, 1996 1:32AM At 05:20 PM 4/22/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>cut<<<<<< >With good reason at least here in the U.S. The Religious Right objects to public education but for anything BUT the reasons which cause you and I to object to it. I have students in several countries and believe me education is in a parlous state in more places than the USA. But the point is, the Religious Right objects to our system as being not fit for THEIR agenda, and they could acre less about a proper education. All they're interested in is rigid discipline and pseudo-morality. > >The performance of our public education, especially >considering the amount of money spent, is dismal compared to other countries. >The complete inability for parents to get involved in their childs education >is another factor with more and more control moving to state and federal >levels. Money per capita, when compared with actual as opposed to statistical results is, in fact, dismal in the USA where we spend infinitely more money to get equally poor results. Parents however, are far more likely to be unwilling to be involved in their children's educational progress than they are unable to be so. Most of what's wrong both in education and in life itself here in the USA as it relates to children and their upbringing is almost total parental refusal to take responsibility for their children and to be responsible parents. > >Obviously, I'm a big supporter of alternative education including vouchers, >tax credits for education expenses, etc. Here in Minnesota, gambling is tax >deductable but education isn't! I would be willing to support a "voucher system" providing it was not possible to spend the vouchers at religious schools. Now as to "gambling is deductible" am I right in assuming you mean "gambling losses"? Well, of course, they should not be deductible. But educational costs are certainly appropriate deductions, even to religious institutions. I just don't want tax money to go to support some religious agenda. > >Even members of our local school board have told me that they wouldn't >put their own kids into the public school...not to mention the number >of student sucides lately here. I remember talking to the kindegarden >teacher at the public school when considering to put my son there who >told me that my son is too advanced and would only be entertained >for a year since they teach to the lowest common demoninator. I have two adopted sons, both of them extremely bright and talented kids (or rather they were Kids some years ago)They both had problems in high school because they were far brighter than their peers. One of them went on to Berkeley and got a degree in Slavic Languages, the other is currently in Yale, but he's really going to end up an artist-craftsperson. I myself went to public schools a very long time ago and frankly no public school system is geared for the bright child. > >Granted, there is a fringe of radical right that would cut out >education that does not agree with their views and I certainly don't >support that. However, I can understand the views of concerned >parents who are opposed to some of the stuff taught to their >kids. > > > -Mike Grenier > mike@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com > The problem, I think, is to radically improve education and to prevent the Radical Religious Right from coopting the situation for their own purposes. The kids aren't really the problem. Irresponsible parents are, and basically incompetent "time server" teachers are! That's what requires fixing. When parents become more responsible, and teachers become more competent, the kids will be well served. But there's one other question. Considering that our teachers in the USA are vastly underpaid considering the value of their product, and to go along with that they are the objects of almost totally disrespect by American society, what can we expect? alexis dolgorukii From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Tue Apr 23 17:04:54 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 11:04:54 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: eaten Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Say, Anyone else having posts eaten & disappearing over the last couple days? -JRC From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Apr 24 18:04:42 1996 Date: 24 Apr 96 14:04:42 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Bodies--a dead horse Message-Id: <960424180441_76400.1474_HHL65-1@CompuServe.COM> JHE >> For HPB, bodies are independent entities that >>come into existence either at the death of the physical body, >>or through an extraordinary act of will. etc, etc, ... Jerry, I think I will simply agree to disagree at this point. Our discussion, to date, has, if nothing else, illustrated my point concerning the sorry state of TS terminology. There is really not a whole lot more to say on the subject for I am no closer to understanding your rationale than when I started. For Dan, and anyone else interested, I will close with a quick look at how I see one body--the astral: The astral body is the body or vehicle that our consciousness focuses through while on the astral plane. We can shift consciousness to this body via yoga or magic and make observations on the astral plane (psychism to say the least, but it can be done, more or less correctly). When we fall asleep, we function in this very same body, but now it is called our dream body. In both instances, the astral body is connected to the physical via the sutratman or Silver Cord. After death, this psychomagnetic link is broken and we find ourselves in the same astral body, but now it is called the kama-rupa because we are now in the post-mortem state of kama-loka. The astral, dream, and kama-rupa ('desire form') bodies are the same, but given different names according to how we function in them. Although this is my own personal belief-system here, I know of nothing in the literature that would discount it or contradict it, and it has the benefit of linking the CWL/AB model with the HPB model, at least to a degree. It also has the benefit of agreeing more or less with mainstream occultism and magic. I can't help but wonder why HPB didn't just use the koshas (sheaths) as they are taught in Vedanta instead of giving us "principles" which muddied the waters right up to today. Does anyone know where she got the word "principles" from? What is the Sanskrit derivative, if there is one? Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Apr 24 18:04:46 1996 Date: 24 Apr 96 14:04:46 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Rigidity/Flexibility Message-Id: <960424180446_76400.1474_HHL65-3@CompuServe.COM> Chuck: >You really know you have made it when you can look at a mountain and say >"take a little off the top and leave the sideburns," and it happens without >even having to put your helmet on. Yes. With the helmet, its a piece of cake and not really playing fair. Jerry S. Member, TI The Unhelmeted From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Apr 24 18:04:51 1996 Date: 24 Apr 96 14:04:51 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Anthropogenetic "Nonsense" Message-Id: <960424180450_76400.1474_HHL65-5@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: >It is my impression that Darwin has long been replaced by Alfred Wallace's >competing theory and other's far more contemporary in our scientific >thought. Arguing with Darwin is like arguing with Karl Marx they are both >hopelessly outdated. Darwin *is* outdated. There has always been holes in his theory. Today these "exceptions" are no longer being ignored. One of the new theories, that I like, is the idea put out by Margulis and others to the effect that evolution is a co-operation where the process of symbiosis is more important than survival of the fittest. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Apr 24 18:04:52 1996 Date: 24 Apr 96 14:04:52 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Anthropogenetic "Nonsense" Message-Id: <960424180452_76400.1474_HHL65-6@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: >An Adept teaches to reach certain goals that really have >nothing to do with the absolute accuracy of what they teach True. Everything below the Abyss is Maya, illusion, and so any truth therein is a lie, and every lie is based on an inner truth. The Adept who decides to be a Teacher must always address a specific audience, and say what is necessary in order to awaken that audience. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Apr 24 18:04:44 1996 Date: 24 Apr 96 14:04:44 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: legitimate? Message-Id: <960424180443_76400.1474_HHL65-2@CompuServe.COM> >Jerry, >And what if the person REALLY is an adept? > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA He/she would have to be. The problem is exactly as Alexis says--they would either ignore or crucify. Neither would be pleasant. Only a handful would likely benefit. G de P demonstrated that it could be done, if handled properly. But it would take one of G de P's stature and Gnosis to do it, and even he had his problems. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Apr 24 18:04:48 1996 Date: 24 Apr 96 14:04:48 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Anthropogenetic "Nonsense" Message-Id: <960424180448_76400.1474_HHL65-4@CompuServe.COM> Rich: >If HPB was, in your opinion, truly an Adept... Oh, she was, Rich. She was. Even ol' Uncle Al had to admit it. Jerry S. Member, TI From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Tue Apr 23 06:21:15 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:21:15 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: legitimate? In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960423055421.006934d8@mail.slip.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, alexis dolgorukii wrote: > Any esoteric school without an adept to lead it and teach it is totally > invalid, Yes. Yes. A thousand times Yes. As ornate, detailed, and expensive as a lamp is, it is still nothing but a lump of dead metal if its not plugged into a current. And curiously enough, in the spiritual world, it seems that as a general rule the complexity of the lamp's design varies inversely with its proximity to the current. -JRC From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Apr 24 18:23:32 1996 Date: 24 Apr 96 14:23:32 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: New ideas, new feelings Message-Id: <960424182331_76400.1474_HHL52-1@CompuServe.COM> Paul: >My comparison to medit-l was not focused on whether >it is possible to gather informative nuggets, but rather on the >possibility of engaging in discussion with people who are >*actively in process of transforming their minds, emotions, >bodies...* rather than defending their boundaries. I think I see your point, Paul. But does it have to be all or nothing here? Can't we "defend our boundaries" and "engage in discussion" with a relatively-opened mind at the same time? I suspect that if someone was to put up a quote from a ML contradicting something someone said, then that someone would quickly "transform their mind" to fit the new data. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen often, because the literature itself is so open to interpretation. > For example, >taking rigid positions and defying the world to disprove them. >Or describing everything that is not "in-group" approved as >being an attack by infidels. Whereas, psychologically and >mentally relaxed people, who are more common in ARE than in >Theosophical groups, tend to *act that way* in being more open >to new ideas, less easily threatened, less defensive. I could be off base here, but I suspect the reason for this behavior is that Theosophy provides a relatively complete worldview, while ARE does not. The problem with a worldview is that it must always be defended, else we are living a sham, and thus changes are very hard to come by. Jerry S. Member, TI From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Tue Apr 23 05:05:31 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:05:31 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Rigidity/Flexibility In-Reply-To: <960422231153_278392908@emout16.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hey! RI! A positively *smashing* post ol' chap. Am writing something similar just now but from a different angle (about the "Brotherhood" letter). Relatively the same notion, tho' painted on a slightly larger canvas ... in brief terms, I think *far* too much is made of "kissy kissy lovey lovey" "Brotherhood". If all it took was just being "nice" to one another, our race would have achieved peace a long time ago. For millenia people have preached "brotherhood", every religion contains it as a core - but we sure don't have it. I s'pect a good reason is because the *application* of the notion has always been construed to mean *become blind to differences* - in a lower form this means simply pretending they don't exist and maintaining a purely surface appearance (little more than a mimicing) of "harmony", and in a higher form it has people goin' nuts trying to alter *themselves* so as to no longer feel any *response* to their differences with others. I actually believe, however, that not only is this, even at its best, an attempt to *replace the heresy of separateness with the *illusion* of brotherhood*, but is actually based on a deep mistake as to what this thing called "brotherhood" actually is *in pratice*, and will never be able to be permanently maintained even when it is temporarily produced (and about three millenia of history seems to support this (-:). Actually reading the ML is a very curious experience - we see a glimpse not only of their ideas, but of the practical manifestation of them ... tiny glimpses of the *relations between beings who have achieved this "brotherhood" thing*. And we actually see them, even at that stage, occaisionally *disagreeing with one another*. We also catch a glimpse of powerful beings, who might even be said to be, in their own way, *inflexible*! That is, apparently as a being *matures spiritually*, it does not necessarily mean the person becomes infinitely *permeable*, and willing to either ignore differences *or* completely re-adjust their own core vibration to produce the *appearance* of "brotherhood", rather it seems to mean that *in relation to their own core*, they have merged inner divinity and outward expression to produce a fully autonomous being, and *in relation to others and the larger world*, they have understood *where their particular and unique vibratory radiation fits into a larger picture*. That is (to use a phrase from a book I'm writing (-:) - the vision of our final harmony is *not* that of the whole lot of us blending into some sort of homogeneous collective mush, but rather of a *galaxy of brilliantly shining stars* - "brotherhood", then, *not* meaning some final agreement on a single "correct orbit", but a condition in which every being shines with their own light, *and has discovered their own orbit*. This "brotherhood" thing is a much *much* more difficult thing to achieve than it appears at first glance. But I agree with you that, curiously enough, perhaps it is the very thing the list is critisized for that is actually the sign that the TS has begun the *actual work* - though the formal organizations still are mostly concerned with inducing the "collective mush" model, on theos-l exists both the discussion of "personal" paths, and the many roads by which individuals may begin to "shine with their own light", as well as (and perhaps most importantly) real, unfiltered, balls-to-the-wall battles between people with powerfully held beliefs, some of which are more than beliefs generated (IMO) from the "personality" levels, but actual first articulations of the essential unique vibration of the monads *through* the personalities. Some of the battles almost look like planets colliding - but in doing so, the *collision* may appear to be "unbrotherly", but the final *resolution* does not come about when the combatants both *agree on a single orbit*, but when, *because of the battles themselves, both people, in striving to articulate what they really mean, have come to much greater clarity about what their own unique orbits are*. And if (as may often be the case), the original *reason* for the collision had to do with a lack of understanding of the orbits, a lack of certainty (producing a wobble in the orbit) in the orbiters, then it is the willingness to engage in the collisions that is the actual *work* of "brotherhood" - and when a resolution between such combatents is reached, be it a small difference or a large one, that resolution is composed of two planets that have become much clearer in their own orbits, and will, *as an aftereffect* not collide with one another ... but will possibly permanently simply have different perspectives on everything (as mars and venus will always both have a slightly different view of the earth). Such, then, is a "brotherhood" that actually, in practice, *can* be permanent; in fact it appears to be what the "hierarchy" has achieved. The work the big spooks do seems not premised upon all of them from *one point of view*, but of a variety of different perspectives held by fully autonomous and powerful beings. The difference between their kingdom and ours possibly being that 1) They no longer confuse the adjustment of their denser vehicles to adapt their core vibrations to particular situations with the fluctuations of the impulses generated *by* those denser vehicles, and 2) They no longer "wobble" in their orbits ... neither thinking *their* orbit is the "one true" orbit, nor able to be knocked out of it by anyone else. I believe humanity, when it has strived for "peace" or "harmony", or "brotherhood", has virtually always been pursuing it based (whether overtly or unconsciously) on the "collective mush" model of resolution ... which really *can* only be temporary, because it is based on the *falsehood* that at the core we are all the same. If at the core we are all utterly unique, then the *model* of "brotherhood" must be one that does not ignore that, but rather attempts to discover what the picture of billions of unique beings *each a point of powerful radiation* achieving harmony within a larger system looks like (I personally like the "galaxy" image (-:) - and the *process* of achieving it can not be one where we all become more and more perfect at *denying* profound differences exist, but one in which, at least at times, seems to greatly intensify awareness of those differences ... appears to be the very epitome of anything *but* "brotherhood". The old Greeks did not claim love to be the highest virtue - but rather, *courage* ... saying that without courage no other virtue is really possible. I think, perhaps, that the attempt to actually *work* towards the First Object takes a tremendous amount of courage. And, though I do not see the formal TS organizations possessing that courage (and in fact think them trying to resolve the "uniqueness" problem either by trying to dominate the "solar system" with a few specified "correct" orbits, or attempting to pretend individuals do not even exist, let alone have any disputes) - I *do* think that on this list I've seen a glimpse of what the *actual* manifestation of a "nucleus of a universal family of humanity" might look like, not as an ideal, but as a fully actualized reality. Ta ta, you patronizing bastard (-:), -JRC From Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Wed Apr 24 18:40:47 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 11:40:47 PDT From: Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Message-Id: <9604241844.AA19989@orchid.tc.pw.com> Subject: Adding My Two Cents I'd like to add my two cents here about school and athletics and kids for what it is worth ... I believe that education in its ideal form would be a marvelous thing. However, at this time and in this country, and inasmuch as I and many others do not approve, I believe school is better off being a rehearsal ground for the real world. Even if it means enduring organized sports and all of the interpersonal dynamics (such as derisive comments and controlled violence) that go along with it. I sit here in the office and observe an incredible array of behavior ... it's nothing more than another form of "grown-ups" and "children", i.e., if you get an office on the perimeter of the building with the view you get to be a "grownup", if not than you're administrative staff or the "children". Insofar that professional staff, even the youngsters who have yet to be broken in, consider themselves above and beyond it all. It is truly pitiful. But, what would the alternative be if we were to leave our children in an educational institution that was pure in form yet did not provide them with the tools they need to survive in our country as it is now? A catch 22, I'm afraid. Our country is in such a state of overall decay that many of its people, in fact TOO many of its people, have found themselves plunged into the dismal abyss of fear ... and consequently they find themselves either giving up hope completely (and getting into drugs and such) or looking for other things that can offer them comraderie and a sense of family (i.e., gangs). The human animal is innately social. The parents who either don't want to or can't get involved with their children's education and lives must eventually deal with the reality that children, unless badly abused and damaged, are driven to seek out what they need. What they end up finding is the problem. I read an article in the paper this morning about three children in Oakland, California L ittle kids, like ages 6 through 8, who decided they were going to steal a neighbor's tricycle. They waltzed into their targeted apartment while a babysitter was in the shower, and decided as an aside to beat up the four week old baby that was in a basinet. They pulled it out, kicked it, punched it, cracked it's skull -- then, took the tricycle and went along their merry way. It was discovered because the 6 year old was talking about it in his neighborhood. What circumstances are in existance now that would turn children into psychopaths? And what kind of adults will this generation of child become? Okay so let's say that somehow parents and teachers DO get improved ... then what? It is harder than ever to be successful in this country. The small businessman is an endangered species. Finding success in money making fields such as real estate investment or stock has been made virtually impossible by the imposed monopolies of established entitities. I wish I had answers to these and other questions. My hope lies in the growing trend of spiritual awareness. In people like witches, pagans, theosophists and the like. It lies in the knowledge that the coming millenium will act as a catalyst for a change in the world, a gradual change, but a change nonetheless. This is my hope. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alex, I am passing this on from Karl. Nick. > Date: Wednesday, April 24, 1996 3:30PM > From: Karl A Bryan > Subject: Re: FW: Thank you I would like to add the following: I feel that we should not be supporting the athletics industry by the heavy promoting and special treatment that sports gets in school. The academics get cut before the football and basketball are cut. We do need an outlet for stored up physical energy, but the outlet does not need to be in school. And as far as sports teaching team work and cooperation, bull crap. The team mentality is an us against them with a strong emphasis on dehumanizing the opponent (just listen to some of the cheers that the sanctioned cheerleader squads shout). The player with the most points is the school hero, eventhough the rest of the team set the stage for the making of points. And pity the team players who sit on the bench, they are recipients of derisive remarks. So, where is the team building and cooperation being taught? I feel that they are best taught in the classroom when you have assignments that require a collaborative effort to accomplish. But the pro sports would not have the screening (weeding out) of potential players if it were not from highschool and college athletics. Plus, the alumni are more inclined to donate money to their alma-mater if the school has a winning team. Our countries focus on sports is an escape from focusing on the real problems of society. karl > Subject: FW: Thank you > Author: nlporreco@bpa.gov at Internet > Date: 4/23/96 7:13 PM > From: theos-l > Subject: Re: Thank you > Date: Tuesday, April 23, 1996 1:32AM At 05:20 PM 4/22/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>cut<<<<<< >With good reason at least here in the U.S. The Religious Right objects to public education but for anything BUT the reasons which cause you and I to object to it. I have students in several countries and believe me education is in a parlous state in more places than the USA. But the point is, the Religious Right objects to our system as being not fit for THEIR agenda, and they could acre less about a proper education. All they're interested in is rigid discipline and pseudo-morality. > >The performance of our public education, especially >considering the amount of money spent, is dismal compared to other countries. >The complete inability for parents to get involved in their childs education >is another factor with more and more control moving to state and federal >levels. Money per capita, when compared with actual as opposed to statistical results is, in fact, dismal in the USA where we spend infinitely more money to get equally poor results. Parents however, are far more likely to be unwilling to be involved in their children's educational progress than they are unable to be so. Most of what's wrong both in education and in life itself here in the USA as it relates to children and their upbringing is almost total parental refusal to take responsibility for their children and to be responsible parents. > >Obviously, I'm a big supporter of alternative education including vouchers, >tax credits for education expenses, etc. Here in Minnesota, gambling is tax >deductable but education isn't! I would be willing to support a "voucher system" providing it was not possible to spend the vouchers at religious schools. Now as to "gambling is deductible" am I right in assuming you mean "gambling losses"? Well, of course, they should not be deductible. But educational costs are certainly appropriate deductions, even to religious institutions. I just don't want tax money to go to support some religious agenda. > >Even members of our local school board have told me that they wouldn't >put their own kids into the public school...not to mention the number >of student sucides lately here. I remember talking to the kindegarden >teacher at the public school when considering to put my son there who >told me that my son is too advanced and would only be entertained >for a year since they teach to the lowest common demoninator. I have two adopted sons, both of them extremely bright and talented kids (or rather they were Kids some years ago)They both had problems in high school because they were far brighter than their peers. One of them went on to Berkeley and got a degree in Slavic Languages, the other is currently in Yale, but he's really going to end up an artist-craftsperson. I myself went to public schools a very long time ago and frankly no public school system is geared for the bright child. > >Granted, there is a fringe of radical right that would cut out >education that does not agree with their views and I certainly don't >support that. However, I can understand the views of concerned >parents who are opposed to some of the stuff taught to their >kids. > > > -Mike Grenier > mike@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com > The problem, I think, is to radically improve education and to prevent the Radical Religious Right from coopting the situation for their own purposes. The kids aren't really the problem. Irresponsible parents are, and basically incompetent "time server" teachers are! That's what requires fixing. When parents become more responsible, and teachers become more competent, the kids will be well served. But there's one other question. Considering that our teachers in the USA are vastly underpaid considering the value of their product, and to go along with that they are the objects of almost totally disrespect by American society, what can we expect? alexis dolgorukii From blafoun@azstarnet.com Wed Apr 24 18:58:20 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 11:58:20 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604241858.LAA11740@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Book Question Nick RE: The Incidents in the Life of Mme. Blavatsky by A.P. Sinnett. I have just called Ayer and they say the book is still in print for $28.95 PLUS shipping. Their order number is 1-603-922-5105. Daniel Caldwell >Nick, > >Arno Press has been bought by Ayer. My hand-me-down Books in Print >(1993/94) shows the book you are looking for (i.e. the reprint) >as still in print at $25.50. Maybe it's out of print now, but you could >see whether they have any copies left. > >The address is (as of the 1993/94 Books in Print) > > Ayer Co. Pubs. > PO Box 958 > Salem, NH 03079 > 603-669-5933 > >Try your local public library or the nearest book store for a more recent >edition of Books in Print to check on the title and the publisher address. > >Elisabeth Trumpler >Head Librarian >Olcott Library & Research Center > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, Porreco, Nick - CPMQ wrote: > >> >> Dear Nicholas, >> >> I tried to find Arno Press both on the internet and via information but >> could not locate them. Do you think they are out of business. >> >> Nick. >> ---------- >> From: theos-l >> To: Multiple recipients of list >> Subject: Re: Book Question >> Date: Monday, April 22, 1996 3:00PM >> >> >> >Does anyone know if "Incidents In the Life of HPB" by Sinnett is still in >> >print. I ran across an old expensive copy but would rather not buy it, if >> >it is still in print. >> >> Dear Nick, >> >> The Arno Press, NYC, did a reprint in 1976. Whether they have reprinted >> again, or any remainders are left of that run or if anyone else has >> reprinted it, I don't know. >> >> Best, >> >> -- >> Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles >> "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight >> cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble >> presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) >> > > From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 19:03:45 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:03:45 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424190345.00695044@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB's anthropology At 10:32 AM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: Paul: This is an excellent and very well thought out response. I very much hope your scientific colleague will provide the precise you mention. It's something really needed. The Theosophical-religionists have a totally ridiculous belief about Adepts. Francis Bacon (and even CWL classed him as an Adept) was one of the smartest men who ever lived, as he himself said: "I have made of all human knowledge, my field of provenance", and in many ways he did. He also knew absolutely nothing about the advances in scientific knowledge that were to come and so were he to materialize in our midst today, for the first few months he'd be as ignorant as can be. As to Rich's emphasis on Darwinianism that just displays an unawareness of modern viewpoints. We know today that Darwin was as wrong about some things as Blavatsky was. alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist >Rich responded to Alexis's comments on the second volume of the >S.D., and made a comment that seems to me illustrative of >difficulties in Theosophical dialogue; also illustrative of >inflated ideas about adepts. Rich writes, "I do not actually >know of any scientific evidence being brought forward that >would disprove her claims...I find myself willing to give HPB >the benefit of the doubt, at least for the time being. Yet I >am perfectly willing to attend to counter-evidence, if such can >be brought forward (in DETAIL, not in sweeping >generalizations), which weakens or entirely ruins HPB's stand." > >Sounds quite reasonable. But when contemplating a response, I >realized that the burden of proof here was immense and unfair. >What the position seems to come down to, Rich, is "I refuse to >believe that HPB was wrong about anything unless you prove it >to me by exhaustive demonstration and argument." And the >person who tries to prove it to you gets the dubious pleasure >of being immediately perceived as an "attacker" of HPB and the >Masters. Since I have a very slim knowledge of evolution >myself, the challenge is doubly intimidating. To make the >obvious point (obvious to anyone without a vested interest in >the matter) that HPB's anthropology is hopelessly incompatible, >not just with prevalent scientific *theories* but with amply >demonstrated *facts*-- I have to run the risk of sectarian >anger and hostility, as well as condemnation as an ignorant >amateur. And for what possible benefit, to me or anyone else? > >Responding is triply difficult because the library is being >carpeted today and I cannot even run to the reference shelves >for a book from which I could select some counterevidence. >So what I will do instead is ask Mike Mueckler, a research >biologist, to comment on the evolutionary scenario laid out in >the Secret Doctrine and its compatibility with scientific >knowledge as opposed to theory. I hope he is willing to offer >a moderately detailed commentary. > >As for how an adept could believe in or purvey doctrines that >are "absolute nonsense" from a scientific point of view, I >don't see any conflict here at all. Only an inflated view of >adepts' knowledge would make it seem inconsistent. Tibetan >Buddhist lamas, Sufi shaykhs, Vedantist gurus, Rosicrucian >adepts, etc. etc. have preserved esoteric transmissions through >the centuries while also purveying unscientific theories about >various subjects. Since it is relatively easy to identify >people in history who qualify as "adepts" in various >traditions, and not one of them can be shown to have demonstrated a >complete grasp of what-is-now-contemporary science, the burden of proof should >be shifted here. Rather than, "Prove that an adept can >possibly be wrong about a scientific matter," the challenge >should be "Prove that there has ever been a single adept who >was *not* wrong about *lots* of scientific matters." If you >turn around and say, "but by definition, an adept is always >right," the inevitable riposte is, "by *that* definition, >adepts have never existed." > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Apr 24 17:59:52 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 13:59:52 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604241904.PAA29362@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: TS/Theosophy/theos-l Dear Doss, Thanks. That was very well put. I'd just like to clear up one detail of your statement. There is a difference between furthering the "brotherhood" of humanity, with which I fully agree, and just forming a "nucleus", with which I do not agree. If we're going to practice "Brotherhood" let's include in everyone who can trace their roots back to The One. I think that includes not only all of humanity, but also all of creation.We're all interrelated, & we should all look out for everyone & everything else, as good as we can. A tree can give me shade, & maple syrup, I'll give it water & jube spikes. OK? Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS of canda, HR From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 19:14:54 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:14:54 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424191454.006861f8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: anthropology-biology At 11:11 AM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >Paul Johnson writes: > >So what I will do instead is ask Mike Mueckler, a research >>biologist, to comment on the evolutionary scenario laid out in >>the Secret Doctrine and its compatibility with scientific >>knowledge as opposed to theory. I hope he is willing to offer >>a moderately detailed commentary. > >Daniel comments: > >Mike Mueckler, from what he has written on alt.religion.eckankar, and from >what little >I posted here on theos-l, is what I would call a materialist. He believes >humans are just >material bodies. There is nothing to leave or survive the death of the >body. Consciousness >is just part of the workings of the brain and nervous system. There is no >soul, spirit or >consciousness to leave the body during life or even at death. Furthermore, >there are no >"higher" or "lower" planes of existence, however you might want to phrase >it. Muecker >does NOT believe in the existence of any psychic or paranormal phenomena, >even of >telepathy. > >Daniel: First I want to thank you for your kind gift of your book on HPB. I really appreciate it. When my book comes out you will be among the first to receive one. Now as to this posting: I got the impression that Mike Mueckler is being recruited to this discussion for the purposes of giving the scientific view of the most contemporary scientific attitudes regarding the Anthropology presented in Vol II of the Secret Doctrine. His views on the transcendent are totally irrelevant to this service. He's been recruited to tell us what science now knows about the development of the Human Race. This discussion has nothing to do with extra-physicality. When we are speaking of the developmental changes which took humanity from Homo-Erectus to Homo-Sapiens, we're talking physical evolution. My own objections to Anthropogenesis deal with the complete invalidity of it's depiction of physical things. In fact, anthropogenesis has only to do with the physical. There is no spiritual difference between people of allegedly different races. But the information pertaining to those races, as depicted in the S. D. are wrong in view of modern Post-Darwinian scientific knowledge. I say knowledge rather than "theories" because that, I think, is what we're dealing with. cordially: alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 19:24:06 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:24:06 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424192406.0067ffac@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "Lighten up" At 12:43 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: > >I'm sorry it effected you negatively Alex, > >To me it simply says that you get out of a situation what you bring to it. > And I think this applies on all levels. And that we need to spend more >time looking within then without. So take a half full glass and have a >drink of "Lighten Up" . > >Nick. > ---------- >Nick: The only "negative effect" of that poem was to make me speculate that it's author should "Lighten up" too.My point being that the author of the poem portrays a contemptuous viewpoint regarding the spiritual searches of others. Some folks, in fact a majority in my experience, first have to look out wards before they can look inwards without total self-absorbtion, also I think the author should remember that in spiritual searching their are many paths and all of them are valid for those whose proper pathways they are. I also cannot help but wonder from what perspective the author presumes to rate other peoples searches in such general and sarcastic terms. I didn't take it personally because all the Gods know I am a Theosophist and we are all above personal things. alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist Shaman, Healer, Psychic From blafoun@azstarnet.com Wed Apr 24 19:24:10 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:24:10 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604241924.MAA23539@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Bodies--a dead horse Jerry S and Jerry HE-- I have been closely reading your series of comments and replies to each other. Yes, I agree that as of now, this subject is a "dead horse". But going through the posts I found that one of you would say, HPB says this or CWL taught that but neither one of you quoted the source. Therefore, it is hard for the other participant as well as the rest of us to know exactly what specific source you were referring to. It may have been more informative if both of you would have quoted extracts from HPB or CWL to ILLUSTRATE your points. Then the other participant and the rest of Theos-l would have seen what you, in fact, were talking about. I realize that such a process might have been laborious..... Jerry HE said in one of his posts that he believed Jerry S. misunderstood the planes/principles as given by HPB. I believe Eldon in previous posts had said something to that effect. Unfortunately, this has never been gone over in enough detail to resolve the problem. * Details are might important not only in historical studies but even in discussing philosophical/metaphysical subjects.* Yet most people want to talk only in vague, generalized terms........even when it comes to Theosophy. Would the two of you be willing to start over again??!! Probably not :( Daniel Caldwell >JHE >>> For HPB, bodies are independent entities that >>>come into existence either at the death of the physical body, >>>or through an extraordinary act of will. >etc, etc, ... > > Jerry, I think I will simply agree to disagree >at this point. Our discussion, to date, has, if nothing >else, illustrated my point concerning the sorry state of >TS terminology. There is really not a whole lot more >to say on the subject for I am no closer to understanding >your rationale than when I started. > >For Dan, and anyone else interested, I will close with >a quick look at how I see one body--the astral: > The astral body is the body or vehicle that >our consciousness focuses through while on the >astral plane. We can shift consciousness to this >body via yoga or magic and make observations on >the astral plane (psychism to say the least, but it can >be done, more or less correctly). When we fall asleep, >we function in this very same body, but now it is called >our dream body. In both instances, the astral body is >connected to the physical via the sutratman or Silver >Cord. After death, this psychomagnetic link is broken >and we find ourselves in the same astral body, but >now it is called the kama-rupa because we are now >in the post-mortem state of kama-loka. The >astral, dream, and kama-rupa ('desire form') bodies >are the same, but given different names according to >how we function in them. Although this is my own >personal belief-system here, I know of nothing in >the literature that would discount it or contradict it, >and it has the benefit of linking the CWL/AB model >with the HPB model, at least to a degree. It also >has the benefit of agreeing more or less with >mainstream occultism and magic. I can't >help but wonder why HPB didn't just use the koshas >(sheaths) as they are taught in Vedanta instead of >giving us "principles" which muddied the waters >right up to today. Does anyone know where she >got the word "principles" from? What is the >Sanskrit derivative, if there is one? > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Apr 24 18:24:02 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 14:24:02 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604241928.PAA10159@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: starting over >Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 01:17:52 +0100 >From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" >To: theos-l@vnet.net >Subject: Re: the ES >Message-ID: > >In message <9604232343.AA00230@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins > writes >>Sincere and devoted workers >>with the best of motivations can work to further the aims of the >>most ill conceived plans as well as the productive ones. IMO, >>its time to start over. >> >>JHE > >Sadly, yes. > >Alan >--------- Agreed, it's sadly time to start over. Trouble is, to me, the "starting over" on this mailig list often reminds me of a cow chewing her cud. So, hay, what's NEW, folks? Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 19:42:04 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:42:04 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424194204.00673e58@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Karl from Alex At 01:59 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: > > First I want to thank Nick for passing this message along. Second: I wonder if there's some way I could send you some of my political essays? > > alexis > > To start off with, I notice that you choose to sign your > name in small caps. This is how I prefer to sign, it lends > more credence to my belief that my name (like my body) is > only a transitory phenomena in my life wave. I share your views here, but I also use lower case because the name itself is far too upper case. > > It never ceases to amaze me, the large number of religions > that held women in equal status with men. Yet if you were > to ask the average citizen here, what is the major religious > belief system in the world. They would probably answer, > christianity. (the same goes for what is the most widely > spoken non-oriental language, most people do not realize > that it is Spanish). My point is, it is hard for people to > accept women in an equal status when the basic core beliefs > place women in a distant second position (with alternative > lifestyles in the far distance if even on the board). > Womens rights movements do have one thing in their favor, > easy access to communication. The struggle for equality on > multiple fronts is easier when you realize that you are not > the only one struggling. Well I've been in the struggle with so many others for so long I know I am not alone, at least in the civil rights struggle. In my struggle against "The Triad" I feel somewhat more exposed. The only Religion I know of that is currently totally sexually non-specific is Shamanism. Historically the Druids (who were an outgrowth of Shamanism) were also sexually non-specific. Every mainstream religion on this planet currently oppress women. > > I am in total agreement with your statement of > christianities "enshrinement of ignorance". I left the > catholic church after I was chastised for reading books that > were on the banned books reading list. The priest told me > that the list was to protect the parishoners from ideas that > could lead us astray. I argued that GOD had given me a > brain to use and for me to blindly follow anothers ideas > without using my own GOD given abilities was an affront to > GOD. Needless to say, the discussion broke down shortly > after that. I can imagine they did. I have had such discussions myself with Catholic Clergy many times. I only got somewhere once. I enjoy arguing with Jesuits though, their wits tend to be sharper than their dogma. But I agree with you entirely (obviously) if we have the intelligence to make decisions and choices it is hardly accidental. > About your comment on Cuba; I believe that if the US had not > been so arrogant and had recognized Cuba (after all, the > Cubans had just done what the US had done to England > centuries earlier). The seige mentality that Cuba has been > living under would not have happened. With the massive > education of the populace, the powers within Cuba would not > have been able to keep in place all of the restrictions on > personal a political liberties. It is the seige mentallity > that has been used to enforce the restrictions. The lack of > education in the US is why it is easy to convince people > that the anti-terrorism bill is for our own good. Little do > the people know that the bill will restrict our rights and > do very little (if anything at all) to prevent terrorism. > > karl Except for very minor points I largely agree with what you say. Their revolution was against the Cuban Government, while ours was against a Foreign Government. But that aside what you say is completely true. The main problem is that we, and more important still The Cuban People, are "stuck" with the bad results on both sides of the equation. America did the wrong thing (even when viewed from it's point-of-view)but Castro did the wrong thing in response. There's just too much Machismo in all of Castro's activities, The US blockaded and embargoes Cuba, that's a given, he did NOT have to become a tyrant in response. US actions just don't excuse The Isle of Pines concentration camp. U.S.actions don't excuse the violent oppression of dissent or of dissenting sexuality. Two wrongs never make a right. Let's keep this discussion going. alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist > > From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 19:44:53 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:44:53 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424194453.006a30b0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To KArl from Alex (2) At 02:01 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: > >>>>.cut<<<<< > > > I would like to add the following: > I feel that we should not be supporting the athletics > industry by the heavy promoting and special treatment that > sports gets in school. The academics get cut before the > football and basketball are cut. We do need an outlet for > stored up physical energy, but the outlet does not need to > be in school. And as far as sports teaching team work and > cooperation, bull crap. The team mentality is an us against > them with a strong emphasis on dehumanizing the opponent > (just listen to some of the cheers that the sanctioned > cheerleader squads shout). The player with the most points > is the school hero, eventhough the rest of the team set the > stage for the making of points. And pity the team players > who sit on the bench, they are recipients of derisive > remarks. So, where is the team building and cooperation > being taught? I feel that they are best taught in the > classroom when you have assignments that require a > collaborative effort to accomplish. But the pro sports > would not have the screening (weeding out) of potential > players if it were not from highschool and college > athletics. Plus, the alumni are more inclined to donate > money to their alma-mater if the school has a winning team. > > Our countries focus on sports is an escape from focusing on > the real problems of society. > > karl > >______________________________ Reply Separator >_________________________________ Karl: Hooray...hooray I agree with you at least 500%! Have you been picking my brains? >grin< alexis From blafoun@azstarnet.com Wed Apr 24 19:41:58 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:41:58 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604241941.MAA01214@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB's anthropology: A request to Alexis Alexis, You write: > We know today that Darwin was as wrong about some things as >Blavatsky was. But still we (the collective we on theos-l) do NOT know exactly what HPB was wrong about! For the nth time, could you please provide us with a few specific examples. We don't need a lengthy essay just a few examples with a little detail. I don't mean to be confrontational but I have no idea what you are referring to since I cannot read your mind. Hoping that you will give us a few examples and also thanking you in advance, Daniel See my P.S. below. P.S. Did you get the book? From alexei@slip.net Wed Apr 24 19:47:38 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:47:38 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960424194738.0068fd3c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Anthropogenetic "Nonsense" At 02:15 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis: >>It is my impression that Darwin has long been replaced by Alfred Wallace's >>competing theory and other's far more contemporary in our scientific >>thought. Arguing with Darwin is like arguing with Karl Marx they are both >>hopelessly outdated. > > Darwin *is* outdated. There has always been holes in >his theory. Today these "exceptions" are no longer being ignored. >One of the new theories, that I like, is the idea put out by Margulis >and others to the effect that evolution is a co-operation where >the process of symbiosis is more important than survival of the >fittest. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Jerry: I am inclined to think it really depends on species and generae. alexis From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Apr 24 18:48:21 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 14:48:21 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604241952.PAA25712@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: re: HPB anthropology Good stunt, Daniel! I'm trying to think of what I believe consciousness is. I've listened to tapes about it. I think Ravi Ravindra talked about it, but I really don't know what consciousness is. It is something aware ... maybe aware of itself. It creates universes out of itself, & everything that's in them. When I try to think of how people create, they most often aren't aware of themselves, they just have aquired certain skills, & then draw something out of themselves. It requires a certain effort, but I'm not sure that the effort need be self-conscious. It requires skill, ingenuity, a certain playfulness, also adventurousness. It makes a big Bang, & here's this whole universe DNA, with hopes of unfolding. You create some more, it doesn't quite come out right, so you fix it a bit here & there, until it comes out to your liking. Some planets are hotter, some cooler, try out different gas mixes. Ha! here's water. It can sustain life. When yo get to people, which way do they need to walk. I guess backwards & forwards ... no maybe just forwards is better. You may try out putting eyes on either side of of a forhead, or maybe one would look better in back of the head. No, no, that's not too swift. You may play around & try curly hair, or straight hair, or kinky hair. Those are some of the manifestations of consciousness, but what is it? Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Wed Apr 24 18:24:38 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 14:24:38 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604241824.OAA26230@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Re: HPB's anthropology In-Reply-To: <199604241506.IAA13315@web.azstarnet.com>; from "Blavatsky Foundation" at Apr 24, 96 8:06 am According to Blavatsky Foundation: > "higher" or "lower" planes of existence, however you might want to phrase > it. Muecker > does NOT believe in the existence of any psychic or paranormal phenomena, > even of > telepathy. > > It would be interesting to see what he would write about the SD, etc. BUT I > would rather > , for example, see Mueckler and David Lane for example have an intelligent > discussion and debate on their differing points of view when it comes to > what consciousness is, are there psychic phenomena, is there life after > death, are there "worlds" or dimensions or planes beyond the physical, etc. Mike wrote that he knows a renowned anthropologist who might be induced to comment on the SD version of anthropogenesis. We'll see. But regardless of the descent from higher planes etc., there are large elements of HPB's description of the history of physical man that simply do not come close to fitting the data unearthed in the subsequent century. > > Paul, it would be interesting to see you engage in a dialogue or discussion > with Mueckler > on these subjects of the paranormal, etc. HINT, HINT! > At the moment I am completing the third chapter/part of Edgar Cayce in Context, entitled "Holistic Health Advisor." Next week I start the fourth and last, called "Clairvoyant Time Traveler." Am now finishing reading Richard Broughton's Parapsychology: the Controversial Science. (Broughton is head of the lab at Duke founded by Rhine.) The point is, my opinions about the paranormal are evolving at the moment, and I won't be free to engage in any discussion for another month or so until the first draft is complete. Maybe then... But I will make one comment, relevant not only to Cayce but also to the SD's anthropology. In reading Broughton, I have learned that clairvoyance and telepathy (not distinguishable experimentally and thus lumped together as general ESP) are *extremely* well documented phenomena. Thousands of subjects have demonstrated higher-than-expected rates of success at distant viewing, precognition of events, awareness of others' thoughts. But in a field that abounds in *multiple cases of clairvoyance and telepathy involving the present and future* it appears that there is *not a single documented case* of anyone able to clairvoyantly travel into the *past* and come up with confirmable data. At least, there is no mention of such a thing in this seemingly comprehensive book. Anyhow, why don't *you* (hint, hint) engage Mike in discussion. Although you don't state them, I suspect that your views on the paranormal are considerably more definite and honed than mine. Cheers PJ From blafoun@azstarnet.com Wed Apr 24 20:13:38 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 13:13:38 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604242013.NAA14397@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB's anthropology: Thoughts on what Paul and Alexis have written Paul, You write: > To make the >obvious point (obvious to anyone without a vested interest in >the matter) that HPB's anthropology is hopelessly incompatible, >not just with prevalent scientific *theories* but with amply >demonstrated *facts*-- I have to run the risk of sectarian >anger and hostility, as well as condemnation as an ignorant >amateur. And for what possible benefit, to me or anyone else? Paul, would you pleeeeeeeease state some of the things in HPB's anthropology which you believe are "hopelessly incompatible, not just with prevalent scientific theories but with amply demonstrated facts"? Are you really that afraid of being the target of "sectarian anger and hostility"? Just put on your David Lane armor!! I would hope that anyone on Theos-l that would respond to your comments on HPB's anthopology, would respond with facts, reasoning ,etc. * Discussion of controversail subjects on Theos-l should be an OPPORTUNITY to share and exchange ideas; an OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN from others.....to listen, really listen, instead of automatically responding even before the other person has finished typing!* I think Alexis has put forth on theos-l alot of INTERESTING ideas. For example, (1) HPB was a lesbian; (2) Morya was......., Koot Hoomi was........ (3) Annie Besant was a conscious fraud. (4) Much of what HPB wrote on rounds and races is absolute nonsense. Now, I assume that Alexis truly beleives these things. And as far as I am concerned, he has a perfect right to believe all of this. But what I find disappointing is that Alexis, as far as I know, has not provided us with enough facts, details, data, and his reasoning, etc., for holding these beliefs. No, I am not saying that Alexis HAS TO GIVE US ANY FURTHER INFORMATION. No, he doesn't have to. But if Theos-l is suppose to be a forum for discussion, dialogue which can lead to everyone learning more, enlarging our understanding of things, etc., then the participants need to learn how to share their knowledge and insights with other people on the list........It's called Communication. [NOTE: Alexis, I am not picking on you.] And, Paul, I also have certain doubts about what HPB has written on lost civilizations and races. I just don't understand alot of it. Maybe if you will write one or two pages on HPB's anthropology (and risk the bricks and stones), maybe somone else on Theos-l can calmly show with facts and details where you are wrong. Maybe not. Daniel From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Thu Apr 25 15:31:06 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 08:31:06 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <317F9ABA.4A1F@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: HBP"S Somebodies Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would like to pass on a humerous incident from Olcott's Old Diary Leaves that I have so much enjoyed reading. It gives a human look at the time of 1875 when they were working on Isis Unveiled and he says that it was written in 4 different ways, one of which was 4 Mahatmas using HPB's body as a writing machine while she went off in her astral body and attended to her occult business. Olcott calls them Somebody I, Somebody II etc, and can tell by the physical expression and the handwriting just who is in the body at any given time. Here is a paragraph from Vol 1 page 249 "But I wish to say again, as distinctly as possible, that, not even from the wisest and noblest of these HPB Somebodies did I ever get the least encouragement to either regard them as infallible, omniscient, or omnipotent. There was never the least show of a wish on their part that I should worship them, mention them with bated breath, or regard as inspired what they either wrote with HPB's body, or dictated to her as their amanuensis. I was made simply to look upon them as men, my fellow-mortals; wiser, truly, infinitely more advanced than I, but only because of their having preceeded me on the normal path of human evolution. Slavishness and indiscriminate adulation they loathed, telling me that they were usually but the cloaks to selfishness, conceit, and moral limpness. Their candid opinions were frequently vouchsafed to me after the departure of some of these flattering visitors, and it would have sent any of my readers into a fit of laughter if they had been there one evening after a gushing lady had bade us good-night. Before leaving she petted HPB, sat on the arm of her chair, patted her hand and kissed her on the cheek; I standing near by and seeing the blank despair depicted in the (male) Somebody's face. I conducted the lady to the door, returned to the room, and almost exploded with merriment when the ascetic Somebody - a sexless 'sadhoo' if there ever was one - turned his mournful eyes at me and in an accent of indescribable melancholy said, "She KISSED me!" It was too much; I had to sit down." I really recommend this book for information therein about psychic things and the start of the Society, the whys and wherefores and the method of writing Isis is really interesting. Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From nlporreco@bpa.gov Wed Apr 24 20:43:00 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 13:43:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: To Daniel - Book Question Message-Id: <317E9216@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 87 TEXT Thanks Daniel for the phone number. When I got their number from the information operator the other day and dialed it, a recording said that it had been disconnected. It was a different number from what you gave me. Thanks again for your help. Ciao, Nick. > Date: Wednesday, April 24, 1996 3:09PM > From: theos-l > Subject: Re: Book Question Nick RE: The Incidents in the Life of Mme. Blavatsky by A.P. Sinnett. I have just called Ayer and they say the book is still in print for $28.95 PLUS shipping. Their order number is 1-603-922-5105. Daniel Caldwell >Nick, > >Arno Press has been bought by Ayer. My hand-me-down Books in Print >(1993/94) shows the book you are looking for (i.e. the reprint) >as still in print at $25.50. Maybe it's out of print now, but you could >see whether they have any copies left. > >The address is (as of the 1993/94 Books in Print) > > Ayer Co. Pubs. > PO Box 958 > Salem, NH 03079 > 603-669-5933 > >Try your local public library or the nearest book store for a more recent >edition of Books in Print to check on the title and the publisher address. > >Elisabeth Trumpler >Head Librarian >Olcott Library & Research Center > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, Porreco, Nick - CPMQ wrote: > >> >> Dear Nicholas, >> >> I tried to find Arno Press both on the internet and via information but >> could not locate them. Do you think they are out of business. >> >> Nick. >> ---------- >> From: theos-l >> To: Multiple recipients of list >> Subject: Re: Book Question >> Date: Monday, April 22, 1996 3:00PM >> >> >> >Does anyone know if "Incidents In the Life of HPB" by Sinnett is still in >> >print. I ran across an old expensive copy but would rather not buy it, if >> >it is still in print. >> >> Dear Nick, >> >> The Arno Press, NYC, did a reprint in 1976. Whether they have reprinted >> again, or any remainders are left of that run or if anyone else has >> reprinted it, I don't know. >> >> Best, >> >> -- >> Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles >> "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight >> cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble >> presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) >> > > From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Thu Apr 25 16:01:54 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 09:01:54 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <317FA1F2.522D@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: TS/Theosophy/theos-l References: <199604241904.PAA29362@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit liesel f. deutsch wrote: > > Dear Doss, > > Thanks. That was very well put. > I'd just like to clear up one detail of your statement. There is a > difference between furthering the "brotherhood" of humanity, with which I > fully agree, and just forming a "nucleus", with which I do not agree. If > we're going to practice "Brotherhood" let's include in everyone who can > trace their roots back to The One. I think that includes not only all of > humanity, but also all of creation.We're all interrelated, & we should all > look out for everyone & everything else, as good as we can. A tree can give > me shade, & maple syrup, I'll give it water & jube spikes. OK? > > Liesel > Member TI, TSA, TS of canda, HR Just a little aside to this. Olcott says that The Society sprang from interest by some persons to study occult phenomena and the Theosophical Society was formed for this purpose. "The Brotherhood plank in the Society's future platform was, therefore, not thought of: later on, however, when our sphere of influence extended so as to bring us into relations with Asiatics and their religions and social systems, it became a necessity, and, in fact, the corner-stone of our edifice." Would this suggest that the Brotherhood bit was to start with was to overcome racist prejudices in the ordinary sense and not the deal with the spiritual oneness of all? This appears to have come later after the SD was written. Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 24 23:11:29 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 19:11:29 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960424191129_198284454@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Aristotle Alex, I'm not sure that Aristotle qualifies as an adept. If you will look in the manual that we get when we become enlightened it clearly states on page 4,897, paragraph three, that philosphers cannot be adept at anything but philosophy. Don't blame me, that's what the manual says. Now Aristotle's pupil Alexander, he was an adept. Chuck the Enlightened Barbarian MTI,FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 24 23:12:39 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 19:12:39 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960424191238_198285364@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: president jimmy Alex, Actually, WQJ wanted to be called Quan, but no one had the nerve to do it. Chuck the Never Boring Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 24 23:12:33 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 19:12:33 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960424191232_198285270@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Fatherly corrections Alex, Thank you but I have the strange feeling that Eldon was writing to Rich Ihle, not me. Of course, I could be wrong. With Eldon it is a little hard even for us enlightened beings to figure out. (If the crew at Huizen in 1925 could declare themselves airheads-er-arhats, then we can call ourselves enlightened.) Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 24 23:12:50 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 19:12:50 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960424191249_198285462@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: New ideas, new feelings Paul, But think of the fun you miss by not having a rigid, inflexible and high-strung in-group to annoy. Half the fun of being in theosophy is watching people sputter. The other half is finding the non-rigid ones or discovering that ones you thought were inflexible aren't. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic TRoublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Apr 24 23:12:54 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 19:12:54 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960424191245_198285440@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: THOU SHALT LIGHTEN UP Alex, But I thought we were superior! Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Apr 24 23:43:27 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 18:43:27 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Eaten Messages Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII To identify the problem of not receiving msgs, I sent a msg to theos-l which was rejected with a message that I am not subscribed to it. So I subscribed to it and then re-sent the message. Anyone who is not receiving messages should do the same. However if you are not subscribed you will not get this message. Interesting situation. ....doss From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Apr 24 15:14:42 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 16:14:42 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Happy Birthday In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960424063217.00681994@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960424063217.00681994@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >>Alan: Happy birthday! Think of it if you had my family genetics you'd have >some 40 years to go! My Mother will be 90 on May 4th and to hear her talk >about it she isn't pleased! My mother was 86 on April 2nd, and she isn't pleased either. She suffers far more severely than I do from arthritis. She told me she never expected to live so long - but what a peculiar bonus! >I went to Alexandria West Sunday and it's the >most totally heavnely place! I also saw Jerry Hejka-ekins library...."Oh >Lord did I lusteth!" It's totally fantastic, if I didn't live so far from >him I be there every day from morning to night. >Studying my butt off! Sigh .... must be nice to meet some real people :-) > >alexis dolgorukii >The Eclectic Theosophist Fondly, Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Apr 24 15:19:12 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 16:19:12 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Nazis etc. In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960424064638.0068a164@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960424064638.0068a164@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes > This >business of HPB being the inspiration for the Nazis is a very old cabal. >Pauwels and Bergier first mentioned it to a wider public in "Morning of the >Magicians" but there's a of of literature regarding both the intellectual >inspiration of Nazism and the Occult inspiration. The German OTO is a major >player. Hmmm - what does your research on the German OTO come up with? Did Reuss (? - memory) have associations with the Nazis? Come to that, what of the current US OTO - I have a CD with a load of their rubbish (IMHO) on it. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Richtay@aol.com Thu Apr 25 00:49:27 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 20:49:27 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960424204926_521353743@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Adepts and anthropology Paul writes, > What the position seems to come down to, Rich, is "I refuse to > believe that HPB was wrong about anything unless you prove it > to me by exhaustive demonstration and argument." I will admit that I am biased towards HPB, though I myself have found minor mistakes in her Sanskrit, Tibetan, and a few over-generalizations. But this is a THEOSOPHICAL list. Most participants are THEOSOPHISTS. This doesn't mean slavish adherence to one or another school of Theosophy, but an A PRIORI attitude that Theosophy is generally true, and worth investigating. So yes, let me "come out of the closet" as a Theosophist who is inclined to accept HPB's teachings unless there is GOOD evidence that she was wrong about something or other. But people need not take my view of things. There is no enforcement of Theosophical orthodoxy (or even orthopraxy) here. In fact, a good number of people on the list seem to revel in iconoclasm. Good for them. But I don't apologize for putting the burden of proof on those who hold positions disagreeing with HPB. Nonetheless, with the small background I have in science in general (an astrophysics major) and with a little sub-interest in current trends on evolution, I think I am willing to bring forward current study and thinking (from Stephen Jay Gould, Fritjof Capra, Amit Goswami, Gary Zukov, Erich Jantsch, Michal Murphy, etc. etc. etc.) which can be seen as supporting one or another aspects of HPB's anthropogenesis. This doesn't mean that I am foolish enough to believe that scientists in the mass will tomorrow -- or ever !! -- come around to HPB's position. Nevertheless, to dismiss the anthropogenesis of HPB (and lest we forget, her Teachers) as "nonsense" out of hand with no SPECIFIC references, and ignoring current paradigm shifts in progress, seems shallow and near-sighted. Science is shifting, changing all the time. Gray heads are seldom converted to a new paradigm -- generally, those who hold the fort die off, leaving younger and more agile minds to carry on the work in subtly or radically new directions. I submit that we are in the midst of such a scientific "paradigm shift" now (borrowing the phrase from Thomas Kuhn, *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions*) and that, if I read current trends aright, HPB is looking better and better year by year. A minor point of correction: the date for Homo Sapiens has been pushed back from 70,000 BC to about 2 million BC the last few decades. One radical group of scientists (no, they're not Theosophists) push the date back to 10 million BC on good evidence, which I can discuss next time. That's more than half-way to HPB's date of 18 million for the division of the sexes and incarnation of Manas during the 3rd root race. I think we shouldn't be so quick to write the Old Lady off. Paul writes, > it is relatively easy to identify > people in history who qualify as "adepts" in various > traditions . . . If you turn around and say, "but by definition, an adept is always > right," the inevitable riposte is, "by *that* definition, > adepts have never existed." Well, Paul, here we disagree. I think true Adepts are NOT that easy to spot in history, and I think you are using the word Adept (along with Alexis) in your own way. Fine. But HPB meant it in the sense of Mahatma, or close to it. If you don't believe such Mahatmas have ever existed, so be it. This is not a tenet required of any Theosophist (that's another discussion). But I will state that I do believe in Mahatmas, as foolish as that may seem to some. Let them laugh. This is the Theosophical board, not the post-modern board. Those who believe in Mahatmas need not offer any apologies, nor need they belittle those who think differently. It seems HPB was wrong about more than anthropology, however. By your definition, Paul, she made up the entire Great Lodge and her personal teachers as well. --- ooops, I forgot you've written three books on that topic. From Richtay@aol.com Thu Apr 25 00:49:32 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 20:49:32 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960424204931_521353810@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: anthropology-biology Alexis writes, > When we are speaking of the developmental changes which took humanity from > Homo-Erectus to Homo-Sapiens, we're talking physical evolution. Alex -- this is the heart of the matter. HPB's entire work goes to try and show that NOTHING in evolution is purely physical, even below the "Abyss" that Jerry S. is fond of speaking about. According to the S.D., and really HPB's lifework, evolution is TRIPLE: physical, mental and spiritual. And of the three, the physical is the least important from the point of view of Causes. The physical, we are told (and it makes sense) reflects the PSYCHIC and SPIRITUAL needs of the organism in order that it may manifest according to its (evolving) nature. To reduce evolution, even a short stretch of it, to purely physical adaptation, is to really buy into materialistic science far more than you may recognize. Rupert Sheldrake is one of those offering a far more comprehensive view, along with the position mentioned by Jerry S. of symbiosis. > In fact, anthropogenesis has only to do with > the physical. There is no spiritual difference between people of allegedly > different races. Is this true? From our first appearance on this planet, has humanity gained not an inch of spirituality? Again, this strikes me as prevarication: "spirituality" can refer to one's relationship to the Absolute. In this, it seems, not only are all humans, but all manifestation, in exact parity. But "spirituality" can also refer to monadic development. As in, "Self-consciousness" meaning not merely mental awareness, but consciousness of the SELF. In that sense, people vary widely. I cannot speak for the races today definitively (who can?) but at the risk of being accused of being quite a racist, I will point out that various groups of people are known for having specialized in something or other, and having developed it to a high degree. Indian thinkers are well known for the heights of spiritual abstraction which they have attained, soaring far above the material world -- while thinkers in East Asia are generally excellent at explaining Spirit in Nature, a more manifest spirituality. You will never find haiku becoming a fad among Hindu ascetics. There are interpersonal differences, there are international differences, and it doesn't seem too far of a stretch to suggest racial differences, particularly when one considers not the races on the earth now (which are largely amalgamated, and hardly distinct even physically) but races which have come and gone. What was the LAKSHANA or specific mark of the Atlantean compared to the Lemurian or the Fifth Race person? From Richtay@aol.com Thu Apr 25 00:49:35 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 20:49:35 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960424204934_521353862@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: anthropology-biology Alexis writes, > But the information pertaining to those races, as depicted > in the S. D. are wrong in view of modern Post-Darwinian scientific > knowledge. I say knowledge rather than "theories" because that, I think, is > what we're dealing with. This is mighty confident, Alexis. Congratulations -- that's really one of your strengths. But if you are alive in 20 years we should chat again and compare notes. I can almost GUARANTEE that half the "knowledge" of today will become fodder for the "exploded theories" section of textbooks on the history of science next century. From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Wed Apr 24 22:26:17 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 15:26:17 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9604242226.AA18205@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: re: New ideas, new feelings Paul Johnson writes: >In response to JHE's comment that theos-l is a place where one >can learn new things: it missed my point. JHE This is hardly surprising. I can't recall ever writing a response to you that has not missed *your* point. Actually, my reply was not addressing your point. Since I had never accessed medit-l, I had no bases to evaluate your point in the first place. Rather, I was trying to diplomatically make a point of my own, and to send you my best wishes for your discovery of a board that better fits your needs. The point I was trying to make was that perhaps you are being a little harsh in categorizing theos-l participants as "inflexible." As I mentioned, different people have different capacities for flexibility and inflexibility. KPJ >My comparison to medit-l was not focused on whether >it is possible to gather informative nuggets, but rather on the >possibility of engaging in discussion with people who are >*actively in process of transforming their minds, emotions, >bodies...* rather than defending their boundaries. JHE I understand you saying that you experience medit-l people to be more into "transforming their minds" and theos-l people more into "defending their boundries." My personal experience with transformation is intimately connected with new information and perceptions that brings new realizations, that bring new points of view, that bring new attitudes, that bring new feelings.... This is one way I and many others experience transformation. But perhaps your process is different. Nevertheless, Liesel's posting of a medit-l contribution yesterday gives me an idea of what you are finding to be attractive. It appears that the discussions center around meditation and personal experiences garnered from its practice. The sample posting struck me as quite appropriate for the subject matter. I have seen posts on theos-l concerning experiences garnered from meditation or some mystical practice or psychic experience which have much the same tone. But we don't see postings of this type very often--do we? Perhaps, the discrepancy between the two boards has more to do with the mystic/occultist paths. In other words, perhaps different people have different methods of transforming their minds and emotions. Some are attracted to mysticism while others to occultism. It seems that theos-l tends to attract those inclined to the occult path, while medit-l tends to attract those inclined to the path of the mystic. KPJ >The rigid vs. flexible continuum is the objectively-observed >result of a subjective tense vs. relaxed continuum. People who >are psychologically or mentally tense are prone to >behave in ways that manifest this outwardly. For example, >taking rigid positions and defying the world to disprove them. >Or describing everything that is not "in-group" approved as >being an attack by infidels. Whereas, psychologically and >mentally relaxed people, who are more common in ARE than in >Theosophical groups, tend to *act that way* in being more open >to new ideas, less easily threatened, less defensive. JHE For instance, ARE people are more "relaxed" in accepting your published thesis concerning the "myth behind the Masters"? Perhaps the best way to test this idea is for you to write a book on "the myth behind Edgar Cayce's controls." and see how "mentally relaxed" ARE members become. I am suggesting here that people's attitudes tend to be situational. I can sympathize with your negative experiences with some people in the TS and on theos-l, because I have had experiences much like yours. But I'm also aware of the actions on my part that brought forth those "mentally tense" reactions. People tend to be "relaxed" as a natural state, until they are threatened. I submit that you will find this to be equally true with the people at ARE as well as the people on medit- l. Perhaps an interesting line of inquiry might be: what threatens people on theos-l?; what threatens ARE members?; what treatens people on medit-l? But to return to my point; I think I can make it by quoting Richard Ihle: "Godspeed" JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From rdon@garlic.com Thu Apr 25 01:41:53 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 18:41:53 -0700 From: rdon@garlic.com (Rodolfo Don) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TS/Theosophy/theos-l >liesel f. deutsch wrote: >> >> Dear Doss, >> >> Thanks. That was very well put. >> I'd just like to clear up one detail of your statement. There is a >> difference between furthering the "brotherhood" of humanity, with which I >> fully agree, and just forming a "nucleus", with which I do not agree. If >> we're going to practice "Brotherhood" let's include in everyone who can >> trace their roots back to The One. I think that includes not only all of >> humanity, but also all of creation.We're all interrelated, & we should all >> look out for everyone & everything else, as good as we can. A tree can give >> me shade, & maple syrup, I'll give it water & jube spikes. OK? >> >> Liesel >> Member TI, TSA, TS of canda, HR > Liesel, I wish to bring my opinion on this subject. I don't see any difference between 'furthering the Brotherhood of Humanity' and 'forming a nucleus of Brotherhood of Humanity'. First, we have to agree that there is already a 'Brotherhood of Humanity'. We know that we all are rooted in the One Ultimate Reality, so the Brotherhood is a reality whether we realize it or not. What we are trying to do IMO in the Theosophical Society, is to have a group of people who are conscious of that Brotherhood. This nucleus will in turn influence the rest of humanity to attain this realization. But we have to start somewhere. That is why we need a nucleus. Eventually that 'realized Brotherhood' will be shared by all humanity, and the world will be a totally different world. I agree with you that: >> If we're going to practice "Brotherhood" let's include in everyone who can >> trace their roots back to The One. I think that includes not only all of >> humanity, but also all of creation.We're all interrelated, & we should all >> look out for everyone & everything else, as good as we can. A tree can give >> me shade, & maple syrup, I'll give it water & jube spikes. OK? Rudy THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL Web: http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Richtay@aol.com Thu Apr 25 01:58:28 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 21:58:28 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960424215827_198427958@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Bodies--a dead horse Jerry S. writes, > Jerry, I think I will simply agree to disagree > at this point. Our discussion, to date, has, if nothing > else, illustrated my point concerning the sorry state of > TS terminology. There is really not a whole lot more > to say on the subject for I am no closer to understanding > your rationale than when I started. WHAT ?!?! Give me a break. JHE was making extremely good sense, and I couldn't wait to see what you were going to come up with next. Your latest, Jerry S., makes me think that you really found JHE convincing and didn't know what to say back. For my part, I think JHE has demonstrated CONCLUSIVELY that CWL was really doing something completely different from HPB. The fact that you can't understand what JHE is saying seems to prove this point, and suggests that CWL couldn't understand it either. Thus, he made up his own system. From eldon@theosophy.com Thu Apr 25 10:01:04 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 03:01:04 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425100104.00682588@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: The Gang of Four and "Religion" Alexis: [writing to Chuck] >>There are some who think that the TS is going to be the >>groundwork for a world religion. There are some people >>who would like to see us go to hell, so maybe this does >>qualify as a religious list. NAH! >NAH! is right, and it's right cause you and Alan and JRC >and Jerry Schueler and I won't let it! I detect humor here, but some readers might miss the irony and get mad at what they read. I don't think that the Theosophical Society is suitable to form a future world religion. But I do think that the results of the theosophical movement, including the dissemination of the theosophical doctrines, will help germinate future western religions. These religions will still have to arise of their own accord, with or without our help. You have trouble with the word "religion", but seem to appreciate the religious, the sacredness of life, and the grandeur and majesty of the inner life. Not having those associations, I still find the word useful in talking about the creative, self-becoming aspect of life that seeks to bring forth more into the world and seeks out of compassion to uplift and enlighten sentient beings. Modern religions are poor containers for the life that they hold. They have a short shelf-life before the contents spoil. But *that life they hold* is precious, in its early years. Some religions are good for perhaps a few centuries before needing major reforms. Others spoil more quickly. Such bottles and containers are important for the majority of the human family, until more and more people discover *inner springs* and not need the bottles anymore... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the four of you are *anti-religious*, just anarchist in temperament. That is, you don't want someone else to even have the appearance of telling you what to do or think. And fundamentalist religions exemplify the extreme of telling people what to do and think. Therefore, we have the aversion to religious groups. But it is not religion per se, nor religions still backed by an inner light, that you object to, but dead religions that spiritually entomb and suffocate their followers. -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Thu Apr 25 10:02:08 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 03:02:08 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425100208.00682ca8@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: History and the Politically Correct In the April 15, 1996, issue of "Newsweek", there is an short note on history tests and politics: "Makeup Test: More History, Less P.C." "When the National Center for History in the Schools issued its first set of teaching standards back in 1994, the flag hit the fan. Critics railed that these voluntary guidelines, detailing what students K-12 should learn about American and world history, were so P.C., so self-consciously multi-culti, that they distorted the national heritage. The standards contained 17 references to the Ku Klux Klan, for example, and 19 to McCarthyism, but no mention at all of Paul Revere or Thomas Edison. But now, it seems, the light bulb has gone on. Last week the center, based at UCLA, released new recommendations with the revisionist history substantially revised. Some comparisons:" "How the West Was Won" "Old: Describes the 'restless while Americans [who] pushed westward' and how, 'animated by land hunger and the ideology of "manifest Destiny",' they 'engaged in abrasive racial encounters with Native Americans.'" "New: The word 'white' is omitted. And another reason for expansion is cited: 'the optimism that anything was possible with imagination, hard work and the maximum freedom of the individual.'" "The Cold War" "Old: Calls the cold war 'swordplay of the Soviet Union and the United States,' and says it 'led to American intervention in many parts of the world.'" "New: 'The Cold War set the framework for global politics for 45 years after the end of World War II.' Mentions the 'messianic nature of Soviet communism' as a cause." "Slavery" "Old: Stressed 'the forced relocation of Africans to the English colonies.'" "New: Also discusses slavery in African societies." "Big Business" "Old: Teachers are advised to 'conduct a trail of John D. Rockefeller on the charge of "knowingly and willfully participating in unethical and amoral business practices."'" "New: No crimes-of-capitalism trails." ---- What does this show us and how can we learn from this in our theosophical circles? We see what happens in standard politics. People don't strive for a balanced position, but carry things to extremes. Why? To tilt the scales in the desired direction as much as possible. The intent is to effect change in others, rather than inform and teach. On theos-l, we may sometimes see the same thing happen, as people take extreme positions or make extreme remarks. They are not seeking to inform or teach, as much as to give people a hard push in a certain direction. How can we tell when this is happening? When someone taking an extreme position refuses to acknowledge any good at all in other views. They would say "my way is the *only* way," rather than "my way is a good way, because of this and that, although I acknowledge that these other ways have merit as well." -- Eldon From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Thu Apr 25 03:13:49 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 20:13:49 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9604250313.AA21469@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: re: Bodies--a dead horse Daniel Caldwell writes: >I have been closely reading your series of comments and replies >to each other. Yes, I agree that as of now, this subject is a >"dead horse". But going through the posts I found that one of >you would say, HPB says this or CWL taught that but neither one >of you quoted the source. Therefore, it is hard for the other >participant as well as the rest of us to know exactly what >specific source you were referring to. It may have been more >informative if both of you would have quoted extracts from HPB >or CWL to ILLUSTRATE your points. Then the other participant >and the rest of Theos-l would have seen what you, in fact, were >talking about. I realize that such a process might have been >laborious..... JHE Daniel, I also agree that the dialogue is a "dead horse," but I disagree that quoting HPB and CWL would have saved it. Rather, the dialogue may have had an earlier death. Since Jerry S and I both claim to be very familiar with both CWL's and HPB's teachings, and have read the same books, I would think that a dialogue without "illustrations" should have been easily accomplished without one having difficulty following the other. On my part, I had no problem identifying Jerry S's descriptions of CWL's teachings, and had a pretty good idea which book he had in the back of his mind. In the one case where Jerry S had also drawn from HPB's teachings to support his arguments, I also had no problem recognizing that material either. On Jerry S's part, however, he mentioned at least twice that he was unable to follow my rationale. But I question whether my quoting HPB would have helped him understand it. If Jerry's problem had been that he did not recognize the information I was drawing from, all he had to do was ask: "where is your support for that statement?" In such a case, I would have gladly provided the necessary quotes. So, I think we might have to look elsewhere for Jerry's difficulty in following me. As for you and anyone else who bothered to read these posts in the first place, I think my not quoting HPB in every other sentence was an act of kindness to all of you. If I had done so, my posts would have turned into laborious 12 page megillahs that nobody except perhaps martyrs like you would want to plow through. If there was another reader who did not find something clear, I would have been happy to make a clarification if asked. No doubt Jerry S would have done the same. If you were confused, you could have asked for a clarification too. But my guess is that you are much too familiar with this material to have really been lost. On the other hand, if Jerry S were to have stated up front that he was not familiar with CWL's and or HPB's writings on the subject, the format of the discussion would have been entirely different and I would have taken the time to give references. But even in this discussion, I recall making it very plain that for CWL, I was using his model as published in ~Man Visible and Invisible.~ If the discussion had continued, and specific areas of disagreement became evident, I would have been obliged to narrow in on specific references. In the case of my last post, I had already anticipated that Jerry would turn the discussion to the function of the "Astral Body" in life and in the after death states, so I had already taken the time to prepare a comparison between HPB's description in the ~Key~ and CWL's ~To Those Who Mourn.~ Jerry's final post proved that my anticipation was correct, but I failed to predict that he would cut off the dialogue. So my preparation turned out to be a waste of time after all. Continuing your point about using quotes, my recent post to Kim Poulsen on "bodies" and "tattwas" serves as an illustration of how I try to format the discussion based upon the needs of the reader. When we began the discussion, Kim was up front that he had no CWL literature, and was basing his discussion on an ES Instruction in vol. 12 of the B:CW. Therefore in my response, I made very short quotes and cited page numbers from that text. When I had to go outside of the material under discussion, I think I also cited those sources. But there was no sense in citing references to CWL when he didn't have the texts to look them up. DC >Jerry HE said in one of his posts that he believed Jerry S. >misunderstood the planes/principles as given by HPB. I believe >Eldon in previous posts had said something to that effect. >Unfortunately, this has never been gone over in enough detail to >resolve the problem. * Details are might important not only in >historical studies but even in discussing philosophical/ >metaphysical subjects.* Yet most people want to talk only in >vague, generalized terms........even when it comes to Theosophy. JHE The aim in my dialogue with Jerry had nothing to do with his alleged understanding or alleged lack of it. It was to simply communicate to him the differences between HPB's and CWL's schemas and to show that they are inconsistent. I obviously failed to do so. Whether the problem lies with my lack of clarity or Jerry's ability or willingness to understand my "rationale," or in an unrecognized problem is another question. As for "vague, generalized terms," may I point out to you that I posted in my own words some rather precise definitions of planes; principles; bodies; vehicles etc. according to HPB and CWL in an early post. Jerry S did not question or challenge these definitions, so I continued upon the bases of them. If he had questioned or challenged these definitions, I would have been obliged to pull together the necessary quotes, even at the risk of losing reader interest. So I submit that the dialogue did not break down because of vagueness and generalities--at least not on my part. DC >Would the two of you be willing to start over again??!! >Probably not :( > >Daniel Caldwell I think Jerry S has made his intentions clear, and I don't blame him. If I could not follow a discussion, I might also be reluctant to continue. However, if someone on this board wishes to continue this discussion concerning differences between HPB and CWL, I would be more than happy to start again. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From eldon@theosophy.com Thu Apr 25 10:49:11 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 03:49:11 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425104911.006969cc@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Welcome Alexis: [writing to LW] >The entire history of the "Mystery School Tradition" on this planet, and >that of "The Mystery Religions" themselves, and they are not identical >traditions, upholds my theory. It's very simple "No Adept - No Mystery". The requirement to have an Adept leading a school sounds similar to the Guru Yoga approach, like the approach in Tibetan Buddhism where the importance of a Guru is considered paramount. Do you think that a school or gathering of people approaching the spiritual Path is really useless without an Adept to lead it up? That would write off any theosophical lodge that tries to be something more than a book-study club. Perhaps, though, your definition of "Adept" is different than the traditional theosophical one. Do you mean by "Adept" an exceptional spiritual individual, with some form of inner awakening? If so, I wouldn't write off theosophical groups as being hopeless in this regard. -- Eldon From jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org Tue Apr 23 02:50:53 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 19:50:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <199604230250.TAA22288@igc2.igc.apc.org> Subject: Report of the Coulterville Judge Conf. and Alexandria West dedication The Centennial celebration of William Quan Judge and the dedication of the new site for Alexandria West Academy on April 12-14th at Coulterville California has now become a part of Theosophical history. The conference took place at the Jeffery Hotel in Coulterville. Coulterville is a gold mining town from the days of the gold rush. The town's population during the 1850's was over 5,000, but today it only has 115 permanent residents. Gold however, is still mined from "them thar hills." The Jeffery Hotel was first built in 1851 as a dance hall, but was soon converted. Its 19th century decor has been carefully maintained, along with that of the entire town. The hotel is also still owned and maintained by the same family who founded it. The town served as a perfect backdrop to give a feeling for the times that Judge had lived. Registration for the Judge conference began at 3 p.m. in the meeting hall at the Jeffery Hotel. A vegetarian dinner was served in the Hotel dining room at 5:00. The Conference began at 7:00 P.M. with welcomes and introductions followed by an ice breaker led by Vivian Caccione. The main presentation for Friday was a series of dramatic readings of memoirs from people who had known Judge, and from Judge's own letters. The Dramate Personae were: Annie Besant: April Hejka-Ekins H.P. Blavatsky: Lisa Lepperd J.H. Connelly, and E.T. Hargrove: Jerry Hejka-Ekins C.A. Griscom: Lee Renner William Q. Judge: Dale Ramey Julia Keightley: Marie Ramey Master M.: Dennis Gottschalk Colonel Olcott: Brett Forray The meeting broke up sometime after 9 pm. Some of the more adventuresome guests continued their activities in the Coulterville Saloon where they got acquainted with the local cowboys and miners. Saturday's activities began at 7:30 am with a continental breakfast in the Hotel dining room. The conference re-convened at 8:30 am in the meeting hall, where we began with greetings from the Pasadena and Adyar Theosophical Societies and reports on other Judge conferences. Following the greetings and reports, was a series of presentations beginning with Gabriel Blechman (ULT) who spoke on the special relationship between HPB and WQJ. Emmett Small (Point Loma) followed with a presentation entitled: "Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva." His presentation concerned the relationship of Blavatsky, Judge and G. de Purucker. Dara Eklund (Adyar/Point Loma) spoke on "WQJ: The Greatest of all Exiles," and Brett Forray (Adyar/Pasadena) spoke on the "Future of WQJ." Both presentations concerned various aspects of the "Judge Case." These two presentations were followed by discussion groups, organized by April Hejka-Ekins (Adyar/ULT/Pasadena). Lunch was served at noon, and the afternoon sessions concerned Theosophy in application. Lee Renner (Independent) conducted an interactive presentation on a comparison of the "principles" between Judge and Blavatsky. Alex Pappas (Adyar) gave a presentation of "Psychological and Spiritual growth," illustrating teaching by Judge on this subject. Richard Hiltner (Independent) gave a very unusual talk on Judge's teachings concerning healing. A vegetarian dinner was served at 6:00 pm., and we re- convened afterwards for stories from the "Occult Tales" written by Judge. These were presented by Tammey Gianini (Independent) and Lisa Leppert (Independent). Spontaneous contributions were invited, and Sobha Cherukuri (Independent) shared some thoughts on Judge's ~Bhagavad Gita.~ and read some passages in Sanskrit. The conference broke up for the night sometime after 9:30 pm. Sunday began at 7:30 am with a breakfast of strawberry crepes. Following breakfast, April gave an interactive discussion on Judge's teachings concerning theosophical ethics, followed by group dialogues on WQJ's contributions. At 10 am, we all caravaned to the 160 acre future site of Alexander West Academy for the dedication. The caravan stretched along the highway 134, moving away from the town for about a mile, then turned into the upper gate of the site. We then all drove another mile in from the highway over the Academy's scenic private road and arrived at the second gate. Beyond this gate, the road branches into three to access different ares of the property. We then all took a short walk along one of the roads, and again through a third gate, to the future site of the library building. The site was especially chosen because of its breathtaking view overlooking lake McClure and California's great central valley. The future building site is surrounded on three sides by hills covered with oak and pine trees, giving it a sense of being very remote from all civilization. Sobha Cherukuri opened the dedication by reciting the Gayatri and some other prayers in Sanskrit. Lee Renner then spoke on the history of the ranch site, which was first deeded under a Spanish grant in 1853. Jerry Hejka-Ekins then answered questions concerning the land and spoke about the goals and activities of Alexandria West. April gave thanks to the many "invisible helpers" who have made possible what has so far been accomplished. Jerry then unveiled the dedication monument. We then all had a picnic lunch on the site. After lunch, those wishing to explore the lands broke up into two groups. Lee led one group on a hike along one of the three springs on the property. Jerry, Bob Guiterrez, and April drove the second group up the very steep road (4 wheel drive only) to the top of Mt. Fuqua, the highest point (2700 feet) on the property. We then led hikes along the ridge, where we all took in spectacular views of the untouched tree covered rolling hills. Also the views of the lakes Mc. Clure, Don Pedro and Turlock on one side of the ridge, and of the Yosemite range of mountains on the other. Some also lingered to watch the hang gliders who use the summit of Fuqua as a jumping off place. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From nlporreco@bpa.gov Wed Apr 24 16:14:00 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 09:14:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: Re: THOU SHALT LIGHTEN UP Message-Id: <317E530C@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 61 TEXT Sure Liesel, Thanks for being courteous enough to ask. Nick. > Date: Tuesday, April 23, 1996 9:17PM > From: theos-roots > Subject: Re: THOU SHALT LIGHTEN UP That's nice. Can I pass it on to medit-l? I think they'd enjoy it. I'm going to make a paper copy so I can read it some times. Thanks. Liesel ........................................................................... > >The following is something I was given at Orcas Island one year. If you >already have it, I apologize, if not I hope it gives you a smile. > >Nick. > > > > > THOU SHALT LIGHTEN UP > >So, you've dabbled in the occult, burned candles gave up sex, >You've traveled to Sedona to visit the vortex. > You've meditated, visualized affirmed with love and grace, > You've forgiven all your irritants 'till you're blue in the face. >You've been est-ed and you've tested tarot and astrology, >You've met your guides from the other side and did past-life therapy. > So, you've been Rolfed and hypnotized, there's nothing you've avoided, > You've tried acupuncture, heavy breathing, been even Sigmond Freuded. >You've chanted mantras and you've om'ed and journeyed near and far, >You've seen many of the channels and taken every seminar. > You've floated in a tank and have gone the psychic route, > You've had your cards and wrinkles read, did Primal Scream to shout. >You burn incense in the afternoon, sometimes reflex your feet, >You've become a vegetarian and very seldom cheat. > You gave up salt and sugar and your diets really pure, > Although at times you still get gas, just why you are not sure. >You drink herb tee until you see the best in all, at last, >Your Kundalini's straightened and no longer at half mast. > You've had your aura cleaned and your Chakras lubed and tuned, > You've seen E.T. at least four times and two times for Cocoon. >You go to sleep with crystals and you wake up with a tape, >That subliminally instructs you, to get your mind in shape. > You've gone here and there and everywhere, tried everything you know, > The path that's called ENLIGHTENMENT is such a busy show. >So much to do and see and know, there are so many places, >For you to go so you are sure you cover all the bases. > But after all that's said and done and all the things you tried, > There is a truth that you should know, while you are on your ride. >The light you see that seems to be, coming from things you do, >Is only as bright as is the light that radiates from you. > > From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 25 16:14:21 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 17:14:21 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Theosophy International Introduction (Part Two) Mime-Version: 1.0 AN INTRODUCTION TO THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL PART TWO A PERSONAL VIEW by ALAN BAIN I have called this a personal view because Theosophy International, by its very nature, does not have a corporate view beyond the commitment of its members to its three objects. At the same time, each member's perception of the significance and interpretation of them will almost certainly vary in some measure or another, partly because of the understanding of the language used, and partly because each of us is likely to have different priorities, and different emphases. I begin, as is natural with the objects themselves. Those sections of what follows which are in quotes are from the Theosophy International statement of intent as it stands at the time of writing. Words or sections contained between asterisks are the internet equivalent of *italics* in print, and are used for emphasis. "THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises men and women who, of their own free choice, subscribe to the spirit of the three objects first formulated by the Theosophical Society, but in a more up-to-date form based on suggestions by members of the internet community, and expressed thus: "1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family, without distinction of sex, sexual orientation, creed, class, or color." The original Theosophical Society version of this object used the words "... a nucleus of the Brotherhood of Humanity" and a reference to "caste" which applied at the time to the people of India, but in which country the caste system is now illegal, and so the expression is redundant for the twenty-first century. The *concept* of a "Brotherhood of Humanity" and the spirit which lies within it is as noble now as it was in 1896, a hundred years ago. In direct proportion to the success of the ideal which does not discriminate against a person on grounds of their sex, the word "brotherhood" has lost its former connotation whereby the founders of the theosophical movement men and women alike, would all have understood the term to include both (or all) sexes. The importance of what is to me a spiritual principle inherent in the scheme of things, and which is the essence of the original concept of "brotherhood" lies in the recognition that all life is one, and all life in inter-connected. It is a *fact* in the scheme of things rather than a concept or ideal to be achieved. That does not mean that there is nothing to *be* achieved, far from it. If this view is accurate, the achievement lies firstly in *recognising* this fact, and secondly in putting the implications of it into practice. How this is to be done will vary from individual to individual, and there for now I will leave the matter. The question that does arise from this however, as another member of TI recently remarked, is the validity of seeking to "form a nucleus" - which could be seen as exclusive rather than inclusive, or even elitist. This could well be a matter for further and ongoing discussion - Theosophy International is not yet a year old! --------------------------------------- "2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative religion, theosophy, philosophy, and the scientific method, according to individual ability and inclination." The founders' second object was less specific, confining itself to encouragement, but lacking a commitment to *engage* in study. It seemed, when formulating the TI statement, that to encourage study without engaging in it could, in theory, lead to a situation where there existed a large number of people busily encouraging others to study, while precious few engaged in study themselves - a charge that has been levelled, with some justification, against the Adyar-based Theosophical Society as it stands today. Where TI has "scientific method" - seeking to indicate a disciplined approach to study - the original wording contented itself with the single word "science" - which in 1875 or 1896 had more value as a term, but what we *now* call "science" is in reality a conglomerate of very many *sciences* some of which bear little or no relation one to another. -------------------------------- "3. To investigate mysteries of nature and unrealized human potential and abilities, with an underlying respect for all life." This is the object which, in its original form, has been most frequently the subject of disapproval. It spoke of "unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man." Again, the term "man" has lost its nineteenth-century inclusive character, and is seen by more an more people as a direct and *singular* reference to the male sex. To continue using it today would be in direct conflict with the intent of the first object. "Laws" of nature have, during the past century, been shown to be variables, not constants, so that one person's explanation of the "unexplained" will vary from another's explanation of the same observed phenomenon. We even know that some apparent "laws" are directly modified by the fact of their observation! Nonetheless, there are still a great many mysteries, and the need to investigate them remains. As for "powers" latent in "man" - well, we have all seen, by means of one disaster or another, where the obsession to acquire "powers" has led the human race, through two major world wars and the Nazi holocaust, to the insidious, invisible and creeping horror arising from the effects of nuclear energy getting out of control, whether deliberately, as with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or by accident, as with Three Mile Island in the U.S.A. or Chernobyl in the former U.S.S.R. So, in Theosophy International we recognise that there exists "unrealized human potential" and ability, but we - or I - do not wish to see their development used as control mechanisms to make one person bend to another's will. And we include a reminder from the spirit of the first object to the effect that all life is one, by adding the words, "with and underlying respect for all life." "THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is a voluntary 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. All have the right to choose, without trace of coercion, the path by which they seek understanding. "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. "We hope to be of service, and to share what we have in amity with other theosophical, occult, and esoteric organizations, as also with like-minded individuals." Precisely because of the emphasis on *power* which has become the dominant impulse within the Adyar (India) based Theosophical Society from which other theosophical movements, including this one, owe their origin, and more especially because of the perceived *abuse* of that power, Theosophy International developed a non-hierarchical approach from the very beginning. Where there is no "leader" there can be no "followers" to manipulate. We seek to work through co-operation and consensus, as part of the inter-connectedness of the human family of which we are all members. And while we recognise that we are all brothers and sisters (or sisters and brothers!) within the family, we also recognise that family members do not always agree, and do not have the same needs or desires in life. We have set ourselves a daunting task in more ways than one. If we are to establish a genuine unity, it will be unity in diversity, not unity that depends upon faith in a creed, or allegiance to charismatic leaders. What I personally hope we shall be able to do is the *celebrate* our differences, to find joy in the diversity of human and indeed all life. To end on a personal note, my friend and I have a shelf on the window ledge outside the living room of my top floor apartment where food is placed for the birds. Some of the birds in this part of the world are seagulls, and there is one who, if there is no food ready when he arrives, taps insistently on the window pane until the lack is remedied. We call him Cyril. ------------------------------- To join Theosophy International, send an e-mail message asking to be registered to TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk or give your name and other details you wish to share to whoever introduced you. ---------------------------------------------------------------- "TI" has members in eight countries. Alan Bain --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 26 00:49:15 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 01:49:15 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: Register In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960426000706.006ead5c@qni.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 To Mark A. Foster: (cc: theos-buds) WELCOME to Theosophy International! > Mark wries: >Basically, I am a college >sociology professor (tenured) specializing in religious studies. I also run >a religious studies institute and am the academic director for a religious >studies foundation. I "own" the Medit-L list and three other spiritually >oriented lists, work for three CompuServe forums and one America Online >forum, and moderate another Internet list. I was the 1995 president of the >Kansas Sociological Society. I am also the executive vice-president, a >member of the board of directors, and talent for Tektite, Ltd. - a religion >film production company. > >Take care, > > Mark > We will, we will! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From mfoster@qni.com Fri Apr 26 01:54:00 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 20:54:00 -0500 From: "Mark A. Foster" Subject: Re: Register Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426015400.0068ddf4@qni.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:49 AM 4/26/96 +0100, Alan wrote: >We will, we will! Alan, I just checked out the web page. Nicely done. Mark From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 05:26:09 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 22:26:09 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425052609.00684088@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Yes, Indeed! At 02:51 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, alexis dolgorukii wrote: > >> Any esoteric school without an adept to lead it and teach it is totally >> invalid, > >Yes. Yes. A thousand times Yes. As ornate, detailed, and expensive as a >lamp is, it is still nothing but a lump of dead metal if its not plugged >into a current. And curiously enough, in the spiritual world, it seems >that as a general rule the complexity of the lamp's design varies >inversely with its proximity to the current. > -JRC > >JRC: How very, very true! And the further we get from Blavatsky's death, the morre ornate and prolix the so-alled "Theosophical Core Teachings become. What a loss! Not HPB of course, but the theosophical movement, and it's purpose as a service organization. alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 05:35:39 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 22:35:39 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425053539.006b1dd4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: differences: At 02:58 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: The Idea is not to "ignore differences" or to "pretend differences do not exist" but to welcome differences, enjoy them, and see them as the enrichment of life which they are. I have been involved in the Civil Rights movement since the early 1950"s, not because of some ideal of "Brotherhood" but simply because it was exactly the right thing to do. The denial of equal rights to anyone just isn't fair, and so I have spent a goodly portion of my life trying to rectify something that was wrong because it wasn't right. I was attracted to the theosophical movement because I believed it and I had shared goals. That belief is based on the movement's motto and upon it's three objects. Nothing else in theosophy is important to me. alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 05:54:30 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 22:54:30 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425055430.006b6464@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: worth a lot more than that At 03:01 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<<(the string was too long) Donna: I am afraid that I must agree, almost without reservation to everything you said in this terribly accurate posting of your observations. I too almost despair of finding a solution of this ever downwards spiral our country seems to be in. There are those who use the facile idea that "Oh well, when it hits bottom, it will have nowhere to go but up". But that is untrue, it is far more likely to hit bottom, and stay there. Russia has hit bottom, and we have yet to have any idea where it's going to go. The only consolation I have is that the world's absolutely most intractable problem, Malignant Nationalism, will perforce disappear when the Nations all hit "rock bottom" and of necessity have to cooperate to continue to survive. Not survive as nations but survive as individual humans. The many totally artificial Nation States, which were created under duress for the most part, are falling back into their original components all over this planet. Perhaps it's for the best, as what was put together by force needs to be replaced by a synergy in response to necessity and consensus. As to education, it is in equally dire straits all over the planet. "Going back to the Old Days" will achieve no results at all because we don't live in the "old days". I am constantly confronted by people who come to me for assistance or teaching, who are not simply abysmally ignorant but College Educated Abysmally Ignorant! I have a student, a musical genius/computer genius who lives in Lexington, Massachusetts and has never heard of Thoreau. I am constantly encountering equal catastrophes. I do not think our educational system is capable of repairing itself. There are just too many competing interests (the kids being the least of them) that stand in the way. I too see some faint hope in the alternative religious movements and in theosophy which I believe, was meant to serve as a moderator in these movements. But I see very little hope in Institutionalized Theosophy which has, I fear, become the very thing it was designed to combat...a religion. alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophists Shaman, Healer, Psychic From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 06:27:08 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 23:27:08 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425062708.006b5cd0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB's anthropogenesis At 03:47 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Alexis, > >You write: > >> We know today that Darwin was as wrong about some things as >>Blavatsky was. > > >But still we (the collective we on theos-l) do NOT know exactly what HPB was >wrong about! For the nth time, could you please provide us with a few specific >examples. We don't need a lengthy essay just a few examples with a little >detail. > >I don't mean to be confrontational but I have no idea what you are referring >to since I >cannot read your mind. > >Hoping that you will give us a few examples and also thanking you in advance, > >Daniel See my P.S. below. > >P.S. Did you get the book? > > >Daniel: I did get the book and sent you a message to that effect this morning. In any case, thank you very much, I appreciate it immensely and when my book is at at last "at large" I will see that you receive a copy early on. Now, as to my objections to the Anthropogenesis in the Secret Doctrine. I have discussed this with others in some detail but you obviously haven't read those postings. My objections are to the "Root Races", the Dating, and the inherent divisiveness that is part and parcel of this anthropogenesis. I don't know if you followed my discussion with Alan Bain re: the basic inspiration of Hitler's racist theories. But surely you are aware that there is a major segment of educated public opinion which considers Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine as a major source of Hitler's Racist theories. Now, I don't because I know what his sources were and they certainly weren't Blavatsky. But the S.D. contains material that give people just cause (they believe) to make such charges. If Homo Sapiens , and that's the only kind there is, is no more than 70,000 to 100,00 years old and the latest anthropological/paleontological studies all generally agree that is true. Then all the Anthropogenesis falls to pieces. If all of humankind is descended from a breeding stock of some 10,000 individuals, and this too is generally accepted, and if all the races are simply mutations of that one group in response to an entire congerie of influences ranging from environmental pressures, to simple survival and a thousand or so other influences in between the two, then the entire "Root Race Premise" falls apart. Homo Sapiens is a new species (my wolf is some 3,000,000 years old genetically) and it is a single species. That there was a precursor culture i personally have no doubt, but it certainly doesn't present adequate proof of it's existence to accept it as gospel. When you combine these, which are a very concise version of my objections, with my equal objections to the Cosmo genesis. I think you can understand why I prefer "Isis Unveiled" to the "Secret Doctrine"...... Now I personally believe that while Yelena Petrovna Blavatskaya was simply an "advanced Chela", H.P.B. was an Adept. Do I believe Adepts are infallible? No I don't, they don't make small mistakes but certainly can make big ones. Do I believe the contents of the Secret Doctrine were the result of ignorance on H.P.B.'s part? Partly, there was so very much less to know in that period of time. Do I believe that the "errors" were at least partially intentional? I do. I think H.P.B. was trying to create an intellectual equivalent of an earthquake in Western Materialistic Thought. Do I think he succeeded? I do. I personally love both H.P.B. and Helena Blavatsky as individuals, do I worship them? No, I certainly do not! Do I believe that to be a Theosophist you have to worship her? No, I do not! Do I accept the Secret Doctrine as a valid statement of truth? No I do not! Do I think you must do so to be a Theosophist? No, I do not! Do I believe in the Adepts? No, I do not believe, I know them to be real! Do I believe one has to accept the reality of the Masters to be a Theosophist? No I do not!What then must one be to be a Theosophist? One must be truly a philalethian, a "lover of truth". One must truly believe "There is no Religion Higher Than Truth". One must not simply agree with the three objects but desire to be actively engaged in supporting them to the highest extent of one's abilities. I believe that "living Theosophy" should make one an eclectic student of religion, philosophy, sociology, history, and all the sciences one can comprehend. I believe that "living theosophy" tends to make one a social liberal, or it should. I believe that "Living theosophy" should make one terribly curious about the "powers latent in humankind". I very strongly believe that an attempt to "Live Theosophically" would and should preclude joining the E.S. I believe that an attempt to "Live Theosophically" should preclude (almost automatically) a religious approach to the search for truth because, as I see it, religion precludes a search for truth. alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist Shaman, Healer, Psychic From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 06:55:22 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 23:55:22 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425065522.0068b3a0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Alexis responds At 04:21 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: > I think Alexis has put forth on theos-l alot of INTERESTING ideas. For >example, > >(1) HPB was a lesbian; >(2) Morya was......., Koot Hoomi was........ >(3) Annie Besant was a conscious fraud. >(4) Much of what HPB wrote on rounds and races is absolute nonsense. > > >[NOTE: Alexis, I am not picking on you.] > > >Daniel: As you can see I have done significant editing to keep the "string' from being too confusing. Let's "take it from the top". Now unlike some other folks on this board I do not believe that disagreement represents "picking on me", in fact I enjoy lively discussion. I only respond angrily when people make aspersions based either upon my rank or my sexuality. 1. H.P.B. was a Lesbian. Now Daniel, what do you want? Pictures? Old Love Letters? Personal testimony from women who went to bed with her? My Grandfather knew her, his very good friend Emil von und zu Sayn- Wittgenstein-Ludwigsburg knew her very well indeed. I think their word on the subject is relatively acceptable. Would you rather the rumor was true that she bore Emil a child? I obviously wasn't born when she was alive, my Grandfather was. Either he lied to me or he didn't. I don't believe he did, for there is no real motivation for him to do so. She was relatively unimportant factor in his life. Now, if you believe that her Lesbianism was too terrible to contemplate, that's your problem. 2. Why do you always use the phoneticised Koot Hoomi? It is not the proper spelling and most people who seriously study this material know it. In any case the Master "M' was, whether you approve of it or not, H.R.H. Chandragupta Das Maurya, Maharajah of Benares, and "K.H." was H.R.H. Kuthumi Lal singh, Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir. In spite of what some people think it's quite easily possible to be a Brahmin and a Maharajah, I have a very good friend who is both at once. Let me ask you this: Was it not the Maharajah of Benares whose family motto was: "There is no Religion Higher Than Truth". Did not H.P.B. herself testify that she saw her "teacher" among a group of Indian Potentates in London? Is a Maharajah not a potentate? Does not Theosophical mythology tell us that "M" was a reincarnation of King Asoka? Well the Maharajah of Benares was a direct descendent of King Asoka who founded the Chandragupta Dynasty. as to the Maharajah of Kashmir, the late Karan Singh, Maharajah of Kashmir was a friend of mine, he was the Grandson of Kuthumi. How else do I know? It's really none of either yours or anyone else's business. 3. No I didn't say that Annie Besant was a conscious fraud I said I thought she might be such a thing. It was CWL I said was a totally conscious fraud, or at least to the degree a pathological liar could be conscious of his frauds. Do I think Besant was a fraud? Yes I do. Why do I think so? Well I don't know if you've read "Elder Brother" by Gregory Tillett but I have, and frankly it totally demolishes Leadbeater and frankly, as she aided and abetted, her with him. 4. I have already responded to this question this evening, in an earlier posting. alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist Shaman, Healer, Psychic From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 06:59:31 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 23:59:31 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425065931.006918b4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: good thinking At 05:17 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >Just a little aside to this. Olcott says that The Society sprang from >interest by some persons to study occult phenomena and the Theosophical >Society was formed for this purpose. >"The Brotherhood plank in the Society's future platform was, therefore, not >thought of: later on, however, when our sphere of influence extended so as to >bring us into relations with Asiatics and their religions and social systems, >it became a necessity, and, in fact, the corner-stone of our edifice." > >Would this suggest that the Brotherhood bit was to start with was to overcome >racist prejudices in the ordinary sense and not the deal with the spiritual >oneness of all? This appears to have come later after the SD was written. > > > > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L > >Bee: That's extremely astute of you. I really think you are absolutely correct on the subject of the motivastion of the people who founded Theosophy. alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 07:01:12 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 00:01:12 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425070112.006a7bbc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Alexander At 07:13 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I'm not sure that Aristotle qualifies as an adept. If you will look in the >manual that we get when we become enlightened it clearly states on page >4,897, paragraph three, that philosphers cannot be adept at anything but >philosophy. >Don't blame me, that's what the manual says. >Now Aristotle's pupil Alexander, he was an adept. > >Chuck the Enlightened Barbarian MTI,FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Alexander was a God! alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 07:02:46 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 00:02:46 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425070246.006ad724@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: New ideas, new feelings At 07:23 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >Paul, >But think of the fun you miss by not having a rigid, inflexible and >high-strung in-group to annoy. Half the fun of being in theosophy is >watching people sputter. >The other half is finding the non-rigid ones or discovering that ones you >thought were inflexible aren't. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >TRoublemaker > >I agree, I agree, I agree! alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 07:04:51 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 00:04:51 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425070451.0069ebe4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Fatherly corrections At 07:22 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Thank you but I have the strange feeling that Eldon was writing to Rich Ihle, >not me. >Of course, I could be wrong. With Eldon it is a little hard even for us >enlightened beings to figure out. >(If the crew at Huizen in 1925 could declare themselves airheads-er-arhats, >then we can call ourselves enlightened.) > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Well, he seemd to start his effusion talking to someone named Chuck or maybe talking ABOUT someone named Chuck. But what I said was valid in either case. alexis the catalyst The Eclectic Theosophist Shaman, Healer, Psychic From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 07:06:46 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 00:06:46 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425070646.0069ce90@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: We? At 07:24 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >But I thought we were superior! > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Whaddaya mean we? That's what Princeps means doesn't it? alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 07:13:08 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 00:13:08 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425071308.0069a324@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Nazis etc. At 07:58 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960424064638.0068a164@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >> This >>business of HPB being the inspiration for the Nazis is a very old cabal. >>Pauwels and Bergier first mentioned it to a wider public in "Morning of the >>Magicians" but there's a of of literature regarding both the intellectual >>inspiration of Nazism and the Occult inspiration. The German OTO is a major >>player. > >Hmmm - what does your research on the German OTO come up with? Did >Reuss (? - memory) have associations with the Nazis? Come to that, what >of the current US OTO - I have a CD with a load of their rubbish (IMHO) >on it. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > Alan: Reuss was clearly a Nazi, actually a proto-nazi, as he was one before the rest of them. Once again a line to the Vehm. As to the current U.S. OTO it's simply "The Aleister Crowley Admiration and Chowder Society". You're completely right. Crowley was occasionally very astute, these people put out half-understood rubbish. It's all ego masturbation! Unfortunately the Hitler crowd was a great deal moe than that. Have you ever seen "The Triumph of the Will" by Lainie Riefenstahl? If you have, you know what I mean. If you haven't it's available on VHS, watch it and you will then know. alexis The Eclectic theosophist From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 07:18:17 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 00:18:17 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425071817.0068d124@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: thought At 07:51 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960424063217.00681994@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>>Alan: Happy birthday! Think of it if you had my family genetics you'd have >>some 40 years to go! My Mother will be 90 on May 4th and to hear her talk >>about it she isn't pleased! > >My mother was 86 on April 2nd, and she isn't pleased either. She >suffers far more severely than I do from arthritis. She told me she >never expected to live so long - but what a peculiar bonus! > >>I went to Alexandria West Sunday and it's the >>most totally heavnely place! I also saw Jerry Hejka-ekins library...."Oh >>Lord did I lusteth!" It's totally fantastic, if I didn't live so far from >>him I be there every day from morning to night. >>Studying my butt off! > >Sigh .... must be nice to meet some real people :-) >> >>alexis dolgorukii >>The Eclectic Theosophist > >Fondly, > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan: My Mother has Arthritis too, and as you know I used to. I'm going to ask Jerry H-E to put together something written about the Alexandria West agenda and plans and put it on the list. Seriously though, have you ever thought about coming to California. I know there's a finance problem but there's always a way to overcome such things. Maybe we could "fix up" the arthritis. I know you'd like to see California. No rush but let's meditate on it and I'll confer with my "specials" fondly alexis. From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 07:29:20 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 00:29:20 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425072920.006a7aa4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: anthropology-biology At 08:57 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis writes, > >> When we are speaking of the developmental changes which took humanity from >> Homo-Erectus to Homo-Sapiens, we're talking physical evolution. > >Alex -- this is the heart of the matter. HPB's entire work goes to try and >show that NOTHING in evolution is purely physical, even below the "Abyss" >that Jerry S. is fond of speaking about. > Richard: I am sorry but I don't think I can respond to this in anything like a reasonably intelligent way. We are at total cross-purposes and I don't think there's anyway I can get my ideas across to you and to be entirely truthful, I find your views of theosophy repugnant. I find them so because they represent everything I don't like about the current incarnation of the theosophical movement. Personally I think my interpretation of H.P.B. and his motivations and agenda are more valid than yours, and I find preoccupation with what I see is "Who's on first" unfortunate. I have no wish to be rude to you, and no desire to be antithetic, but I just don't have any desire to continue a discussion with absolutely no hope of any "meeting of the minds". alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist Shaman, Healer, Psychic From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 07:34:51 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 00:34:51 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425073451.0068296c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: At 09:04 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis writes, > >> But the information pertaining to those races, as depicted >> in the S. D. are wrong in view of modern Post-Darwinian scientific >> knowledge. I say knowledge rather than "theories" because that, I think, is >> what we're dealing with. > >This is mighty confident, Alexis. Congratulations -- that's really one of >your strengths. But if you are alive in 20 years we should chat again and >compare notes. I can almost GUARANTEE that half the "knowledge" of today >will become fodder for the "exploded theories" section of textbooks on the >history of science next century. > >Don't worry Richard, I will be, with my genes I can almost guarantee at least another 40 years, unless, of course, I get assasinated, which seems to run in my family. I do doubt that your guarantee will hold up.I can, I think, confidently assume that you believe that the Secret doctrine will "hold up", well, we'll see my problem though is that when all is said and done, I find the "Secret Doctrine" to be almost entirely irrelevant. And that, it is clear, builds an unscalable wall between us. alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic Theosophist Shaman, Healer, Psychic From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 08:01:21 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 01:01:21 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425080121.006b2dd0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: The Gang of Four ?????? At 11:13 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis: > >[writing to Chuck] > >>>There are some who think that the TS is going to be the >>>groundwork for a world religion. There are some people >>>who would like to see us go to hell, so maybe this does >>>qualify as a religious list. NAH! > >>NAH! is right, and it's right cause you and Alan and JRC >>and Jerry Schueler and I won't let it! > >I detect humor here, but some readers might miss the >irony and get mad at what they read. And what, exactly, do they have to get angry about? Do you mean to say there are some theosophists who want to turn it into a religion and force it on others? I hope not, even though I constantly am concerned about the trend towards the religious approach to theosophy so typified by Richard Taylor. > >I don't think that the Theosophical Society is suitable >to form a future world religion. But I do think that the >results of the theosophical movement, including the >dissemination of the theosophical doctrines, will help >germinate future western religions. These religions will >still have to arise of their own accord, with or without >our help. No Eldon that's not so. Now I will not presume to speak for the rest of the "Gang of Four" but as for myself, I don't want to see Religion, in any guise at all survive far into the future. I really do believe that H.P.B. would agree with me, especially in our time frame. And I must call your attention to Daniel's recent posting of the alleged K.H. Letter (letter 10 in Mahatma letters to Sinnett..first three editions) Whoever wrote that letter has a lower opinion of religion than most people. No lower than mine though. In fact, my book, written before I was aware of this letter, has very similar language. > >You have trouble with the word "religion", but seem to >appreciate the religious, the sacredness of life, and >the grandeur and majesty of the inner life. Not having >those associations, I still find the word useful in talking >about the creative, self-becoming aspect of life that >seeks to bring forth more into the world and seeks out >of compassion to uplift and enlighten sentient beings. Being not only a Shaman but a very active healer and psychic, I more than simply appreciate the sacredness of all life both inner and outer. But I cannot see religion has being properly present in that paradigm. Religion is about power and control and profit, and that is all it is about, now or ever in the past. Religion is the crystallization of spirit. Religion is totally dichotomous with spirit. Religion certainly has nothing to do with "enlightenment". > > >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the four >of you are *anti-religious*, just anarchist in temperament. >That is, you don't want someone else to even have the >appearance of telling you what to do or think. And >fundamentalist religions exemplify the extreme of telling >people what to do and think. Therefore, we have the >aversion to religious groups. But it is not religion per >se, nor religions still backed by an inner light, that >you object to, but dead religions that spiritually entomb >and suffocate their followers. > >-- Eldon Eldon: Your are certainly wrong, at least as you refer to me. I am absolutely anti-religious. I am in your lexicon far more of an extreme Libertarian than the classical Kropotkin/Bakhunin Anarchist. No, I don't want anyone to have even the appearance of telling me what to say or think, but that is hardly anarchist, America was founded by a bunch of people with the same attitude. I am no more of what you call an anarchist than was Thomas Payne, or Thomas Jefferson, or my own ancestors John Adams and Edmond Randolf. It's true though, that Fundamentalist Religions typify the extreme of oppression, but they're only a little bit worse than the rest. As I see it, all religions are dead, and none of them have any inner light, though certainly there are individuals that do. I want people free to develop and free their own inner light, in a way I'm a sort of anarchist as anyone who reads my book knows, but it's a kind of anarchy the human race won't be ready for in a thousand years. I assume the rest of the "gang" will post their own responses. alexis dolgorukii The Eclectic theosophist Shaman, Healer, Psychic > > > From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 08:17:33 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 01:17:33 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425081733.006a4d90@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Adepts At 11:59 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis: > >[writing to LW] > >>The entire history of the "Mystery School Tradition" on this planet, and >>that of "The Mystery Religions" themselves, and they are not identical >>traditions, upholds my theory. It's very simple "No Adept - No Mystery". > >The requirement to have an Adept leading a school sounds similar to >the Guru Yoga approach, like the approach in Tibetan Buddhism where >the importance of a Guru is considered paramount. Oh they are absolutely identical. "Guru Yoga" is very near in reality to a Mystery School. > >Do you think that a school or gathering of people approaching the spiritual >Path is really useless without an Adept to lead it up? That would write off >any theosophical lodge that tries to be something more than a book-study club. Eldon, I am afraid you're being obtuse. A "Mystery School" is one thing. A "group of people engaged in "spiritual" studies is an entirely different thing. A theosophical lodge can certainly be a place for serious study, but it is not, and cannot be, a "Mystery School" it isn't even a "school of esoteric ism". Considering your fear of the Third Object all any Lodge you'd approve of could be is a book study, and discussion group. > >Perhaps, though, your definition of "Adept" is different than the >traditional theosophical one. Do you mean by "Adept" an exceptional >spiritual individual, with some form of inner awakening? If so, I >wouldn't write off theosophical groups as being hopeless in this >regard. > >-- Eldon > No, I really don't think my definition is different than H.P.B.'s but it is different than the definition that The Theosophical societies have developed since her death. Let me make this totally clear. Adept=Illuminatus=Mahatma, and what they are individuals who, by the effect of their lives and activities make a distinct and significant change in the lives of all those who are their contemporaries. Usually these are changes for the better even if they don't seem so at the time. "Exceptional spiritual individual, with some form of spiritual awakening" is all too frequently the pose assumed by some Snake oil salesman like Jerry Falwell or sister Theresa. Though I assure you that this is not why I am writing/have written theosophical groups as "hopeless". I have far better reasons than that. alexis dolgorukii 'The Eclectic Theosophist Shaman, Healer, Psychic From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Fri Apr 26 03:46:33 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 20:46:33 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <31804719.52B1@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: good thinking References: <2.2.32.19960425065931.006918b4@mail.slip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit alexis dolgorukii wrote: > > At 05:17 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >Just a little aside to this. Olcott says that The Society sprang from > >interest by some persons to study occult phenomena and the Theosophical > >Society was formed for this purpose. > >"The Brotherhood plank in the Society's future platform was, therefore, not > >thought of: later on, however, when our sphere of influence extended so as to > >bring us into relations with Asiatics and their religions and social systems, > >it became a necessity, and, in fact, the corner-stone of our edifice." > > > >Would this suggest that the Brotherhood bit was to start with was to overcome > >racist prejudices in the ordinary sense and not the deal with the spiritual > >oneness of all? This appears to have come later after the SD was written. > > > > > > > > Bee Brown > > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > > Theos Int & L > > > >Bee: That's extremely astute of you. I really think you are absolutely > correct on the subject of the motivastion of the people who founded Theosophy. > > alexis dolgorukii > The Eclectic Theosophist I am beginning to get the idea that Theosophy to begin with was very piecemeal and evolved bit by bit over a period of time. Olcott says that when Isis was written neither he nor HPB were familiar with the later reincarnation theories that became part of Theosophy. They were writing their things in USA while Sinnet and Hume were doing their thing in India with the help of the Mahatmas. It seem to have been when they all met up that the teachings expanded into the SD type of affair. In USA it was phenomena that held Olcott's interest and HPB was at the centre of a lot of it and also publically busy argueing with many of their detractors. I get the impression that most of Isis and the SD were not written by the HPB that was Helena Blavatsky but her physical part was used by the adepts to write with. She herself did some bits but Olcott complains about the mess she made with her cut and paste method of writing. Have you read what he had to say about her temper and that of your relatives in general? A stroppy lot by the sounds of it. Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 25 12:45:11 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 08:45:11 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960425084511_382383791@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Rigidity/Flexibility Jerry, Who in their right mind plays fair? Get yourself a helmet. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 25 12:45:57 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 08:45:57 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960425084556_382384124@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: legitimate? Jerry, Actually, I think a REAL adept would do like Mohammed and crucify anyone who tried to stop him. Real adepts are never harmless. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Apr 25 14:22:01 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 09:22:01 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Future of Theosophy - What can be done? Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII If we look at the historical rise and fall of membership of Theosophical Society and all other organizations in the Theosophical Movement, it is apparent that starting from a few members in 1875, the membership grew for several decades and then started declining. The current status seems to be that while the organizations exist, the membership count appears to be lowest in the recent decades and may be declining (if anyone has facts to show otherwise please provide statistics.) It also appears that Theosophical Society (Adyar) is the only one which has largest membership and has lodges in a large number of countries around the world. Everyone has their own theory and opinion why the membership and popularity of TS Organizations did not keep pace with the increased interest in the New Age stuff. At the situation stands, it looks to me that if the present trends continue we may see further decline in the membership in the next decade. It is easy in hindsight to put the real or perceived blame on one or more things or one or more persons, one or more policies etc. After all it the members who are most important assets to any organization. Not the bank accounts, buildings, real estate assets. The latter can help. The question that arises in my mind is what we as individuals can do to further Theosophy so that it can benefit more and more of the masses? With the technological progress it is possible to reach mass audience more easily and quickly than ever before. Any ideas? ......doss From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 25 00:37:10 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 01:37:10 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: eaten In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , JRC writes >Say, > Anyone else having posts eaten & disappearing over the last >couple days? > -JRC I have wondered ... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 25 00:48:23 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 01:48:23 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: TS/Theosophy/theos-l In-Reply-To: <199604241904.PAA29362@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604241904.PAA29362@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. deutsch" writes >There is a >difference between furthering the "brotherhood" of humanity, with which I >fully agree, and just forming a "nucleus", with which I do not agree. If >we're going to practice "Brotherhood" let's include in everyone who can >trace their roots back to The One. I think that includes not only all of >humanity, but also all of creation.We're all interrelated, & we should all >look out for everyone & everything else, as good as we can. A tree can give >me shade, & maple syrup, I'll give it water & jube spikes. OK? Yes yes yes! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 25 00:43:10 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 01:43:10 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Consciousness In-Reply-To: <199604241952.PAA25712@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604241952.PAA25712@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. deutsch" writes >Good stunt, Daniel! > >I'm trying to think of what I believe consciousness is. I've listened to >tapes about it. I think Ravi Ravindra talked about it, but I really don't >know what consciousness is. Consciousness is a state of being. > It is something aware ... maybe aware of itself. Awareness is a function of consciousness. Therefore I can be aware that I am. I can be aware of what I do. I can be aware of more or less. The essence of theosophia is to be aware of more. I *am* consciousness. I *have* awareness. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 25 00:49:32 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 01:49:32 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: THOU SHALT LIGHTEN UP In-Reply-To: <960424191245_198285440@emout13.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960424191245_198285440@emout13.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alex, >But I thought we were superior! > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA WRONG! :-) alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 25 00:35:25 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 01:35:25 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: starting over In-Reply-To: <199604241928.PAA10159@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604241928.PAA10159@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. deutsch" writes >Agreed, it's sadly time to start over. Trouble is, to me, the "starting >over" on this mailig list often reminds me of a cow chewing her cud. So, >hay, what's NEW, folks? > >Liesel >Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR Well folks, what IS new? :-). I for one will be posting something on the TI version of the 3 objects shortly ... just waiting for flame-proof armor from Chuck ... [this is a *jest*] :-} Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 25 17:28:00 1996 Date: 25 Apr 96 13:28:00 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Adding My Two Cents Message-Id: <960425172759_76400.1474_HHL83-1@CompuServe.COM> Donna: > What circumstances are in existance now that would turn children >into psychopaths? And what kind of adults will this generation of child become? Good questions. I work with foster children, and have for over 30 years now. The new ones are infinitely worse than the old. The new generation of foster/abused children is too scary to contemplate. One problem that I have found--overly permissive and protective society today. Touch a child today, and you have child abuse. This is taught to children in schools, and all too soon they learn that they can pretty well get away with anything. My wife and I are almost ready now to quit with foster children. We have talked to several foster parents who were beaten badly by foster children. One husband was actually arrested for child abuse when he forced the "child" from his wife who was lying on the ground unconscious from the child's attacks. My wife recently threw a glass of water on a child who was throwing rocks at her and myself and threatening us with all kinds of bodily damage. She did this to try to calm the child down. She called the police for help, and was arrested for child abuse, but (after $1000+ for lawyers) the DA dropped all charges just before trial. A large percentage of foster parents in our area have been beaten or hurt by foster children, and none that I know of has ever abused a child, though many are (falsely) accused. It is a sad commentary on our country, when a small child looks you in the face and tells you that they can do as they please, and you can't stop them (and they are, of course, quite right). Its a whole different world than the one I grew up in. I cannot even imagine where this will end up. (The 9-year old girl who threw the rocks as us is now in a padded hospital room. But how long will it be before she is on the streets again?) Jerry S. Member, TI From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 17:49:09 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 10:49:09 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425174909.0068bf5c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: and again At 04:50 AM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>>cut<<<<<(to keep string at reasonable length) >I am beginning to get the idea that Theosophy to begin with was very >piecemeal and evolved bit by bit over a period of time. Olcott says that when >Isis was written neither he nor HPB were familiar with the later >reincarnation theories that became part of Theosophy. They were writing their >things in USA while Sinnet and Hume were doing their thing in India with the >help of the Mahatmas. It seem to have been when they all met up that the >teachings expanded into the SD type of affair. In USA it was phenomena that >held Olcott's interest and HPB was at the centre of a lot of it and also >publically busy argueing with many of their detractors. I get the impression >that most of Isis and the SD were not written by the HPB that was Helena >Blavatsky but her physical part was used by the adepts to write with. She >herself did some bits but Olcott complains about the mess she made with her >cut and paste method of writing. Goodness knows she'd have loved a computer word processor! Anyone who "cuts and pastes" does! But you know Bee I really think your analysis of "how it was" is pretty near the mark (Not having been there we'll never actually "know"). I myself, see a "gap" as it were between the motivations revealed in "Isis" and in the various records of the earliest T.S. Meetings and what went on later after the removal to India. It almost seems like a different organization altogether. The earliest motivation and/or agenda of theosophy was to introduce to the materialistic west certain ideas and principles that had been long forgotten by western thinking. Theosophy certainly succeeded in its informational purposes. I feel (and approve) that at least back then, Theosophy got coopted for the purpose of giving the Indian people their self-respect back and gaining Indian Independence from English domination. This was Theosophy's primary success. But it's been accomplished. What is there fore theosophy to do now? I feel that perhaps that's what groups like Theos-L are to "figure out". >Have you read what he had to say about her temper and that of your relatives >in general? A stroppy lot by the sounds of it. > > > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L Bee: I have the most wonderful ancient copy of "Old Diary Leaves" and I've read it several times. Yes I've read what he says about her temper. She's exactly like my Mother. As to the family, with Peter The Great and Ivan the Terrible in it, what can you expect? > From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 17:57:17 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 10:57:17 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425175717.00688a38@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:adepts At 09:38 AM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: >Jerry, >Actually, I think a REAL adept would do like Mohammed and crucify anyone who >tried to stop him. Real adepts are never harmless. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > True! Very True! alexis dolgorukii the eclectic theosophist Shaman, Healer, Psychic Member: "Gang of Four" (more welcome) From alexei@slip.net Thu Apr 25 18:03:18 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:03:18 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425180318.00688b40@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: happy face! At 12:41 PM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <960424191245_198285440@emout13.mail.aol.com>, >Drpsionic@aol.com writes >>Alex, >>But I thought we were superior! >> >>Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA > >WRONG! :-) > >alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan: Chuck is just "funning" again. I think he's satirizing the theosophical smugness quotient. I love the story about cyril. Have you been getting my postings? alexis dolgorukii the eclectic theosophist Shaman, Healer, Psychis Member: "Gang of Four" (more members happily welcomed) From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu Apr 25 18:00:24 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:00:24 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604251800.LAA09494@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Alexis responds---A QUESTION to PAUL JOHNSON Paul, Alexis writes the following concerning KUT HUMI and MORYA. Since you have written three books on the various Masters of HPB, do you have any comments on what Alexis has written? Daniel >2. Why do you always use the phoneticised Koot Hoomi? It is not the proper >spelling and most people who seriously study this material know it. In any >case the Master "M' was, whether you approve of it or not, H.R.H. >Chandragupta Das Maurya, Maharajah of Benares, and "K.H." was H.R.H. Kuthumi >Lal singh, Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir. In spite of what some people >think it's quite easily possible to be a Brahmin and a Maharajah, I have a >very good friend who is both at once. Let me ask you this: Was it not the >Maharajah of Benares whose family motto was: "There is no Religion Higher >Than Truth". Did not H.P.B. herself testify that she saw her "teacher" among >a group of Indian Potentates in London? Is a Maharajah not a potentate? Does >not Theosophical mythology tell us that "M" was a reincarnation of King >Asoka? Well the Maharajah of Benares was a direct descendent of King Asoka >who founded the Chandragupta Dynasty. as to the Maharajah of Kashmir, the >late Karan Singh, Maharajah of Kashmir was a friend of mine, he was the >Grandson of Kuthumi. How else do I know? It's really none of either yours or >anyone else's business. > From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu Apr 25 18:13:23 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:13:23 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604251813.LAA15125@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Alexis responds Alexis, Thanks for your answers and comments to my questions. Do I detect a trace of irritation or impatience in some of your comments to me? I'm sorry if you feel I have been needlessly questioning you. But when you make certain statements without documentation, etc., I have no idea what your statements are based upon. I cannot read your mind. Is it so unreasonable to ask for some additional details? I said in my previous post that you had some interesting ideas, but in order for me to evaluate the validity of these ideas, I have to ask myself (if no one else) certain questions and try to ascertain what is reasonable, probable, etc. And in order to do a good job of that, one needs some information, data, facts, etc. to work with. Of course, you can always decide whether to provide any worthwhile information or not. Concerning point #4 below, you said that you had just written something on that in another post. I have not seen that post. Which one is it? Daniel Alexis wrote: >1. H.P.B. was a Lesbian. Now Daniel, what do you want? Pictures? Old Love >Letters? Personal testimony from women who went to bed with her? > My Grandfather knew her, his very good friend Emil von und zu Sayn- >Wittgenstein-Ludwigsburg knew her very well indeed. I think their word >on the subject is relatively acceptable. Would you rather the rumor was true >that she bore Emil a child? I obviously wasn't born when she was alive, >my Grandfather was. Either he lied to me or he didn't. I don't believe he >did, for there is no real motivation for him to do so. She was relatively >unimportant factor in his life. Now, if you believe that her Lesbianism was >too terrible to contemplate, that's your problem. > >2. Why do you always use the phoneticised Koot Hoomi? It is not the proper >spelling and most people who seriously study this material know it. In any >case the Master "M' was, whether you approve of it or not, H.R.H. >Chandragupta Das Maurya, Maharajah of Benares, and "K.H." was H.R.H. Kuthumi >Lal singh, Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir. In spite of what some people >think it's quite easily possible to be a Brahmin and a Maharajah, I have a >very good friend who is both at once. Let me ask you this: Was it not the >Maharajah of Benares whose family motto was: "There is no Religion Higher >Than Truth". Did not H.P.B. herself testify that she saw her "teacher" among >a group of Indian Potentates in London? Is a Maharajah not a potentate? Does >not Theosophical mythology tell us that "M" was a reincarnation of King >Asoka? Well the Maharajah of Benares was a direct descendent of King Asoka >who founded the Chandragupta Dynasty. as to the Maharajah of Kashmir, the >late Karan Singh, Maharajah of Kashmir was a friend of mine, he was the >Grandson of Kuthumi. How else do I know? It's really none of either yours or >anyone else's business. > >3. No I didn't say that Annie Besant was a conscious fraud I said I thought >she might be such a thing. It was CWL I said was a totally conscious fraud, >or at least to the degree a pathological liar could be conscious of his >frauds. Do I think Besant was a fraud? Yes I do. Why do I think so? Well I >don't know if you've read "Elder Brother" by Gregory Tillett but I have, and >frankly it totally demolishes Leadbeater and frankly, as she aided and >abetted, her with him. > >4. I have already responded to this question this evening, in an earlier >posting. > >alexis dolgorukii From mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz Thu Apr 25 19:06:39 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 07:06:39 +1200 From: mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz (Murray Stentiford) Message-Id: <199604251924.HAA65533@iprolink.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: rigidity/flexibility I'm re-sending this because it hasn't showed up in the theos-l digests I received since originally sending it on 23 April. I've changed a couple of bits, too. Sorry if some others got it the first time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul wrote> >So, a question I wish to throw out for discussion: What major >recent changes in thoughts, feelings, intuitions or sensations do we >have to share in relation to Theosophy? Is anyone out there >deeply engaged in a *transformative* process that might inspire >someone else? What is changing inside your head and heart? >Frankly, I am sick of reading people reiterate the same things >they've fervently believed for 5, 10, 15 or 30 years. OK, I >already have figured out where you are *coming from*. But >where are you going? Then Liesel> >When you ask for a statement from anyone who's undergoing a transformation, >it just occurred to me that I'm just undergoing a very major one. But it >also makes me vulnerable, so I'll be darned if I'd expose my vulnerability >on theos-l & let someone hack away on it. But I think that maybe I'll try >medit-l & see what kind of a response I get. Paul, I'm glad you've asked these questions. And Liesel, your words fit what's going on with me remarkably well. Yes, I feel that I'm engaged in a major transformative process - one that has me striving, discovering, outgrowing, and seeing once-solid descriptions gradually turn into vapour. And, like Liesel, I feel a certain vulnerability about trying to put the centre of it into words, but more because it feels only part-formed, in mid-birth, sweet and subtle so that words would surely hide more than they express. A bit like trying to capture a butterfly with a net before its wings have fully unfolded. To say a little about it, the idea of unity is gripping me, filling me and spreading out to rework the whole world I live in. Unity understood not only as being embedded in the single magnetic source of all, but as an astonishing, unending network of connectedness that I discover more about every day. Not only outwards, as it were, but "vertically", like between the great planes of nature as well as within each one. One of the powerful manifestations of this sense of unity, is a drive to be more consistent in my everyday life, for example, a growing need to make daily transactions and relationships more in tune with the world of insight that theosophy illuminates for us. It's almost as if I've been travelling over a countryside at night, using a flashlight to look at the map from time to time, then becoming aware that the sky is gradually lightening as dawn approaches and, gee wizz, I didn't realise the land looked that good. Then you look back at the map and feel glad you had it, but, well, it is after all only a map. It's not all sweetness and light either. I'm making a good number of unflattering discoveries about myself too. At my age, you'd think that they had all been made! Hah! Well, I've allowed myself to wax a little lyrical, but it was nice trying to put a little of this into words. Thanks, Paul. And thanks too, to all the other contributors to this one. all so different. Murray Member TI & TS in NZ From Richtay@aol.com Thu Apr 25 19:50:53 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 15:50:53 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960425155019_521901076@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: anthropology-biology Alexis writes, > We are at total cross-purposes and I don't think > there's anyway I can get my ideas across to you and to be entirely truthful, > I find your views of theosophy repugnant. I find them so because they > represent everything I don't like about the current incarnation of the > theosophical movement. Personally I think my interpretation of H.P.B. and > his motivations and agenda are more valid than yours, and I find > preoccupation with what I see is "Who's on first" unfortunate. > I have no wish to be rude to you, and no desire to be antithetic, but I just > don't have any desire to continue a discussion with absolutely no hope of > any "meeting of the minds". How convenient. I (and others) can only assume that you do not want to continue because I am prepared for a full-guns, no-holds-barred discussion, and I am prepared to bring in current research as well as stand on HPB's shoulders and defend her positions from the new vantage point of 20th century science. And, as you surely know, there's lots of it. Good stuff. Perhaps it is the height of folly to suggest that so many on this list are quite in love with banter and chit chat and off the cuff remarks -- one-liners, anecdotes, etc. -- while shying away from in-depth discussion which might, just MIGHT make them reconsider their positions. And I am NOT just referring to Alexis. I will say that for my part I don't find your views repugnant, just naive. And when challenged, you retreat into "I don't want to play this game anymore." But frankly, you threw down the gauntlet by dismissing the anthropogenetic teachings of HPB, and now refuse to back it up. I certainly look forward to "the book," should it ever materialize. Meanwhile, the repugnant Theosophists will continue to study, discuss and learn from the actual teachings HPB gave, especially from her magnum opus the Secret Doctrine, which even at the end of the 20th century is only BEGINNING to be understood, even by the most sincere students. From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Thu Apr 25 19:53:53 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 12:53:53 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9604251953.AA23934@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: re: and again Bee Brown writes: >I am beginning to get the idea that Theosophy to begin with was >very piecemeal and evolved bit by bit over a period of time. JHE That is one interpretation, and a very reasonable one if you reject the idea of the Masters being behind the TS and having a grand plan in mind. BB >Olcott says that when Isis was written neither he nor HPB were >familiar with the later reincarnation theories that became part >of Theosophy. JHE This is Olcott's version. Obviously he didn't know anything about reincarnation, and since HPB didn't discuss the subject with him, he assumed she was ignorant of the subject also. Historically, ~Isis~ was published in 1877. The after-death states and reincarnation were not introduced until after the introduction of the seven principle schema, which was in turn introduced in 1880. I think the significant question here is how could HPB have made her teachings concerning after-death states and reincarnation comprehensible without first giving a foundation of the seven principles? Personally, I don't see how it could have been done. Therefore, I would suggest an alternate interpretation that HPB was indeed familiar with the later reincarnation teaching, but could not broach that subject until the seven principle schema was first given out. BB >They were writing their things in USA while Sinnett and Hume were >doing their thing in India with the help of the Mahatmas. It >seem to have been when they all met up that the teachings >expanded into the SD type of affair. JHE Actually HPB and HSO arrived in India in 1879, where they introduced Theosophy and the Mahatmas to Sinnett and Hume. In 1880 APS and AOH began their five year correspondence with the Mahatmas. About 1881 they began publishing a series in ~The Theosophist~ called "Fragments of Occult Truth." This series was based upon the Mahatmic correspondence, and was where the seven principle schema was introduced. The schema was introduced again in a slightly revised form in ~Esoteric Buddhism~, published in 1883. HPB accommodated Sinnett's misleading terminology as published in ~Esoteric Buddhism~ and tried to correct the misconceptions and errors in that book over the following ten years. BB >In USA it was phenomena that held Olcott's interest and HPB was >at the centre of a lot of it and also publically busy argueing >with many of their detractors. JHE It seems that neither Olcott nor Sinnett were ever really able to get past the phenomena stage. They were both Spiritualists at heart. HPB was trying to expound upon a philosophy that went way beyond anything Spiritualism ever came up with. But she tried to do it through the Spiritualistic publications, because they were the only game in town at the time. It wasn't until Oct. 1879 that HPB finally had her own publication (~The Theosophist~) where she could freely expound upon Theosophical teachings. But Olcott took control of that journal in 1885, so HPB has to start a new one (~Lucifer~) in 1887. In my opinion, HSO and APS never really got it. By 1885 the Mahatmas gave up on Sinnett and broke off their correspondence. Sinnett resorted to a medium whom he believed was able to channel the Mahatmas through her trance state. Keep in mind that the Mahatmas were explicit in their original letters to Sinnett that they would never communicate with him in that way. By 1896, Olcott was complaining bitterly that the Masters had abandoned him--that he no longer had any contact with them. BB >I get the impression that most of Isis and the SD were not >written by the HPB that was Helena Blavatsky but her physical >part was used by the adepts to write with. She herself did some >bits but Olcott complains about the mess she made with her cut >and paste method of writing. JHE Olcott worked with HPB in the editing of ~Isis~ while they were in New York. If you go through Boris de Zirkoff's annotated version of ~Isis,~ it becomes evident that at least part of the "mess" was created by Olcott, who didn't know enough about the esoteric philosophy in order to edit the mss intelligently. As for the ~SD~, HSO had already pushed HPB out of Adyar before she had started this book in earnest. While HPB was staying with the Countess Wachtmeister in Germany, HPB would stay up all night working on that mss. The Countess wrote in her memoirs that when she would enter HPB's writing room in the early morning, after Blavatsky had finished for the night. There the Countess said that she would see the mss scattered about with marginal notations in red and blue ink in the characteristic writings of the Mahatmas. There is no evidence that HPB used a "control" to write the might be interested in a study written by Geoffrey Barborka called ~HPB Tibet and Tulku~ that investigates the nature of the occult relationship between HPB and her teachers. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ . From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 25 20:12:09 1996 Date: 25 Apr 96 16:12:09 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Beating a Dead horse, one more time Message-Id: <960425201208_76400.1474_HHL63-1@CompuServe.COM> First, let me say that the discussion on planes and bodies between Jerry HE and myself was based soley on Jerry's statement that the models of CWL/AB and HPB were different, together with my desire to demonstrate the problem with theosophical terminology. In our discussions, it became quite clear to me that Jerry was finding differences in words rather than in ideas. I still am unable to see much real difference in the two models. What is the difference, after all, between bodies and principles? Jerry has yet to say. And the biggest problem is probably semantics and the fact that we are on a listserve. It is very frustrating to try to get ideas across this way. I personally thank Jerry for trying. Let me give just one short example of my frustration: >JHE >> For HPB, bodies are independent entities that >>come into existence either at the death of the physical body, >>or through an extraordinary act of will. > >JS >This is certainly true for the kama-rupa, but not so >for all bodies--the mayavi-rupa being used during life by those >who know how. > >JS >You have lost me here. No bodies, however we >want to define them, have "independent existences." > >JHE > You lost me too. You already admitted in your first comment >above that the kama rupa is an independent entity that comes into >[independent] existence after the death of the physical body. Here is a typical problem in misunderstanding. The fault is entirely my own, but that fact just adds to my frustration. Now, I will stick by my statement that bodies cannot be independent. They only exist with consciousness, and when consciousness leaves, they change into a corpse, which is technically no longer a body. When I agreed with JHE about the kama-rupa, I meant only about it coming into existence after death (it really is our astral body all along, but the name changes with the function, so "coming into existence" is true in a sense) and not the independent existence part. But it came across like I was agreeing with both. I was not, and thus the misunderstanding. Another example: >JHE > For HPB, you are right--she didn't teach that about manas. This implies that HPB taught that manas has no vehicle, basis, or body to it. She actually taught no such thing. She simply never said there was. JHE is apparently taking omission for a postive teaching (?) One more for the road: >JHE > A vehicle (as I think I explained earlier), according to >HPB, is not necessarily a body. She makes a distinction between >a vehicle (vahan) and a body (upadhi). The distinction between vahan and uphadi is minute, and in this case is, IMO, nit-picking. It so happens that G de P *does* call a body a vehicle as follows: "Every cosmic plane or world as well as every planet provides its own suitable vehicles for the self-expression of the hosts of entitative monads journeying upwards or downwards along the circulations of the cosmos; and consequently no such vehicle or body can leave the sphere or planet to which it belongs." (FOUNTAIN-SOURCE OF OCCULTISM p 637) Now, I happen to agree with Eldon that G de P is an excellent spokesman for HPBs teachings. The above quote states a body for each plane, which is exactly what the CWL/AB model also says. HPB did not say this, but she never said it was not true, she simply omitted the idea. HPB mentions, I think, four bodies. JHE nicely listed these in a posting. I don't believe for a minute that HPB believed there was only four bodies. Everything else in her model is seven. She simply never mentions the other three--but G de P says we have a body/vehicle for each plane, and thus we have seven bodies, one on each plane. Anyway, I have only read a few books by CWL (I do have a copy of Man Visible & Invisible) or AB, and am certainly not as knowledgable as Jerry HE is. But I have still seen very little real differences in the two models based on anything that JHE has so far written. My real point to all of this was to demonstrate the terminology problem. It exists, and it is the real reason that so many differences seem to exist between the early theosophical teachings. Rich: > JHE was making extremely good sense, and I >couldn't wait to see what you were going to come up with next. Had you on pins & needles, did I? Rich: >Your latest, Jerry S., makes me think that you really >found JHE convincing and didn't know what to say back. Every time I say something back, it comes around again. It seems to never really end. But, Rich, Jerry and I were not debating. It was not a contest. I am convinced that there are no real big differences in the two models now more than ever. Please tell me where you thought Jerry was so convincing, and then perhaps I can discuss that particular point, rather than trying to cover all bases at once, and getting nowhere. Rich: >For my part, I think JHE has demonstrated CONCLUSIVELY > that CWL was really doing something completely different >from HPB. Rich, I am very happy for you. Have you experienced the cosmic planes? Have you seen them? Have you noted from observation the differences in subplanes and in inhabitants? Alexis has. JRC has. Chuck has. Until you do so, I rejoice in your intellectual self-gratification. Rich: >The fact that you can't >understand what JHE is saying seems to prove this point, >and suggests that CWL couldn't understand it either. Thus, he >made up his own system. Rich, I am only a month or two from my Ph.D. I don't think my problem is my inability to understand. My problem is JHE's inability to convince me of any real differences. The differences that he apparently thinks are so vast, seem to be semantics and omissions to me. However, I am still willing to listen. Maybe you and JHE can explain G de P's quote given above in a different context than I gave it? COMMENT: I would like to make something clear at this point. I have said this before, and probably will again. The CWL/AB model and the HPB model are both just models. Neither will appeal to everyone, because neither is perfect. Alan prefers the Qabalistic Tree of Life model. I have always suggested that we use the one that gives us the best results. But this advise doesn't apply to those who do not practice or use such models other than as intellectual exercises. Anyway, if there are differences in the two models, this does not, in itself, negate the one at the expense of the other. HPB's model does not negate the effectiveness of the Tree of Life, for example. As I have said before, I rather like the Enochian model, simply because it works for me. So Rich's snide comment that CWL "made up" his model is immaterial. If he did, he was a genius that he could do so. But I don't think he made it up, but rather crafted it from HPB's to fit his own experiences. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 25 20:12:13 1996 Date: 25 Apr 96 16:12:13 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: OTO Message-Id: <960425201213_76400.1474_HHL63-2@CompuServe.COM> Alan: > Come to that, what >of the current US OTO - I have a CD with a load of their rubbish (IMHO) >on it. The US OTO is run by Hymenaeus Beta, and is doing quite well. I am not a member, but it does have my regards. Weiser recently published Crowley's BOOK 4 PARTS I-IV edited by Hymenaeus Beta who includes a lot of historical information. Its a big book (800+ pages) but a good read. Sorry to hear you think its rubbish. I hear from OTO people that most theosophical literature is rubbish as well. Ah well Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 25 20:12:16 1996 Date: 25 Apr 96 16:12:16 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Religion Message-Id: <960425201216_76400.1474_HHL63-3@CompuServe.COM> >>..., I still find the word useful in talking >>about the creative, self-becoming aspect of life that >>seeks to bring forth more into the world and seeks out >>of compassion to uplift and enlighten sentient beings. > >Being not only a Shaman but a very active healer and psychic, I more than >simply appreciate the sacredness of all life both inner and outer. But I >cannot see religion has being properly present in that paradigm. Religion is >about power and control and profit, and that is all it is about, now or ever >in the past. Religion is the crystallization of spirit. Religion is totally >dichotomous with spirit. Religion certainly has nothing to do with >"enlightenment". I would remind everyone that the American Indians found a sacredness to life every day of their lives, and were an extremely religious people. Yes they had no church, no institution, and no word in their vocabulary that would equate to "religion." Thus the Christian invaders thought them totally heathen and ungodly. Then the conversions began. Most Indians today would prefer the older Shamanistic way of life then the institutionalized religion that they have been forced to adopt. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 25 20:12:20 1996 Date: 25 Apr 96 16:12:20 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Adepts Message-Id: <960425201219_76400.1474_HHL63-4@CompuServe.COM> >> Do you mean by "Adept" an exceptional >>spiritual individual, with some form of inner awakening? If so, I >>wouldn't write off theosophical groups as being hopeless in this >>regard. > > "Exceptional spiritual individual, with >some form of spiritual awakening" is all too frequently the pose assumed by >some Snake oil salesman like Jerry Falwell or sister Theresa. While I would agree with Alexis, for the most part, he apparently has not met Grace Knoche, who nicely fits Eldon's definition. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 25 20:12:21 1996 Date: 25 Apr 96 16:12:21 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: good thinking Message-Id: <960425201221_76400.1474_HHL63-5@CompuServe.COM> Bee: > I get the impression >that most of Isis and the SD were not written by the HPB that was Helena >Blavatsky but her physical part was used by the adepts to write with. She >herself did some bits but Olcott complains about the mess she made with her >cut and paste method of writing. I hate to bring up the m word, but the difference between HPB and Helena Blavatsky was pure magic. HPB was not some external Adept working through Blavatsky, but one of her own Higher Selfs. This is traditional magic, and virtually all magicians do this. In her case, she also had external Adepts working through her in a mediumistic sense (or tulku as Alexis likes to call it). Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 25 20:12:22 1996 Date: 25 Apr 96 16:12:22 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Rigidity/Flexibility Message-Id: <960425201222_76400.1474_HHL63-6@CompuServe.COM> >Jerry, >Who in their right mind plays fair? Get yourself a helmet. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Is that where I went wrong all this time? Actually, Chuck, I have learned to cheat without one. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 25 20:12:25 1996 Date: 25 Apr 96 16:12:25 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: legitimate? Message-Id: <960425201224_76400.1474_HHL63-7@CompuServe.COM> >Jerry, >Actually, I think a REAL adept would do like Mohammed and crucify anyone who >tried to stop him. Real adepts are never harmless. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Well, history shows that this did happen sometimes. But it is unlikely in the USA of the 90s. However, it is highly probable that some emotional-mental crucifixion would take place and some metaphorical heads would roll. Jerry S. Member, TI From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Thu Apr 25 20:24:25 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 16:24:25 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604252024.QAA18725@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: ARE and two Jerrys Two comments on my comparison between ARE appeared, coincidentally from the two Jerrys on board. First, Jerry S. said that Theosophists have a complete worldview, whereas the ARE does not provide such. This suggestion is true in one way but not another. Actually, Cayce provides a *more* complete worldview than Theosophy; he not only describes the origin and destiny of humanity and the cosmos, he tells you what vegetables to eat when, how to meditate, how to solve your psychological problems, ad infinitum. The range of subject matter in the readings is immense, and one could become a real fanatic about regulating every detail of life in accord with them. But perhaps *because* of this, there is vastly less pressure to think or behave like other ARE members-- compared to Theosophy. I have never seen or heard the kind of dogmatism, conflict, etc. in ARE circles that I have among Theosophists. This is not because they are any different as people, but rather because Cayce insisted so continually that you should *take what you can use and leave the rest alone.* The overwhelming emphasis of the readings is pragmatic, and pragmatists tend not to be dogmatists. There is so much to choose from that the overlap between any 2 ARE members' interests in likely to be less than between any 2 Theosophists in a given society. This promotes a live-and-let-live policy. Jerry H-E takes my comment about ARE people being more relaxed to refer to my books about the Masters. I have no basis for comparison since the subject has never come up. Of course they would be likely to be sympathetic, since the readings are fairly coherent with my overall approach to the subject. What I do know, is that based on experience of several different study groups, ARE members tend to disagree harmoniously in comparison to Theosophists. It's much more of an attitude of "so we see it differently-- that's cool." I have NEVER seen people get mad over doctrinal issues in ARE groups. My comments about Theosophists being tense and rigid were not based solely on my own unhappy experiences. They were also based on *what I have been like* when most influenced by Theosophy and Cayce respectively. And most of all, on the interactions *among other people* which I have witnessed but not been involved in. As for what is threatening to Theosophists, vs. ARE members,, vs. theos-l, etc. I disagree that "people tend to be `relaxed' as a natural state, until they are threatened." In the TS-Adyar, people in charge are *habitually tense and threatened* about: the Masters, Krishnamurti, Leadbeater, the LCC, etc. etc. ULT and Pasadena folks tend to have their chips-on-the-shoulder too, about various issues. Perhaps because HPB has gotten a lot of bad press, and Cayce a huge amount of good press with little naysaying, ARE folks tend to be confident and optimistic where Theosophists are defensive and angry. That is, on the subject of how the outside world perceives "us." What *might* threaten ARE people would be a sweeping dismissal of the paranormal, a denial of even the possibility that there was something genuine about the readings. But the leadership of the organization has made it very clear that the *official position* is that OF COURSE Cayce made mistakes, everyone knows it, noone pretends that the readings are infallible, and it's up to us to try to sort out the wheat from the chaff. When the Cayce Foundation funded research at the Great Pyramid that ended up dating it at 2900 BC, and thus disappointing those who were trying to prove the readings accuracy, what happened? The ARE's magazine Venture Inward *devoted three cover stories* to analyzing the evidence, interviewing the researcher, exploring implications. Would ANY Theosophical group either fund research that might prove HPB or the Masters wrong about something important, or publish disappointing results in such an upfront manner? I can't picture it. Of course, it will be some time yet before we see how ARE reception of my book on Cayce compares to Theosophical reception of my books on HPB. But the level of cooperation and encouragement that I have gotten *while writing it* is so impressive that I can only hope things continue in this way. When you advise me, JHE, to enjoy the board that "better meets my needs" and "Godspeed," what are you saying about my presence on theos-l? Can't quite tell; it seems like an invitation to go away. From Richtay@aol.com Thu Apr 25 20:28:40 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 16:28:40 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960425162839_382694215@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Bee's post on Olcott Bee writes, > I am beginning to get the idea that Theosophy to begin with was very > piecemeal and evolved bit by bit over a period of time. Olcott says that when > Isis was written neither he nor HPB were familiar with the later > reincarnation theories that became part of Theosophy. Bee, I think this is very true from a certain perspective, but not true from another. From Olcott's view, Theosophy was slowly manifesting itself over the years he knew HPB. He was absolutely ignorant of the Theosophical teachings before he met her, and so her personality was very wrapped up in how he experienced that unfolding. I find *Old Diary Leaves* fascinating, there are a lot of tid-bits there. But I also caution myself that the events Olcott describes took place many, many years previously, his memory and his attitudes color a lot of what he writes. While Olcott was quite ignorant of Theosophy before he met HPB, for her part HPB had spent the entire middle part of her life, from ages 20 to 40, practically, training with Adepts, traveling the world and meeting spiritual leaders in every tradition. I think there is no way she cold have been ignorant of such a FOUNDATIONAL doctrine as reincarnation. After all, she spent something like 7 years in Tibet altogether, not to mention India etc. Olcott may never have HEARD Blavatsky talk about reincarnation, but when I read *Isis Unveiled*, I certainly see reincarnation in its pages. Finally, I think that near the end of his life, Olcott was dismayed about the Esoteric Section, and the huge popularity HPB had in some quarters. She ws practically worshipped by some, and this greatly annoyed him, both for egotistical and for very practical and honest reasons. So Olcott was trying to "set the record straight" and show how very human and liable to error HPB was. I think his effort it a good one, but perhaps a bit overzealous in that department. Human, sure, we all know that. But ignornant of such basic Buddhism as reincarnation? I think Olcott is quite mistaken there. Judge and HPB tell a very different story, and it would be very interesting to compare stories and try to come up with a "middle of the road" approach. From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Thu Apr 25 19:53:00 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 15:53:00 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604251953.PAA09504@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Theosophical list? Rich states that participation on theos-l, or at least identification as a Theosophist, means that one has an A PRIORI attitude that Theosophy is generally true. I must differ, and feel sure that HPB herself would as well. While we *may* have the a priori assumption that *theosophy* is generally true, it is quite alien to the spirit of HPB to assume a priori that Theosophy-- the modern expression by her and her successors-- is generally true. Theos-l may or may not be a place where the burden of proof is on those who would disagree with HPB. On the subject of anthropogenesis, I'd say the burden of proof is on those who would assert: 1. That present "Aryan" humanity was preceded by a race of Atlantean giants who had highly evolved civilizations 5-10 million years ago. 2. That before that, there was a third-race humanity which evolved from "egg-born" to mammalian reproduction. 3. That humanity was on earth before the animals. 4. That human evolution has proceeded from spiritual, to semi-ethereal, to physical form. 5. That 18 million years ago, a single "descent of Manasaputras" transformed something non-human into humanity. etc. etc. Now, maybe I'm missing the fine points, as this is a subject that never appealed to me much. As it turns out, Mike M.'s anthropologist friend does not wish to respond to this thread, but he has another colleague who might. Your mission, Rich, should you choose to accept it, is to write a one-page or so summary of Blavatskian anthropology, stating where and how you think it can or will be confirmed by future science, for this person to address. PS-- I hope you are joking about my books. HPB never said the adepts were always right, never said anyone could be-- so my assertion that a definition of them as infallible simply renders them nonexistent is based on capital t Theosophy. You surely know that a more realistic definition does not assert or imply that "she made up the entire Great Lodge and her personal teachers as well." From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 25 22:27:24 1996 Date: 25 Apr 96 18:27:24 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: anthropology-biology Message-Id: <960425222724_76400.1474_HHL93-1@CompuServe.COM> Rich: > at the risk of being accused of being >quite a racist, I will point out that various groups of people are known for >having specialized in something or other... > >There are interpersonal differences, there are international differences, and >it doesn't seem too far of a stretch to suggest racial differences, >particularly when one considers not the races on the earth now (which are >largely amalgamated, and hardly distinct even physically) but races which >have come and gone. Rich, you are touching here on one area which, as Alexis has pointed out, is no longer socially acceptable or scientifically sound. The whole teaching of Root Races has led to a lot of errors and misunderstandings. Let me quote here: "The Negroes form one of the very few exceptions amonst us today of baby races, imperfect in mental and physical development (but not in spiritual development) " G de Purucker, STUDIES IN OCCULT PHILOSOPHY, p 44. (TUP, 1945) On the same page, we read that the Eskimo and Andaman Islanders are "degenerate remnants of the great Third Root-Race." Here G de P was but following the logic of HPB's SD. Now, there are a lot of biggoted white scientists who would just love to prove that Blacks are "imperfect in mental and physical development." But they have not been able to do so. In fact, science has pretty well established today that there is no real biological/genetic difference between the races at all insofar as superiority or inferiority is concerned. And all we have to do is look at today's world of sports to see how silly is the idea of Blacks having an infantile physical development. But this is exactly what G de P believed and taught back in 1945. In regard to race, and racial issues, G de P was simply wrong. Period. Eldon has said that he considers G de P to have been an Adept. I do too. This clearly shows that Adepts can be wrong about some things. It also, IMO, shows the kind of difficulty one gets into by accepting the SD teaching of Root Races. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Apr 25 22:27:28 1996 Date: 25 Apr 96 18:27:28 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: rigidity/flexibility Message-Id: <960425222728_76400.1474_HHL93-2@CompuServe.COM> >One of the powerful manifestations of this sense of unity, is a drive to >be more consistent in my everyday life, for example, a growing need to >make daily transactions and relationships more in tune with the world of >insight that theosophy illuminates for us. First of all, Murray, thanks for showing the courage to post something honest and meaningful to you. I especially like the above paragraph. You have eloquently explained my whole view of ethics and morals in one sentence. Bravo. Jerry S. Member, TI From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Thu Apr 25 22:31:38 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 15:31:38 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9604252231.AA03106@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: ARE and two Jerrys Paul Johnson writes: >When you advise me, JHE, to enjoy the board that "better meets >my needs" and "Godspeed," what are you saying about my presence >on theos-l? Can't quite tell; it seems like an invitation to >go away. In response to your original post for "rigidity/flexibility" I simply sent you my best wishes for finding a discussion board that you like. It is interesting that my sending you my best wishes in my first post was understood as "missing your point." When I resent you my best wishes in my second post, your reply above indicates to me that you now regard it with suspicion. Now that I'm obliged to explain what I meant by sending you my best wishes in the first place, seems to make what I originally sent with good feelings into a labored task. But to answer your question: my sending you my best wishes was neither advice or an invitation to go away. It was only an expression of happiness for you that you found a bulletin board that you enjoy working with. Considering your complaints about theos-l, I did not realize that sending you my best wishes for finding a discussion board that you like, could have been taken as anything other than my sending you my best wishes for finding a discussion board that you like. I hope this clarifies the meaning my by message. Best wishes Jerry HE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Fri Apr 26 17:52:33 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:52:33 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <31810D61.16D1@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: and again References: <2.2.32.19960425174909.0068bf5c@mail.slip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit alexis dolgorukii wrote: > > At 04:50 AM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: > >>>>>>>cut<<<<<(to keep string at reasonable length) > > >I am beginning to get the idea that Theosophy to begin with was very > >piecemeal and evolved bit by bit over a period of time. Olcott says that when > >Isis was written neither he nor HPB were familiar with the later > >reincarnation theories that became part of Theosophy. They were writing their > >things in USA while Sinnet and Hume were doing their thing in India with the > >help of the Mahatmas. It seem to have been when they all met up that the > >teachings expanded into the SD type of affair. In USA it was phenomena that > >held Olcott's interest and HPB was at the centre of a lot of it and also > >publically busy argueing with many of their detractors. I get the impression > >that most of Isis and the SD were not written by the HPB that was Helena > >Blavatsky but her physical part was used by the adepts to write with. She > >herself did some bits but Olcott complains about the mess she made with her > >cut and paste method of writing. > > Goodness knows she'd have loved a computer word processor! Anyone who "cuts > and pastes" does! But you know Bee I really think your analysis of "how it > was" is pretty near the mark (Not having been there we'll never actually > "know"). I myself, see a "gap" as it were between the motivations revealed > in "Isis" and in the various records of the earliest T.S. Meetings and what > went on later after the removal to India. It almost seems like a different > organization altogether. From my reading of it, it did not become Theosophy as we know it till after Isis, and Olcott admits later that there were views in there that later were changed and enlarged because they did not have the full story at that time. He wondered why the Mahatmas allowed them to publish the views on reincarnation that he and HPB held then (1875), before they were taught the later teachings on that aspect. The things is that it was mostly HPB's Somebodies that wrote Isis by various methods and by various Somebodies taking turns so it is no wonder that it gets a bit jumbled and a lot of the teachings were new to Olcott and HPB as well. They spent much time discussing what they had learned and it would take a while to put it into practice. They were willing accomplices of the Mahatmas and many time did as they were told without really knowing the full impact of the actions or why they were doing it. The earliest motivation and/or agenda of theosophy > was to introduce to the materialistic west certain ideas and principles that > had been long forgotten by western thinking. Theosophy certainly succeeded > in its informational purposes. I feel (and approve) that at least back then, > Theosophy got coopted for the purpose of giving the Indian people their > self-respect back and gaining Indian Independence from English domination. > This was Theosophy's primary success. But it's been accomplished. What is > there fore theosophy to do now? I feel that perhaps that's what groups like > Theos-L are to "figure out". > > >Have you read what he had to say about her temper and that of your relatives > >in general? A stroppy lot by the sounds of it. > > > > > > Bee Brown > > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > > Theos Int & L > > Bee: I have the most wonderful ancient copy of "Old Diary Leaves" and I've > read it several times. Yes I've read what he says about her temper. She's > exactly like my Mother. As to the family, with Peter The Great and Ivan the > Terrible in it, what can you expect? > > -- Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu Apr 25 22:53:45 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 15:53:45 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604252253.PAA14718@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: anthropology-biology Alexis writing to Rich Taylor says: >> I find your views of theosophy repugnant. I find them so because they >> represent everything I don't like about the current incarnation of the >> theosophical movement. Personally I think my interpretation of H.P.B. and >> his motivations and agenda are more valid than yours, and I find >> preoccupation with what I see is "Who's on first" unfortunate. >> I have no wish to be rude to you, and no desire to be antithetic, but I >just >> don't have any desire to continue a discussion with absolutely no hope of >> any "meeting of the minds". Rich Taylor replies to Alexis: >How convenient. I (and others) can only assume that you do not want to >continue because I am prepared for a full-guns, no-holds-barred discussion, >and I am prepared to bring in current research as well as stand on HPB's >shoulders and defend her positions from the new vantage point of 20th century >science. And, as you surely know, there's lots of it. Good stuff. > >Perhaps it is the height of folly to suggest that so many on this list are >quite in love with banter and chit chat and off the cuff remarks -- >one-liners, anecdotes, etc. -- while shying away from in-depth discussion >which might, just MIGHT make them reconsider their positions. And I am NOT >just referring to Alexis. Come on, Alexis! Lighten up! Rich wants to have a discussion. Why not accomodate him! You might learn something. : ) And the rest of us (including Rich) might learn something, too! Isn't Theos-l suppose to be a discussion list, at least in part, where people with differing and even equally "repugnant" views can halfway calmly discuss their different viewpoints? Alexis, not everyone on Theos-l is in love with your viewpoint. I was somewhat shocked with your description of Rich's view as "repugnant." Now you are entitled to that opinion but DEAL with Rich's ideas. Show us with logic, reason and commonsense that Rich's ideas are repugnant. Food for thought, Daniel From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 25 16:44:53 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 17:44:53 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Future of Theosophy - What can be done? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , M K Ramadoss writes >The question that arises in my mind is what we as individuals can do >to further Theosophy so that it can benefit more and more of the masses? >With the technological progress it is possible to reach mass audience >more easily and quickly than ever before. > >Any ideas? > > ......doss > Join in the work of Theosophy International - help to redress some of the imbalances and outdated terminology of the past. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 25 23:10:08 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:10:08 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960425191006_522050755@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The Gang of Four and "Religion" Eldon, You may be right. I have seen too many people wounded to near death by religion to have any use for the word. One of the things I truly love about theosophy is that it provides (in my non-humble opinion) a very flexible (eek, that word!) framework in which to find the individual sense of what is sacred, realizing that that may differ greatly with each individual and realizing that what I may find sacred others may find horrifying and vice-versa. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 25 23:11:06 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:11:06 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960425191106_522051572@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Alexander Alex, He certainly thought he was. Chuck the Barbarian MTI,FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 25 23:11:18 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:11:18 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960425191117_522051750@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Fatherly corrections Alex, Well, Eldon does get a little confused at times. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 25 16:42:49 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 17:42:49 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: The Gang of Four and "Religion" In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960425100104.00682588@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960425100104.00682588@mail.deltanet.com>, "Eldon B. Tucker" writes >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the four >of you are *anti-religious*, just anarchist in temperament. >That is, you don't want someone else to even have the >appearance of telling you what to do or think. And >fundamentalist religions exemplify the extreme of telling >people what to do and think. Therefore, we have the >aversion to religious groups. But it is not religion per >se, nor religions still backed by an inner light, that >you object to, but dead religions that spiritually entomb >and suffocate their followers. > >-- Eldon That speaks for me, at least, Eldon. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 25 23:11:25 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:11:25 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960425191124_522051807@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: We? Alex, Naughty, naughty, naughty. Did you forget that all theosophists are divinely chosen by the Masters to be the creme de la creme of humanity.? Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker Panarch of the Universe From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 25 23:11:29 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:11:29 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960425191128_522051886@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Nazis etc. Alex, For all their sometimes juvenile silliness, the local OTO has a group of very nice young people who are all great fans of my books, so they must have some brains somewhere. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 25 16:37:49 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 17:37:49 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: The Gang of Four ?????? In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960425080121.006b2dd0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960425080121.006b2dd0@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >As I see it, all religions >are dead, and none of them have any inner light, though certainly there are >individuals that do. I want people free to develop and free their own inner >light, in a way I'm a sort of anarchist as anyone who reads my book knows, >but it's a kind of anarchy the human race won't be ready for in a thousand >years. I assume the rest of the "gang" will post their own responses. > >alexis dolgorukii If they were all dead, the "Christian Right" would have no influence in the U.S.A. In my understanding, your objection is to *organised, hierarchical, and power-dominated* religion(s). Insofar as there is a "religious" impulse in muman beings (and both history and psychology suggest that there is) it is an impulse to "bond" [the origin of the latin *religio* acc. to many] and to do so in a spiritual context for spiritual nourishment (whatever that may mean to whoever does it). There *is* an "inner light" in religious practice - such is my empirically-discovered experience. In an ideal future, it may well take on an anarchic form such as you suggest, but we are not in an ideal future, and pro tem must make the best of what we've got. That's exactly what you do with your Shamanism, as I understand your telling of it. Which could [stands back in defensive posture] be interpreted as your presenting yourself as a priest of the Shamanist religion ... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 25 16:41:24 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 17:41:24 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Rigidity/Flexibility In-Reply-To: <960425084511_382383791@emout15.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960425084511_382383791@emout15.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Jerry, >Who in their right mind plays fair? Get yourself a helmet. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA .. and I bet you got one to sell him. Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Fri Apr 26 18:19:47 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:19:47 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <318113C3.F35@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: and again References: <9604251953.AA23934@toto.csustan.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: > > Bee Brown writes: > > >I am beginning to get the idea that Theosophy to begin with was > >very piecemeal and evolved bit by bit over a period of time. > > JHE > That is one interpretation, and a very reasonable one if you > reject the idea of the Masters being behind the TS and having a > grand plan in mind. Many thanks for this post. Just what I was hoping to get back as I know that I am reading Olcotts view of things. They are very interesting but I realise that the driving force behind it all was the Masters. It sort of brings a down to earth perspective of it all for me, anyway. Olcott was a sincere man but we all know how easy it is to believe what we really want to. > > BB > >Olcott says that when Isis was written neither he nor HPB were > >familiar with the later reincarnation theories that became part > >of Theosophy. > > JHE > This is Olcott's version. Obviously he didn't know anything > about reincarnation, and since HPB didn't discuss the subject > with him, he assumed she was ignorant of the subject also. > Historically, ~Isis~ was published in 1877. The after-death > states and reincarnation were not introduced until after the > introduction of the seven principle schema, which was in turn > introduced in 1880. I think the significant question here is how > could HPB have made her teachings concerning after-death states > and reincarnation comprehensible without first giving a > foundation of the seven principles? Personally, I don't see how > it could have been done. Therefore, I would suggest an alternate > interpretation that HPB was indeed familiar with the later > reincarnation teaching, but could not broach that subject until > the seven principle schema was first given out. This is where Olcott gives the impression that HPB was not a learned person, very psychic and in most unusual ways but she could see the astral books that the Masters showed her but in reality she (Helena) had not physically read them. I get the impression that HPB's psychic abilities and her special constitution was what caused the Masters to bring her to Tibet and streamline her so that they could use her to enlighten the West. At times it was only 'M' who was strongwilled enough to do battle with her when she was being difficult. All this gives the impression that HPB provided the physical body, (certainly to begin with) and only later in the piece had she become familiar with the Masters teachings. She was bright and curious person so it probably didn't take long to become familiar with what the Masters were teaching through her. These are just some impressions I have gained and I appreciate your thoughts and corrections as I know of your interest in the history of Theosophy. > JHE > ------------------------------------------ Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 25 23:29:00 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:29:00 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: happy face! In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960425180318.00688b40@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960425180318.00688b40@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >Have you been getting my postings? > >alexis dolgorukii So far as I know - I just answered a couple. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 25 23:27:54 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:27:54 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Adding My Two Cents In-Reply-To: <960425172759_76400.1474_HHL83-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960425172759_76400.1474_HHL83-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes > My >wife recently threw a glass of water on a child who was throwing rocks >at her and myself and threatening us with all kinds of bodily damage. >She did this to try to calm the child down. She called the police for help, >and was arrested for child abuse, but (after $1000+ for lawyers) the DA >dropped all charges just before trial. That's awful! What a horror story you tell in the rest of your post. Kali Yuga is a picnic in comparison ... Sympatheticallly, Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 25 23:36:26 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:36:26 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: OTO In-Reply-To: <960425201213_76400.1474_HHL63-2@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960425201213_76400.1474_HHL63-2@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >Alan: >> Come to that, what >>of the current US OTO - I have a CD with a load of their rubbish (IMHO) >>on it. > > The US OTO is run by Hymenaeus Beta, and is doing >quite well. I am not a member, but it does have my regards. Weiser >recently published Crowley's BOOK 4 PARTS I-IV edited by Hymenaeus >Beta who includes a lot of historical information. Its a big book (800+ >pages) but a good read. Sorry to hear you think its rubbish. I hear >from OTO people that most theosophical literature is rubbish as well. >Ah well > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > A load of rubbish - not necessarily all rubbish. BTW - I have read everything Crowley ever published with the exception of a volume or two of ~The Equinox~ so ... well, just so ... Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 25 23:45:04 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:45:04 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960425194504_382862838@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: THOU SHALT LIGHTEN UP Alan, I am NEVER wrong. A little mistaken at times, but never wrong. :-) And if you believe that I can get you this real good deal on a used bridge... Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 25 23:46:14 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:46:14 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960425194614_382863849@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: happy face! Alex, I think our fellow gang member knew I was joking. And I loved the Cyril story too. It reminded me of the birds in the winter. If I am late getting the seed out they all sit on the fence and yell. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MGF (member, gang of four) Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 25 23:46:20 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:46:20 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960425194619_382863940@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: legitimate? Jerry, Only if you think that Jesus was an adept. Now I happen to think that he was not the one that got nailed up, but rather he mesmerized a lesser-known disciple to take the fall in his place and then reappeared at the opportune moment. Alexis would not consider Jesus to exist and therefore could not be crucified. I don't know of any other person who got killed who would qualify as an adept. All the adepts died of natural causes, quite unlike those who got in their way. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 4 Heretic Troublemaker Most ferocious of adepts From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Apr 25 23:46:23 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:46:23 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960425194623_382863979@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Rigidity/Flexibility Jery, Dear fellow gang of four member, I learned to cheat before I learned what helmets were. Having one makes it ever so much easier. My tax accountant is never without his. Chuck the Barbarian MIT, FTSA, MG4 Heretic Troublemaker From eldon@theosophy.com Fri Apr 26 07:06:53 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:06:53 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426070653.006b3118@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Theosophy/Theosophical Society I never got this posting back from theos-l, and assume that it somehow got lost, so I'm reposting it. -- Eldon ---- MKR: Some quick comments on your statements ... >1. When we all the wars and killing that is going on around the world in >the name of nationalism, religion and pure politics, are things >improving around the world? I'd say that there are short-term trends and long-term trends. In the long run, things are improving as people acquire wisdom and slowly evolve. In the short run, there are various cultural cycles, periods of war and peace, times of spiritual fruitfulness and times of spiritual barrenness. The changes we see from one generation to the next may have more to do with a differing mix of evolved people coming into birth than with changes made in society. Society does not make us; we are self-made, and come into birth with our own strengths and weaknesses. We're affected by society, given opportunities to be good or to be evil, and repressed at other times. But we're not *made* because of the external influences of world affairs. >2. Again and again, in many of the Mahatma Letters to Sinnett, >the need for the establishing a Brotherhood of Humanity is >mentioned as the most important objective of Theosophical Society. Warfare and ethnic hatreds are to humanity like physical illness is to an individual. It's the last and poorest way to work out inner problems. There are issues to be dealt with between people and peoples, and things that must be done, but enforcing an external peace upon the world only represses the problems, which will only later emerge, with renewed vigor. What are the unresolved conflicts? Group karma, unresolved evolutionary issues and lessons that must not be skipped, and perhaps maladjustment of individuals to the evolutionary process. (These are my speculations, anyway...) >Much valuable information was given out by HPB and other writers >dealing with Man and the Universe. There seems to be an implication >even then in 1880, there was some great emphasis on "school of >philosophy" while unequivocally this letter states that what >was expected of all of us is to work towards this noble idea of >Brotherhood of Humanity. Working towards the brotherhood of humanity is really working on healing the current sickness or disease that plagues modern humanity. This healing would result in getting people back on track with their spiritual evolution, and therefore is part of the general work of compassion. The T.S. certainly would play a role in this work. The Mahatmas may not have cared to found a school of philosophy, nor a nursery for occultists, but such projects are equally valuable, and there's nothing wrong for such to exist inside or outside of theosophical organizations. We might consider how theosophical groups were intended to help in the work of reestablishing a universal brotherhood? Not, I think, by simply being a membership organization that everyone in the world would join, regardless of belief or one's behavior. I think it's help would be through the dissemination of the theosophical doctrines, through the uplifting effect that those ideas would have upon society in general. The stress upon universal brotherhood was to impress on our minds that these doctrines are not just for us as individual students, but were *intended to be shared*. >They were looking for noble and unselfish persons to help them >in this very important task and how very grateful They are to >any one who gives a helping hand in this task. Very true. >3. Considering the non increase in the membership (and possibly >gradual decline), is there something that all of us are not doing >right? Is there too much emphasis placed on the philosophy and not >many are turned on to be unselfish to work towards the noble idea >of Universal Brotherhood of Humanity? I attribute the decline to the death of the philosophy as a living, dynamic truth, as a powerful force to transform people. It's not that we have too much emphasis on the philosophy. It's that there is too little of the philosophy presented with *depth* and *dynamic power behind it*. We're turning into the custodians of a dying language, one whose life is ebbing away, until or unless people can awaken their own inner understanding of the doctrines, an inner life that they can then share with others. >Let us brain storm on the above and any related and relevant items. >May be we can learn from each other as to how we can more >effectively work towards this noble idea of Brotherhood of Humanity. Healing the discord in the human family is certainly an important, immediate task before the world. It's certainly something that would be high on the Masters' priorities. Apart from simply being nice people, observing the golden rule, though, our highest benefit to our human family is through our individual efforts to tread the Path *and share the fruits of what we realize*. Our job is to become independent forces for good in the world, and in doing that job we help raise others and bring about a universal brotherhood of humanity. -- Eldon From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 26 00:07:09 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 01:07:09 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <3jglDAAtOBgxEwpl@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: legitimate? In-Reply-To: <960425194619_382863940@emout17.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960425194619_382863940@emout17.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 4 MG of 4? Mistaken Guru? Muddled Goof? Master Giggler? Misanthropic Giant? Mild Gentleman [rolls about on floor in hysterics] .... Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From poulsen@dk-online.dk Fri Apr 26 04:54:05 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 02:54:05 -200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB331B.C4898120@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: bodies - a dead horse Encoding: 211 TEXT JHE: >However, if someone on this board wishes to continue this discussion >concerning differences between HPB and CWL, I would be more than happy >to start again. Me too, consider the glove taken, Jerry. Let us pick up where we left last week. >>Jerry HE seems to hold the >>opinion that the Besant-Leadbeater-Bailey enumeration of planes >>is some sort of novel idea and misunderstand of a teaching by >>HPB. > Actually my criticism concerns CWL's enumeration of the >solar planes as described in ~Man Visible and Invisible,~ and >his confounding them with the "seven bodies of man," which is >further confounded with HPB's "seven principles of man." The >specific criticism I mentioned to Jerry S. was CWL's description >of the five lower solar planes as being atomic in nature. First, I have little interest in CWL?s level of understanding of the terminology. The planes and their names can be supported by a large amount of material. Your specific criticism must be a misunderstanding - surely you are talking about gross atoms - "and Occultism says it is atomic; therefore it is matter." (SD vol.1 - and vice versa) Of course it may be atomic without being composed of gross atoms. If CWL mentions gross atoms the misunderstanding is on his part. If he is talking about permanent atoms, param-anu then he may be correct. When Shankara described the buddhist enumeration of the principles of man he divided them into skandhas and paramanus. While the skandhas are the seven-fold build-up of the human sphere of consciousness (ranging from the sense-apparatus to the secrets of individuality, from objective to subjective), the permanents atoms are the force centers on each plane. Buddhism which is a no-nonsense philosophy totally ignores gross bodies, except when influenced by tantricism. >CWL, on the other hand, in his ~Man Visible and Invisible~ >has the seven human "bodies" actually *occupying* the seven solar >planes of nature. So to describe CWL's system: Atma is on the >atmic ("nirvanic" in the original nomenclature) plane; Buddhi on >the buddhic plane; the causal and mental bodies are on the mental >plane; the astral body on the astral plane; the etheric and >physical bodies are on the physical plane. If a permanent atom is a center of force on a specific plane, this is the result. >On the three higher >planes; the divine (originally mahaparanirvanic), monadic >(originally paranirvanic) and atmic (originally nirvanic), CWL >has the three aspects of the Solar Logos "Himself" (plate II). >"He" ensouls the lower planes through his "Three Outpourings" >(plate III): and also ensouls the second and third elemental >kingdoms. It is a very occult thought that 7 planes of activity are 3 as subjective and passive. The same with the logos or matter - 3 aspects of one, 7 principles in manifestation. >CWL continues: "At both these stages it is very >intimately connected with man, as it enters largely into the >composition of his various vehicles, and influences his thought >and action" (39). Therefore we have the seven solar planes and >the seven "bodies of man" all rolled up into one (as diagramed in >plate II). HPB, on the other hand, does not confound the solar >planes and the principles, because the principles in her system >do not occupy any but the lowest solar plane. No. The lowest cosmic, universal, macrocosmic plane. The 3 figures on p. 658 represent a) the universal principles, b) the principles of the solar system (and our part of it, the planet, nature or prakriti), and c) the FORCES of man on the sub-planes like desire, prana, etc. This triple division is described and supported by Subba Row in "Philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita", alongside my other propositions- see fx. p. 23 "Conceive this manifested solar system in all its principles and in its totality to constitute the sthula-sharira (physical body) of the whole cosmos". For correspondence (-:) between Sthula Sharira and Prakriti in classifications see Subba Row : "Esoteric Writings", p. 289, 292. >>In the semi-esoteric Samkhya system we find 25 tattvas or planes >>and the reason for this becomes apparent when reading HPB?s >>notes. Two tattvas were considered esoteric and instead of >>giving away the whole system thr ancients made up their systems >>of 5 or 6 principles. The names of these 25 tattvas >>are partly blinds. The solution to the riddle is that it is a >>system of 5 major planes with 5 sub-planes each. Esoterically we >>then get a system of 7 major planes with 7 sub-planes each. > Whoa. The reason for HPB's article is to warn her readers >away from the exoteric explanations in the Indian Systems. HPB >writes: "This is explained here to enable the student to read >between the lines of the so-called occult articles on Sanskrit >philosophy, by which they must not be misled" (605). Your >reading here may be correct, but I think it is getting far afield >from my original point--unless you are showing the identity of >planes with tattwas. If this is your point, I have only >agreement here. whoa, prrrrhhh :-). She warns her readers against "so-called occult articles on Sanskrit philosophy", and later against the tantrika systems. This completely reverses the meaning. >But the human principles are different, as they >are the seven *aspects* of the manifestation of the universal >principles (Glossary). >>The problems arises with the 5 lower planes. HPB and the >>samkhyas gives these the names of the corresponding 5 elements: >>akasha, vayu, taijasa, apas and prithivi. The other philosophers >>give them the names of principles: atma, buddhi, manas, astral, >>physical. > Here lies the confusion, I believe. HPB discusses the >correlations* of the tattwas and the human principles (610 etc), >but she does not say that they are the same in this context. If >her discussion was in the context of the principles in nature, in >an esoteric sense, then we could talk about the identity of >tattwas and principles. But here, she is not. Her correlations >are with the "principles of man." Therefore, they are just what >she calls them: correlations. The confounding of correlations >and identities creates chaos where there was once sense, and has >been the source of confusion with students who have >indiscriminately mixed together the teachings of different >theosophical writers. >In HPB's system, only the physical plane of the solar planes has an atomic >nature. >In CWL's system, the lower five solar planes have an >atomic nature--thus atomic matter extends to his solar "atmic >plane." Different atoms again. >In HPB's system, the 7 human principles are limited to >the seven prakritic subplanes of the solar physical plane (658). No. The seven planes of Prakriti are the seven planes of the solar system. The body of the solar system is on the physical or prakritic plane of the Universe. >In CWL's system, the consciousness of the average human extends >into the solar mental plane, while a Master's consciousness >extends to the Atmic (nirvanic) plane. In contrast, the solar >plane that corresponds to CWL's "mental" is called the "jivic" in >HPB's system. Exactly, the manifested jiva is on the mental plane, also called the egoic plane, which is the meaning of jivic, also "the (innermost) consciousness of the average human". >Where CWL's solar "mental" plane corresponds to >the normal state of consciousness for the average person in CWL's >system, it is the plane of consciousness of the Prateyka Buddha >in HPB's! Not necessarily. The Pratyeka Buddha cannot leave the mental or egoic plane. Why? The full Buddha has transferred his individuality and self-consciousness to the buddhic plane to become "fully enlightened". But the Pratyeka Buddha has still liberated himself from rebirth on the physical and astral planes. >However, keep in mind (as I mentioned in my message to Jerry S.) that HPB >uses the term element here in the Platonic sense, not in the >medieval/physical alchemical one. Here elements are not atomic--otherwise >"principle" could not be "divine" HPB uses the term element as a translation of the term, "bhuutaM" - the several complaints about translating the term shows it (see Subba Row: Esoteric Writings, p.312) . The real occult analysis of the term is given in B.Gita 8.3. bhuutabhaavod.hbhavakaro visargaH karmasaMGYitaH || 3|| The fashioner of a) bhuutam - element, past, having been - PAST b) bhaava - a state of being, existence - PRESENT c) udbhava - the arising, appearing - FUTURE is called karmic "creation" (generation) The 2 other statements in this verse on a) the immutable and c) the over-soul makes it clear the Gita is discussing the famous "Law of Periodicality" and the "boundless plane" which becomes seven planes in manifestation or fundamental b). The subtlety of this analysis made 5000 years ago certainly takes a little of the Material Nature out of these elements. > Under CWL's system, he was able to "visit" the >Buddhic" and "Nirvanic" planes and described them in some >detail. :-) When CWL fails it is always in his assesment of his own exalted position and abilities. But one should always remember there can be 4 possible sources for his doctrine - a) T. Subba Row through himself b) HPB through Annie Besant c) hmmm....spiritual forces watching over the TS d) his own work, study - imagination or conscious fraud according to viewpoint. 75 percent reliable or better is not that bad. Well Jerry, this was 2nd round of this discussion, and I must say that I look forward to your replies. In friendship, Kim From blafoun@azstarnet.com Fri Apr 26 01:09:50 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:09:50 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604260109.SAA22218@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: REINCARNATION: To Bee JHE writes to Bee: >> This is Olcott's version. Obviously he didn't know anything >> about reincarnation, and since HPB didn't discuss the subject >> with him, he assumed she was ignorant of the subject also. >> Historically, ~Isis~ was published in 1877. The after-death >> states and reincarnation were not introduced until after the >> introduction of the seven principle schema, which was in turn >> introduced in 1880. I think the significant question here is how >> could HPB have made her teachings concerning after-death states >> and reincarnation comprehensible without first giving a >> foundation of the seven principles? Personally, I don't see how >> it could have been done. Therefore, I would suggest an alternate >> interpretation that HPB was indeed familiar with the later >> reincarnation teaching, but could not broach that subject until >> the seven principle schema was first given out. Bee replies to JHE's comments: >This is where Olcott gives the impression that HPB was not a learned >person, very psychic and in most unusual ways but she could see the >astral books that the Masters showed her but in reality she (Helena) had >not physically read them. I get the impression that HPB's psychic >abilities and her special constitution was what caused the Masters to >bring her to Tibet and streamline her so that they could use her to >enlighten the West. At times it was only 'M' who was strongwilled enough >to do battle with her when she was being difficult. All this gives the >impression that HPB provided the physical body, (certainly to begin >with) and only later in the piece had she become familiar with the >Masters teachings. She was bright and curious person so it probably >didn't take long to become familiar with what the Masters were teaching >through her. >These are just some impressions I have gained and I appreciate your >thoughts and corrections as I know of your interest in the history of >Theosophy. Daniel comments as follows: Olcott's views on reincarnation as given in ODL, I are very one-sided. To get at the complete picture, one would have to read what HPB said over many years in her own writings and one should also see what the Masters say on this very subject in THE MAHATMA LETTERS. Bee, I would suggest that you read Boris de Zirkoff's "Historical Introduction" to the COLLECTED WRITINGS edition of ISIS UNVEILED. See especially pp. [46]-[50]. Now the controversial section in ISIS on reincarnation consists of pp. 345-352, Vol. I It amazes me how people will superfically read this text and never ask themselves relevant questions. For example, on p. 345, HPB writes: "...the Reincarnationists.... " and on p. 351, she writes: "We will now present a few fragments of this mysterious doctrine of reincarnation---as distinct from metempsychosis---which we have from an authority. Reincarnation,i.e., the appearance of the same individual, or rather of his astral monad, twice on the same planet, is not a rule in nature; it is an exception....If reason has been so far developed as to become active and discriminative, there is no reincarnation [of the individual's astral monad ?] on this earth....." I have left out a great deal as indicated with the ...... Who are the Reincarnationists? What is this mysterious doctrine of Reincarnation? What is metempsychosis? What is the astral monad? Is the individual different from his astral monad? etc. etc. These are just a few of the questions the attentive reader should be asking and trying to answer as he /she reads these pages. In 1889 in THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY, a question is asked: "But does not the author of 'Isis Unveiled' stand accused of having preached against re-incarnation?" And HPB replies (p. 191): "By those who have misunderstood what was said, yes. At the time that work was written, re-incarnation was not believed in by any Spiritualists, either English or American, and what is said there of *re-incarnation* was directed against the French Spiritists, whose theory is...unphilosophical and absurd...The Re-incarnationists of the Allan Kardec School believe in an arbitrary and immediate reincarnation. With them, the dead father can incarnate in his own unborn daughter....They have neither Devachan, Karma....." This is called "quickie" rebirth by Victor Endersby and is what I believe Edgar Cayce more or less taught. In fact, even today, most reincarnationists believe that people when dead return quickly to earth in new physical bodies. Now skeptics of HPB and even some Theosophists have been willing to believe that HPB was making this all up after the fact to try to explain away the apparent inconsistency. But in a letter dated April 12, 1875 (months before she had even started writing ISIS), she mentions "Allan Kardec" and writes: "...though I do not believe in reincarnation in the same sense as the French spiritists...." This seems to me to be consistent with what she writes later as in 1889. Again in a letter (1875-1876 I don't have the letter before me) to Professor Hiram Corson, HPB speaks of and disagrees with the view of the French spiritists on reincarnation. And in a Mahatma Letter (No. 13, p. 76, 3rd ed.), Master Morya (Olcott's own guru) wrote to Sinnett: "By-the-bye, I'll re-write for you pages 345 to 357, Vol. I. , of ISIS---much jumbled, and confused by Olcott, who thought he was improving it!" Morya's exclamation point! This Mahatma Letter was received by Sinnett in Jan. 1882 more than a decade before Olcott wrote the chapter in ODL on reincarnation. These pp. 345 to 357 mentioned by Morya are the pages on reincarnation in ISIS that Olcott writes about in ODL, I. Now, Olcott had no doubt of the existence of Morya and had even been visited by this Master in the New York days. Had Olcott been given the chance to see this Mahatma Letter, and also what KH says in other Mahatma Lettes to Sinnett, would Olcott have changed his mind and wrote a different account in ODL? There are many other historical documents that need to be read and understood in order to understand this "reincarnation controversy." So far, no writer has ever tried to do a detailed analysis of all the relevant historical material and write this up in an article or pamphlet. Daniel Caldwell From RIhle@aol.com Fri Apr 26 03:29:15 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:29:15 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960425232914_280934571@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Adding My Two Cents Jerry S.> >I work with foster children, and have for over 30 years now. The new >ones are infinitely worse than the old. The new >generation of foster/abused children is too scary to contemplate. > One problem that I have found--overly permissive and protective >society today. Touch a child today, and you have child abuse. This is >taught to children in schools, and all too soon they learn that they can >pretty well get away with anything. My wife and I are almost ready now >to quit with foster children. Richard Ihle writes> Hi, and thanks to Donna Faber for starting this interesting thread. Jerry, you are right there on the front lines, aren't you?! As usual, I find myself agreeing 100% with your assessment. In fact, the main reason I started looking into the possibility of something like a "psychogenesis" was because of my work with "at-risk" high-school students a few decades ago (now I only deal with "talented-and-gifted" and college-bound sections). I had been, of course, familiar with all the "cognitive and moral maturalists"; however, their ideas just did not seem helpful enough when it came to the day-to-day problems with children. I found myself asking the same simple question again and again: Why is it that for thousands if not millions of years parents in every type of culture have been at least able to successfully raise their own children . . . but that it seems like such a major problem for us? The mystery started to clear up considerably when, unlike most of the academic maturationalists, I considered the possibility that perhaps the focus should not be on what ~attributes~ of children may be maturing in sequential fashion, but rather, on ~what children can potentially believe they ARE~ which also may be maturing according to a predictable, age-related pattern. The egoic possibilities of the first five seven-year cycles in aborted form: I am my "energies" (animating); I am my body (physical); I am my desires and/or the emotions which follow their satisfaction or frustration (desire-feeling); I am my desire-tainted ideas or mental postures which secure advantage for me (desire-mental); I am my pure, dispassionate ideas or things I know how to do (mental). (The potential "semi-Selves" which can form within these broad categories are countless, of course--e.g., having liked ice cream in one moment and having liked French fries in another would count as two different semi-Selves which have appeared and passed away.) One problem with child-rearing, I believe, is the inability for people to understand how, for example, a five-year-old child can have a strong emotion but not yet BE that emotion in the same egoic sense as a fourteen-year-old. The main tenant of my version of Psychogenesis, at least, is that opening up opportunity for new egoic delusion ("delusion" because it is a "contamination" of *Self*) is an age-related process. Unfortunately, the neat seven-year pattern is complicated somewhat by the circumstance that the egoic possibilities of the next cycle start showing up in "experimental" form at the mid-point of the current cycle. Be that as it may, I believe even a rough idea of Psychogenesis can help with parenting. For example, somewhere in the Animating Cycle, perhaps about age three-and-one-half, the simple technique of "channelling" of a child's energies has to be augmented, when necessary, with the operating principle of the coming Physical Cycle--*dominance*. The big person bosses the small person--period. Now, if there is not something fundamentally more seriously wrong (an actual organic physical/psychological debility or the fact that people did something really bad to her early in the Animating Cycle) many of the problems with the nine-year-old girl you described may well stem from her never having had the feature of subordination/superordination consistently inculcated into her behavioral patterns as she approached and passed into the Physical Cycle. The key term here is *consistently.* The popular issue of spanking versus not spanking may be largely irrelevant. I have known students who have never had a hand laid on them who turned out great; I have known students whose parents often "took the belt to them" who turned out great. The common denomenator often seems not to be method but ~consistency in application~ of whatever method is used to subordinate the child's will to that of the parent's during the critical years when a child is testing the semi-Selves (temporary egoic identities) which form in the physical type of differentiated consciousness. Sometimes people point to the lack of success of parents who used overly harsh methods. In my experience, however, it does not seem like this so-called "child abuse" is always the principal issue. It is many times a situation like this: the child is allowed to do whatever he or she wants for a while; then the parent beats the crap out of the kid. The child is again allowed to run free; then somewhere down line the parent beats the crap out again. If the harsh parent had been dominating the child on a more moment-to-moment basis, there might be fewer big problems later. Similarly, if the "time-out" type parent could keep the child under his or her gentle thumb without any frequent or extended hiatus, there might be fewer big problems. (Both types of parents, however, have to face the fact that any simple "dominance" technique has to start being phased out, sometimes as early as age ten-and-one-half but almost certainly after fourteen, when the child approaches and then later enters the Desire-Feeling Cycle.) To many parents, ~simple dominance~ does not have a pleasant ring to it. In their modern wisdom they may prefer using "giving the reasons for things" etc. as a substitute technique, even with very small children. Unfortunately, we often see the sad results. In the case of a young person of middle- or early high-school age, typically what you have to work with are these two things: 1) the ~habits of compliance~ the young person brings from the Physical Cycle, and 2) the ~emotional rapport~ which, all other things being equal, the young person actually wants to establish with you. However, if the teenager brings no habits of compliance . . . well, a fourteen-year-old really running wild is not nearly as amusing as a five-year-old sort of running wild. . . . The parents of the old days probably made many mistakes; however, turning into ineffectual humanistic philosophers whenever their own children started throwing stones at them (as in the example you cited) was probably not among these mistakes. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Fri Apr 26 03:35:21 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 21:35:21 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: History and the Politically Correct In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960425100208.00682ca8@mail.deltanet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Well, I must admit this is an interesting way of introducing an argument in support of the anti-PC movement - and I fully agree .. it is well worth it to examine this in detail, as it *is* very telling. >In the April 15, 1996, issue of "Newsweek", there is an >short note on history tests and politics: > >"Makeup Test: More History, Less P.C." > >"When the National Center for History in the Schools >issued its first set of teaching standards back in 1994, >the flag hit the fan. Critics railed that these voluntary >guidelines, detailing what students K-12 should learn about >American and world history, were so P.C., so self-consciously >multi-culti, that they distorted the national heritage. The >standards contained 17 references to the Ku Klux Klan, for >example, and 19 to McCarthyism, but no mention at all of >Paul Revere or Thomas Edison. But now, it seems, the light >bulb has gone on. Last week the center, based at UCLA, >released new recommendations with the revisionist history >substantially revised. Some comparisons:" A bit of background on the huge debate that has gone on behind these standards is probably worthwhile - as the Newsweek article hardly even scratches the surface, and in addition definately comes down on one side of what is a *political* issue, in this lead paragraph accepting a particular example produced as "talking points" by Congressional conservatives. "Now the light bulb has gone on" ...? Is such the language of an objective report, or of an *editorial position* masquerading as one? Newsweek's readership is overwhelmingly the American white middle class - with large amounts of its advertising budget coming from large corporate sponsors. The production of these teaching standards was begun by Lynn Cheney, who was appointed to the task by then President George Bush. A large number of teachers, school administrators, and professional historians from across the country participated in the project - which took four or five years. This was not the work of a few "Politically Correct" extremists ... the people were drawn from across the political landscape. Lynn Cheney left the project after Bush was voted out of office - but as the project neared completion, did not at all like what was being produced ... and started speaking often and in public about it. Republicans in Congress became involved. The "critics" who "railed" about these standards, claiming that they "distorted the national heritage" were not primarily *historians*, but rather, *politicians* from the conservative right. Since the original standards were released its critics used a very interesting tactic to battle them in the political sphere .. which also shows up in the Newsweek piece, "counting" the number of mentions of particular people. Of course they rarely say that the "counts" generally referred to *teaching points*, specific personal examples of larger historical trends - the suggested *discussions* about the material, and not the material itself - in which both Thomas Edison and Paul Revere *were* mentioned - it is *ridiculous* to think a larger number of diverse educators from around the country, as well as the reviewers of the standards, would define the standards for K-12 history education and *never* mention Revere or Edison. And it is simply a lie. As a result of the intense *political* pressure, all 2,500 teaching examples were removed ... there are now *none*. A 600 page document with an enormous number of individual historical anecdotes to illustrate the bigger picture (as, for instance, Ken Burns put a face on the dates and events of the Civil War by reading the letters of those fighting it) has now been reduced to 200 pages of generalities. All "objectionable" material has now been removed. What is left is nice, white history that certainly will not make anyone "uncomfortable", nor cause anyone to question the American *government* or big business, their history, or any of their activities. This, apparently, is "good"; this is "a light bulb going on". Of course, a lot of educators and historians might say it was a successful attempt to make sure thousands of "light bulbs" never get turned on in the first place - wouldn't want the youth of America actually *questioning* our history with the Native American tribes, or the history of big business, now would we? But the *critics" were not making a *historical* argument - but rather a *political* one. Bush probably made the initial mistake ... he actually asked *scholars* instead of politicians to write the "national standards". Of course, scholars actually will occaisionally think independently of their government, sometimes even (gasp) *critisize* it (how *dare* they say the whites moving westward did anything mean to the Indians?). As Professor Gary Nash, head of the UCLA center that coordinated production of the standards said (at an American Studies Association meeting last year), " the attack on the original standards is actually an attack on the historical scholarship of the last generation". >What does this show us and how can we learn from this >in our theosophical circles? Yes, let's see what "teaching points" are in this story. >We see what happens in standard politics. People >don't strive for a balanced position, but carry things >to extremes. Why? To tilt the scales in the desired >direction as much as possible. The intent is to effect >change in others, rather than inform and teach. Yes. And the critics of the standards successfully did just that. This is the first "lesson to for the TS": When *scholars* use the words "inform and teach", they generally mean trying to get people to *question* things, most especially "accepted" wisdom. When *politicians* use those words, it usually means attempting to make sure the status quo is affirmed and supported by yet another generation. And when those with power in a society (be it national, or an organization) "critisize" a particular view of history, it is often as a *political tactic* rather than as an actual discussion of the *academic* truth of the subject matter. What Congressional conservatives did to the original standards bears a striking resemblance to Wheaton's response to K. Paul Johnson. The second "teaching point" in the example of these national standards is simply this: That any move towards expansion of thought, towards a more inclusive view of things, will provoke a strong backlash, from those with power in the current structure, to re-affirm the status quo ... who will generally not just attempt to engage in a discussion of the matter at hand, but to make sure such a discussion never even happens. And will use the full force of institutional power to do so. There are indeed good lessons to be learned for the TS in the national standards debate. It was an excellent teaching example. -JRC From SeussInUse@gnn.com Thu Apr 25 17:32:57 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 17:15:42 From: SeussInUse@gnn.com (Virginia Behrens) Message-Id: <199604252119.RAA05951@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: SeussInUse@gnn.com (Steve Spaeth) (from www-52-17.gnn.com. 205.188.52.17) Subject: Question about "Facts Underlying Adept Biographies" Could anyone tell me if I am correct in my reading of the article, "Facts Underlying Adept Biographies" by HPB in Collected Writings (V. XIV, page 137 but especially pages 146-50) that the Ebionite "Gospel of Matthew" in Hebrew was not available when HPB wrote and is still not accessible? If this is correct, could anyone also tell me if am correct in my reading of the quotes from Skinner's "...Source of Measures" that Skinner derived his Hebrew translation from the Greek version of Matthew's gospel - (sort of a back translation)? Usually I don't pay much attention to Bible translation debates but this one about the words "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" vs. "My God, my God, how thou dost dazzingly glorify me!" comes up rather frequently among people I know who profess to be variously New Age, mystic, or esoteric Christians. If I'm in the midst of such discussions again I'd like to add, as best I can, what I've read from this article. Thanks much in advance! Virginia Behrens, Member TI, TSA From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 25 22:34:13 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:34:13 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: ISIS004.TXT UPLOAD (Isis Unveiled) Mime-Version: 1.0 ISIS004.TXT (Isis Unveiled, 1st Edition) - BEFORE THE VEIL (continued) As the great cause must always remain invisible and imponderable, they could prove their assertions merely by demonstration of its effects in this world of matter, by calling them forth from the unknowable down into the knowable universe of effects. That this astral light permeates the whole cosmos, lurking in its latent state even in the minutest particle of rock, they demonstrate by the phenomenon of the spark from flint and from every other stone, whose spirit when forcibly disturbed springs to sight spark-like, and immediately disappears in the realms of the unknowable. Paracelsus named it the sidereal light, taking the term from the Latin. He regarded the starry host (our earth included) as the condensed portions of the astral light which "fell down into generation and matter," but whose magnetic or spiritual emanations kept constantly a never-ceasing intercommunication between themselves and the parent-fount of all - the astral light. "The stars attract from us to themselves, and we again from them to us," he says. The body is wood and the life is fire, which comes like the light from the stars and from heaven. "Magic is the philosophy of alchemy," he says again. ["De Ente Spirituali," lib. iv.; "de Ente Astrorum," book i.; and opera omnia, vol. i., pp. 634 and 699.] Everything pertaining to the spiritual world must come to us through the stars, and if we are in friendship with them, we may attain the greatest magical effects. "As fire passes through an iron stove, so do the stars pass through man with all their properties and go into him as the rain into the earth, which gives fruit out of that same rain. Now observe that the stars surround the whole earth, as a shell does the egg; through the shell comes the air, and penetrates to the centre of the world." The human body is subjected as well as the earth, and planets, and stars, to a double law; it attracts and repels, for it is saturated through with double magnetism, the influx of the astral light. Everything is double in nature; magnetism is positive and negative, active and passive, male and female. Night rests humanity from the day's activity, and restores the equilibrium of human as well as of cosmic nature. When the mesmerizer will have learned the grand secret of polarizing the action and endowing his fluid with a bisexual force he will have become the greatest magician living. Thus the astral light is androgyne, for equilibrium is the resultant of two opposing forces eternally reacting upon each other. The result of this is LIFE. When the two forces are expanded and remain so long inactive, as to equal one another and so come to a complete rest, the condition is DEATH. A human being can blow either a hot or a cold breath; and can absorb either cold or hot air. Every child knows how to regulate the temperature of his breath; but how to protect one's self from either hot or cold air, no physiologist has yet learned with certainty. The astral light alone, as the chief agent in magic, can discover to us all secrets of nature. The astral light is identical with the Hindu akasa, a word which we will now explain. AKASA. - Literally the word means in Sanscrit sky, but in its mystic sense it signifies the invisible sky; or, as the Brahmans term it in the Soma-sacrifice (the Gyotishtoma Agnishtoma), the god Akasa, or god Sky. The language of the Vedas shows that the Hindus of fifty centuries ago ascribed to it the same properties as do the Thibetan lamas of the present day. that they regarded it as the source of life, the reservoir of all energy, and the propeller of every change of matter. In its latent state it tallies exactly with our idea of the universal ether. in its active state it became the Akasa, the all-directing and omnipotent god. In the Brahmanical sacrificial mysteries it plays the part of Sadasya, or superintendent over the magical effects of the religious performance, and it had its own appointed Hotar (or priest), who took its name. In India, as in other countries in ancient times, the priests are the representatives on earth of different gods. each taking the name of the deity in whose name he acts. The Akasa is the indispensable agent of every Kritya (magical performance) either religious or profane. The Brahmanical expression "to stir up the Brahma" - Brahma jinvati - means to stir up the power which lies latent at the bottom of every such magical operation, for the Vedic sacrifices are but ceremonial magic. This power is the Akasa or the occult electricity; the alkahest of the alchemists in one sense, or the universal solvent, the same anima mundi as the astral light. At the moment of the sacrifice, the latter becomes imbued with the spirit of Brahma, and so for the time being is Brahma himself. This is the evident origin of the Christian dogma of transubstantiation. As to the most general effects of the Akasa, the author of one of the most modern works on the occult philosophy, Art-Magic, gives for the first time to the world a most intelligible and interesting explanation of the Akasa in connection with the phenomena attributed to its influence by the fakirs and lamas. ANTHROPOLOGY - The science of man; embracing among other things: Physiology, or that branch of natural science which discloses the mysteries of the organs and their functions in men, animals, and plants; and also, and especially, Psychology, or the great, and in our days, so neglected science of the soul, both as an entity distinct from the spirit and in its relations with the spirit and body. In modern science, psychology relates only or principally to conditions of the nervous system, and almost absolutely ignores the psychical essence and nature. Physicians denominate the science of insanity psychology, and name the lunatic chair in medical colleges by that designation. CHALDEANS, or Kasdim. - At first a tribe, then a caste of learned kabalists. They were the savants, the magians of Babylonia, astrologers and diviners. The famous Hillel, the precursor of Jesus in philosophy and in ethics, was a Chaldean. Franck in his Kabbala points to the close resemblance of the "secret doctrine" found in the Avesta and the religious metaphysics of the Chaldees. DACTYLS (daktulos, a finger) . - A name given to the priests attached to the worship of Kybele ( Cybele). Some archeologists derive the name from [the greek word for] finger, because they were ten, the same in number as the fingers of the hand. But we do not believe the latter hypothesis is the correct one. DAEMONS. - A name given by the ancient people, and especially the philosophers of the Alexandrian school, to all kinds of spirits, whether good or bad, human or otherwise. The appellation is often synonymous with that of gods or angels. But some philosophers tried, with good reason, to make a just distinction between the many classes. DEMIURGOS, or Demiurge. - Artificer. the Supernal Power which built the universe. Freemasons derive from this word their phrase of "Supreme Architect." The chief magistrates of certain Greek cities bore the title. DERVISHES, or the "whirling charmers," as they are called. Apart from the austerities of life, prayer and contemplation, the Mahometan devotee presents but little similarity with the Hindu fakir. The latter may become a sannyasi, or saint and holy mendicant; the former will never reach beyond his second class of occult manifestations. The dervish may also be a strong mesmerizer, but he will never voluntarily submit to the abominable and almost incredible self-punishment which the fakir invents for himself with an ever-increasing avidity, until nature succumbs and he dies in slow and excruciating tortures. The most dreadful operations, such as flaying the limbs alive; cutting off the toes, feet, and legs; tearing out the eyes; and causing one's self to be buried alive up to the chin in the earth, and passing whole months in this posture, seem child's play to them. One of the most common tortures is that of Tshiddy-Parvady. [Or more commonly charkh puja]. It consists in suspending the fakir to one of the mobile arms of a kind of gallows to be seen in the vicinity of many of the temples. At the end of each of these arms is fixed a pulley over which passes a rope terminated by an iron hook. This hook is inserted into the bare back of the fakir, who inundating the soil with blood is hoisted up in the air and then whirled round the gallows. From the first moment of this cruel operation until he is either unhooked or the flesh of his back tears out under the weight of the body and the fakir is hurled down on the heads of the crowd, not a muscle of his face will move. He remains calm and serious and as composed as if taking a refreshing bath. The fakir will laugh to scorn every imaginable torture, persuaded that the more his outer body is mortified, the brighter and holier becomes his inner, spiritual body. But the Dervish, neither in India, nor in other Mahometan lands, will ever submit to such operations. DRUIDS. - A sacerdotal caste which flourished in Britain and Gaul. (Text scanned and uploaded by Alan Bain) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 25 23:59:22 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:59:22 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: Question about "Facts Underlying Adept Biographies" In-Reply-To: <199604252119.RAA05951@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Virginia - I am looking into this one. Alan. In message <199604252119.RAA05951@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com>, Virginia Behrens writes >Could anyone tell me if I am correct in my reading of the article, >"Facts Underlying Adept Biographies" by HPB in Collected Writings >(V. XIV, page 137 but especially pages 146-50) that the Ebionite >"Gospel of Matthew" in Hebrew was not available when HPB wrote and >is still not accessible? > >If this is correct, could anyone also tell me if am correct in >my reading of the quotes from Skinner's "...Source of Measures" >that Skinner derived his Hebrew translation from the Greek version >of Matthew's gospel - (sort of a back translation)? > >Usually I don't pay much attention to Bible translation debates but >this one about the words "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken >me?" vs. "My God, my God, how thou dost dazzingly glorify me!" >comes up rather frequently among people I know who profess to be >variously New Age, mystic, or esoteric Christians. If I'm in the >midst of such discussions again I'd like to add, as best I can, >what I've read from this article. Thanks much in advance! > >Virginia Behrens, Member TI, TSA > > > --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 26 01:27:08 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 02:27:08 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: Question about "Facts Underlying Adept Biographies" In-Reply-To: <199604252119.RAA05951@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604252119.RAA05951@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com>, Virginia Behrens writes >Could anyone tell me if I am correct in my reading of the article, >"Facts Underlying Adept Biographies" by HPB in Collected Writings >(V. XIV, page 137 but especially pages 146-50) that the Ebionite >"Gospel of Matthew" in Hebrew was not available when HPB wrote and >is still not accessible? Acc. to ~The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church~ Epiphanius (4th century) stated that the Ebionites "receive the Gospel according to Matthew" and "call it the Hebrew Gospel." Fragments of this work remain, but are few. A Hebrew or Aramaic gospel answering to this description does not now exist, and the work is generally known as the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Its fragments were translated and annotated from Greek sources in 1879 by Edward Byron Nicholson, M.A. "with a critical analysis of the external and internal evidence relating to it." [C. Kegan Paul & Co., London] - I have a copy of this, which is heavy going ... > > >If this is correct, could anyone also tell me if am correct in >my reading of the quotes from Skinner's "...Source of Measures" >that Skinner derived his Hebrew translation from the Greek version >of Matthew's gospel - (sort of a back translation)? If he did, I imagine it was his own work. > >Usually I don't pay much attention to Bible translation debates but >this one about the words "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken >me?" vs. "My God, my God, how thou dost dazzingly glorify me!" >comes up rather frequently among people I know who profess to be >variously New Age, mystic, or esoteric Christians. If I'm in the >midst of such discussions again I'd like to add, as best I can, >what I've read from this article. Thanks much in advance! A variant reading similar to this is used in the S.D. (I cannot quote chapter and verse) and has much to commend it. (This may be your own source for the quote from Skinner). This is certainly a "backwards" translation from Greek to Hebrew by a scholar of HPB's acquaintance. A quite different variant is found in the extant *Peshitta* Aramaic text of the new Testament, which is an original Aramaic text, although some scholars have claimed it to have been rendered from the Greek, which is increasingly unsupportable as new insights are found. According to this text (English translation available from Harper in the US) the reading is, "My God, My God, for this I was kept." However, as Hebrew and Aramaic (very similar languages) have no '?' in their alphabets, the Jewish idiom could render it, "My God, My God, for this I was kept?" I guess people believe what it suits them to believe! Chances are, IMO, that the Aramaic *Peshitta* is the oldest available text. Most scholars have a vested interest in not wanting to pursue this option, as too many books would have to be re-written, and reputations could suffer, I suspect. > >Virginia Behrens, Member TI, TSA > Hope this helps, Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 26 15:18:12 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:18:12 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960426111812_281254913@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Register Alan, I think I hear Alex sharpening things. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MGof4 Heretic Troublemaker From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Fri Apr 26 04:16:12 1996 Date: 26 Apr 96 00:16:12 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: World Suffering-World Servers Message-Id: <960426041612_74024.3352_BHT198-1@CompuServe.COM> 1996 has been a year of karma in my face, demanding to be repaid now, with Snidely Whiplash twirling his greasy moustache at the foreclosed note due etc. And it has forced me to examine ideas I have often heard, but never experienced the truth of such as 1) suffering is a tool for spiritual growth 2) suffering is good for you-it teaches lessons we have choosen for ourselves this incarnation 3) suffering is necessary as the shadow of good 4) people can expedite debts by willingly learning to accept suffering with grace. 5) suffering leads to transcendence 6) willingly helping the suffering of others is the true test of spiritual advancement 7) suffering in itself is a karmic repayment 8) suffering can bring people together and get to the truth the way celebration rarely does I am still struggling with most of these. I am not a Catholic, if fact I was taught that nuns, for example, were crazy self-deluded masochists. And that flails were symbolic of spiritual narcissism, as if God was pleased by one's individual pathological expression of penance. But when I search in books read and reread, I seem to find things I failed to see before, for example, that self-expression is not the goal of life, but the willingness to accept the seemingly unacceptable, that is the unfairness and absurdity of suffering as part of the world process of which I am only a limited, but involved participant and not an aloof critical spectator. I feel conected to the idea (whether it is true or not) that in a past life I was either a Catholic nun or Zen monk. I have been deeply resentful that if life has so many unfortunate accidents, why religion seems to exalt suffering, renunciation, humility, poverty unto sickness as a requitement for the spiritual path. Perhaps this is why I was attracted at some level to the occult, which seems to covertly imply the oppostite, that is, that spiritual "ideas", prosperity thinking, Depak Chorpaisms etc will give you spiritual success which can't help but lead to "like attracts like", perfect health, eternal body/mind and two new cars. The Buddhist doctrine of the wheel of karma as desire leading to the suffering of unfullfiled desires as the nature of human consciousness leads to the desire to escape into nirvana. To hold back to help others as the Nirmankaya vestiture blows out the difference between Nirvana and Samsara to a unity awareness. World Service seems not to depend so much on special knowledge, but attitude. World Servers can be the ordinary people who provide the link unconsciously to the goodness behind suffering: that is health professionals, doctors, ministers and on down to the levels of cook and office cleaner. I am beginning to think that intellectual analysis is necessary, but actually lies midway on the spiritual path. It lies actually on the lower mental plane although it often claims to have acces to the higher mental through contact with inspiration from the buddhic or atmic planes ( a lot of wishful thinking sometimes, don't you think?). I have been synchronistically reintroduced indirectly and through my own conscious and unconscious processes (dreamwork) to the notion of the World Server. Many like Eldon reiterate the thesophical goal or a Brotherhood of Humanity. Is a political system necessary for this? Are we in collusion with some dark tyranical movement that wants to reduce the freedom of the individual in the name of world peace as many so-called kooks would suggest. The goal is not the brotherhood of humanity, but the more humble nucleus of a brotherhood of humanity. This modest goal is perhaps all we can achieve at this point in the evolution of humanity. How many have been called to the path by suffering more than by complacency, boredom or simple curiosity? Until the Buddha stepped out of the palace and Christ out of the carpenter's shop spirituality was superfulous to the enjoyment and struggles of life. Suffering was the initiation fee, so to speak. Namaste Keith Price From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Apr 26 04:22:29 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:22:29 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: HPB in Tibet Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII It is well known that HPB lived for a time in Tibet and underwent some training. Recently in a group of monks from one of the monasteries in the Eastern Tibet was travelling in the USA, one monk mentioned about what he had heard from one of the older monks about the tradition of a Russian woman having visited and stayed in the monastery in the latter half of 1800s. At the mention of this story one of the members of the audience told the monk that this was HPB and it is well documented in her writings. When the monk heard about this corroboration he seems to have tried to contact Theosophical Organization(s) in the USA. Has any one heard about the above story? ....doss From Richtay@aol.com Fri Apr 26 04:45:06 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:45:06 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960426004505_522293187@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Theosophical list? Paul continues: > I'd say the burden of proof is on those who > would assert: > > 1. That present "Aryan" humanity was preceded by a race of > Atlantean giants who had highly evolved civilizations 5-10 > million years ago. > 2. That before that, there was a third-race humanity which > evolved from "egg-born" to mammalian reproduction. > 3. That humanity was on earth before the animals. > 4. That human evolution has proceeded from spiritual, to > semi-ethereal, to physical form. > 5. That 18 million years ago, a single "descent of > Manasaputras" transformed something non-human into humanity. > > Your mission, Rich, should you choose to accept it, is to write > a one-page or so summary of Blavatskian anthropology, stating > where and how you think it can or will be confirmed by future > science, for this person to address. Okay. This will be brief as I have a full plate of work to digest tonight. I would like current anthropologists/archeologists/etc. to critically examine Rupert Sheldrake's proposal for a morphogenetic field. In particular, the "100th monkey" phenomenon should be directly discussed, as well as experiments that have confirmed it. The anthropolist should discuss the role of consciousness in evolution, and give DEFINITIVE PROOF that all evolution proceeds by chance, not by intelligent adaptation. The arguments in Denton's *Evolution: A Theory in Crisis* should be addressed, coupled with Philip E. Johnson's criticisms in *Darwin on Trial*. Particular attention should be paid to the problems of the wing, the feather, hemoglobin, and the molecular problems in going from single-celled organisms without nuclei to multi-celled organisms with specialized cell functions, and the FOSSIL or other evidence that such a transformation took place. The problems with carbon dating should be addressed, as well as the knotty possibility that half-lives of various elements may not be CONSTANT. Modern science today will not consider such evidence, but: isn't it interesting that all ancient cultures indicate the existence in the distant past of giant races (addressing point #1) and discuss ancient but advanced civilizations? Not Plato alone, but European, Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Egyptian, etc. traditions indicate long-lost kingdoms ruled by giants and by descendents of the Sun. The existence of aerial diagrams in huge proportions on the earth, the discovery of both a battery and a miniature wooden plane in an Egyptian pyramid, and the recently discovered cave paintings in France (the new ones, with the Michaelangelo-esque quality), the crystal-carved skull, the ancient maps Donnelly discusses in his book *Atlantis* -- all this and much more evidence suggests ancient civilizations. As for question #2, it seems no harder to postulate a human transformation from egg-born to mammalian reproduction that it is to postulate that transition for animals. To date the fossil record suggests no intermediate stages, and the evolution of mammals from reptilians is purely SPECULATIVE. #3 requires new dating methods, and it is entirely possible that no physical evidence exists, or can exist, for early humanity, because THEY WEREN'T PHYSICAL. Only one with astral sight -- or instruments tapping the astral -- could help us here. # 4 seems quite easy, and not only is it universally attested in ancient literature the world over, but is brilliantly explored in Ken Wilber's *A BRIEF HISTORY OF EVERYTHING*. A fuller explanation of "involution" is in Wilber's *Sex, Ecology and Spirituality*. #5 could only be answered by astral sight, or by discovery of enough fossils which can be relatively dated to show that after the incarnation of mind, human existence radically changed and actual "civilization" occurred. Short of astral equipment, let the anthropologists chew on numbers 1, 2 and 4 for a while. That alone should be interesting. From Richtay@aol.com Fri Apr 26 04:45:13 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:45:13 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960426004511_522293251@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Theosophical list? Paul writes, > While we *may* have > the a priori assumption that *theosophy* is generally true, it > is quite alien to the spirit of HPB to assume a priori that > Theosophy-- the modern expression by her and her successors-- > is generally true. This is possibly the major source of your frustration, Paul. This board, whether by intention or design, caters mostly to the needs of those who are students of modern Theosophy. Newcomers sign on to LEARN about the teachings and attitudes of Theosophy -- modern Theosophy. (Sadly, little of that is being discussed). It is also great to put "Theosophy" in the context of "theosophy." If you don't feel terribly committed to Theosophy -- the modern work of HPB -- this would explain why you often feel excluded, even beat up, by current Theosophists. > Rich states that participation on theos-l, or at least > identification as a Theosophist, means that one has an A PRIORI > attitude that Theosophy is generally true. I must differ, and > feel sure that HPB herself would as well. This last line is -- forgive me -- bullshit. HPB was certainly accomodating to those who didn't think like her, and she welcomed those of ALL viewpoints, even gross materialists, to publish in *The Theosophist* or *Lucifer.* But HPB's best efforts went not to the public at large, or to the Churches, or to scientists, etc., though she wrote occasionally for them. HPB's best efforts went to her closest and sincerest students. The entire E.S. was formed because HPB couldn't get anything done with the T.S. in general. And then she formed the Inner Group of hand-picked students with whom she poured out the final efforts of her life. She was always dedicated to THE FEW. She said herself, writing to Mr. Judge: "I rather lose the whole American lot ... than YOU." She frequently stated that she would gladly give up the entire T.S. for a handful of devoted, sincere workers. But it is exceedingly interesting that Paul, one MOST INTERESTED in prorecting the T.S. from becoming the vehicle of mindless, worshipful HPB devotees, should quote HPB as an authority, and use her as a rhetorical device to indicate what is, or should be, normative in Theosophy (or theosophy, for that matter). Paul continues: > PS-- I hope you are joking about my books. HPB never said the > adepts were always right, never said anyone could be-- so my > assertion that a definition of them as infallible simply > renders them nonexistent is based on capital t Theosophy. There is another fine example of rhetoric without substance. No one -- NO ONE, my friend -- on this list, is claiming that an Adept, or anyone daring to call themself an Adept, must be ALWAYS right. This is a tool to conjure with for pure rhetoric. It goes on in Congress daily, it is a tired sophistic tool used even in Socrates time. It is simply this "Thou shalt exaggerate thy disuptant's position to make it appear ridiculous. Thus is may be dismissed without further examination." So let us clear the slate and approach the subject as reasonable, educated men. The Adepts are NOT infallible, and have no desire to be so regarded. Is this the same as saying that entire portions of their "secret doctrine," that accumulated body of teachings from the ages, assembled by seers in every land, is false? No, it is not. One can be an Adept, and entirely fallible, and still be taken seriously in the broad outlines of the philosophy. And while the anthropogenesis prosented in the S.D. vol. II may seem quite arcane and inscrutable and indefensible to some, it is nevertheless the centerpiece of HPB's last great tome. It cannot be dismissed without dismissing perhaps 8 to 10 years of HPB's labors -- and, we assume, the labors of her Teachers. The doctrine is not hinted at, or postulated, it is directly taught as a central piece of the teachings which were to be handed out. The anthropology is by no means completely given, rather, it is outlined, a few periods examined, very few details. But the teaching is unmistakably intended as important and worth quite a few hundred pages of foolscap. ---continued--- From Richtay@aol.com Fri Apr 26 04:45:17 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:45:17 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960426004516_522293301@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: anthropology-biology Jerry S. writes, > Rich, you are touching here on one area which, as Alexis has pointed > out, is no longer socially acceptable or scientifically sound. As you and so many others have amply demonstrated on this board, what is socially acceptable is quite irrelvant. So I will ignore that complaint. As for science, they cannot yet explain genetically, linguistically, or physiologically the emergence of the current races. They are in no position to object to HPB's theory that races have strengths and weaknesses, tendencies in one direction or another. The whole > teaching of Root Races has led to a lot of errors and misunderstandings. This is no object as to whether the teaching is true or not true. karma has been much misunderstood and abused also. I was in India hearing native Hindus say "It's their karma, too bad for them. It's not my job to help." This is to radically misunderstand the teaching, and demonstrates nothing about te teaching itself understood on its own terms. As a Magician you are no doubt familiar with this truism. > Let me quote here: > > "The Negroes form one of the very few exceptions amonst us today > of baby races, imperfect in mental and physical development (but not > in spiritual development) " G de Purucker, STUDIES IN OCCULT > PHILOSOPHY, p 44. (TUP, 1945) G de P is neither here nor there to me. This is an example of MISUNDERSTANDING. So? I am interesting in the Masters' teachings, and HPB's, and the possible uses thereof in my own spiritual development. Find me some good HPB quotes, if you will, and then put them in context of Universal Brotherhood. Suppose there were some "younger" races, or even people within ANY given race who were "younger" and not so long in human form (which can harldy be avoided unless everyone achieved the human state all at once, rather than gradually). What would be our duty to such humans? Under brotherhood, it seems to me that whatever a person's or race's development may be, the best policy is that of aid and kindness and benevolence, not control and domination and even Hitleresque extermination. We see the propensity to abuse, misunderstand and subvert the teachings. Is it any wonder the great Teachers are so reticent? > And > all we have to do is look at today's world of sports to see > how silly is the idea of Blacks having an infantile physical > development. But this is exactly what G de P believed and > taught back in 1945. Yes, so many Blacks seem to have an amazing ability in sports. Look at the recent track record of Kenyans and marathons. Who can say that some Blacks don't have a distinct advantage in physical achievement? And yet we find Blacks like Booker T. Washington and Frederick Douglass with AMAZING minds also. We denies that American Blacks gave the world jazz? Or the classic Black "spiritual" form of gospel music? Just today I saw a report asking: ----Of the following four national groups, which is most likely to physically touch each other the most during an hour-long chat in a coffee shop? (a) Americans (b) English (c) French (d) Puerto Ricans? {answer: Puerto Ricans, with over 100 touches per hour. French, 86, English, 0, Americans, 2.} We are lightweights if we are afraid to assert and enjoy the diversity of talents and gifts of the world's peoples. The danger is in reifying these differences and in using words like "superior" or "inferior," we are all brothers and sisters at whatever stage of the great pilgrimmage. From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 05:24:36 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 22:24:36 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426052436.006ac42c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Alexander At 07:16 PM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >He certainly thought he was. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI,FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >And why not? His Mother Olympia, was at least a "witch" or "sorceress" and at most a demi-Goddess, his Father a Sepent who came to her one night. Even Philip of Macedonia believed that Apollo (who regularly took the form of a serpent, and whose primary symbol was a Serpent) was Alexander's actual Father. After all, every single facet of Alexander's character was what the people of that time considered to be "divine", his incredible good looks, his immense intelligence, and his unmeasurable charisma and charm, were all seen as absolute evidence of his divine parentage. How many ordinary people can match his attainments. I think he was simply an adept, they thought he was a God, and I'm sure he agreed with his Mother and with Philip his "adopted" Father. In view of certain inspirations I have lately had, this is not as far fetched as it seems. alexis dolgorukii the eclectic theosophist Shaman, Healer, Psychic Member Gang of five (more welcome) From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 05:57:23 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 22:57:23 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426055723.006af5f0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Tulku At 04:34 PM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: > I hate to bring up the m word, but the difference between >HPB and Helena Blavatsky was pure magic. HPB was not some external >Adept working through Blavatsky, but one of her own Higher Selfs. This >is traditional magic, and virtually all magicians do this. In her case, >she also had external Adepts working through her in a mediumistic >sense (or tulku as Alexis likes to call it). > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Jerry: Fellow member of the gang of five! "Magic" it was, if "magic" is seen to be any condition outside the experience of everyday reality. But in regard to the Yelana Blavatsky-H.P.B diversity, H.P.B. was a male, and Blavatsky was a female. H.P.B. was in actuality the Adept Narayan, and Mme.. Blavatsky was a very high "Chela" of not Narayan, but of the Adept known as "M" who was H.R.H. Chandragupta Das Maurya, Maharajah of Benares. Now the important distinction that Blavatsky, H.P.B. and I are trying to make is that the state of being known as "Tuklu" is Shamanistic, but it is conscious shamanism and has no connection at all to Mediumship which all three of us definitely disapprove of. Try to avoid Jungian interpretations of things he didn't understand. alexis dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA. the eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti - paro - dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Tulku Member: Gang of Five (more always welcome) From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 06:03:52 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:03:52 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426060352.006a3830@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Adepts At 04:31 PM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: >>> Do you mean by "Adept" an exceptional >>>spiritual individual, with some form of inner awakening? If so, I >>>wouldn't write off theosophical groups as being hopeless in this >>>regard. >> >> "Exceptional spiritual individual, with >>some form of spiritual awakening" is all too frequently the pose assumed by >>some Snake oil salesman like Jerry Falwell or sister Theresa. > > While I would agree with Alexis, for the most part, he >apparently has not met Grace Knoche, who nicely fits Eldon's >definition. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Jerry: No I haven't met Grace Knoche, but from what I hear about her from those who have, you're right. Not all "exceptionally spiritual individuals with some form of spiritual awakening" are Snake Oil Salesmen, only those in whom the spirituality is a posture or pose. Sometimes it was real, as it was in John xxiii. But sadly, in all too many cases in human society Spirituality is a posture and an assumption, the "real one's" are a rarity. Sadly too, the general human definition of "spirituality" is limited to "imitatio Sanctus", and has nothing to do with real spirituality. alexis dolgorukii, MTI., FTSA. the eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti - paro - dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Tulku, Member: The Gang of Five From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 06:06:55 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:06:55 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426060655.006c7114@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Beating a Dead horse, one more time At 04:26 PM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>cut<<<<< >>JS >>You have lost me here. No bodies, however we >>want to define them, have "independent existences." >> Jerry: Wanna Bet? alexis > > > From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 06:12:12 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:12:12 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426061212.006b12fc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: re: and again At 04:10 PM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Jerry: We need to talk, and not in this public forum. alexis dolgorukii the eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti- paro - dharma Shaman - Healer - Psychic - Tulku From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 06:20:43 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:20:43 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426062043.006adf48@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: attitude At 04:07 PM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: > >How convenient. I (and others) can only assume that you do not want to >continue because I am prepared for a full-guns, no-holds-barred discussion, >and I am prepared to bring in current research as well as stand on HPB's >shoulders and defend her positions from the new vantage point of 20th century >science. And, as you surely know, there's lots of it. Good stuff. > >Perhaps it is the height of folly to suggest that so many on this list are >quite in love with banter and chit chat and off the cuff remarks -- >one-liners, anecdotes, etc. -- while shying away from in-depth discussion >which might, just MIGHT make them reconsider their positions. And I am NOT >just referring to Alexis. > >I will say that for my part I don't find your views repugnant, just naive. > And when challenged, you retreat into "I don't want to play this game >anymore." > >But frankly, you threw down the gauntlet by dismissing the anthropogenetic >teachings of HPB, and now refuse to back it up. > >I certainly look forward to "the book," should it ever materialize. > Meanwhile, the repugnant Theosophists will continue to study, discuss and >learn from the actual teachings HPB gave, especially from her magnum opus the >Secret Doctrine, which even at the end of the 20th century is only BEGINNING >to be understood, even by the most sincere students. > >No Rich: You totally misunderstand me, I am perfectly willing to discuss the Anthropogenesis with someone I consider a reasonable and equal opponent. It's your attitude I am backing away from. I'm perfectly willing to discuss anything on a reasonably intellectual level, but, as far as my experience with you goes, you are a fanatic, and you approach theosophy from a religious point of view. One of the things they apparently didn't teach you at Harvard was how to hold a discussion like a gentleman. You are as they say popularly, "a smart-ass kid". When you develop the ability to discuss, and even to argue like a gentleman, then I'll be happy to discuss this with you. I am very much your elder, and frankly, I am very uncomfortable with impertinent puppies. alexis dolgorukii From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 06:39:01 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:39:01 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426063901.006c572c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Alexis responds At 02:17 PM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis, >Thanks for your answers and comments to my questions. > >Do I detect a trace of irritation or impatience in some of your comments to >me? Just a teeny-weeny bit. I am, after all a Dolgorukii, and our "irritation threshold" is famously low. >I'm sorry if you feel I have been needlessly questioning you. But when you >make certain statements without documentation, etc., I have no idea what your >statements are based upon. I cannot read your mind. Is it so unreasonable to >ask for some additional details? Daniel: Some of your questions seem to me to result from aimless curiosity. For instance, you keep asking for my full genealogy, I fail to see why or how this could benefit you as I have made absolutely clear the connection between Yelena Petrovna and myself. How would my other familial connections, which date back before the Common Era, benefit you in your particular field of study. I am a direct descendent of Rurik the Goth, how would that relate to theosophical studies? Others seem to ask for written documentation for things that cannot be written, for instance Yelena Petrovna's sexuality. Obviously the only sources I have are her familial ties and friends of hers who were also friends of my Grandfather. You have the choice of accepting my word as to his word, or not. Other questions ask me for sources (re; The Masters) which I am not at liberty to divulge. As I hope you have already experienced, when I am permitted to do so, I give you everything you ask for. When I am not permitted to do so, I give you as much as I can. Sometimes, Daniel, in this field of endeavour, sources are unusual to say the least. Now most of what you call "interesting ideas" and I thank you for thinking them interesting, especially as they refer to the dichotomy between Mme. Blavatsky and H.P.B./Narayan and to the Adepts or Mahatmas (they are identical things) are not the result of speculation but are the result of personal knowledge, discount this as you will. >Concerning point #4 below, you said that you had just written something on >that in another post. I have not seen that post. Which one is it? Daniel: It had to do with your fourth question, which I am totally embarrassed to admit I have forgotten. If you can remember the question, I will repeat the answer. D'accord? > >Daniel > alexis dolgorukii, MTI.,FTSA. the eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti - paro - dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Tulku From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 06:41:12 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:41:12 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426064112.0069fab8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: happy face! At 07:39 PM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960425180318.00688b40@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>Have you been getting my postings? >> >>alexis dolgorukii > >So far as I know - I just answered a couple. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >I see, but I asked the question this morning when your postings were terribly sparse. alexis From Richtay@aol.com Fri Apr 26 06:45:51 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 02:45:51 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960426024550_100810963@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: HPB in Tibet Doss writes, > At the mention of this story one of the members of the audience told the > monk that this was HPB and it is well documented in her writings. When > the monk heard about this corroboration he seems to have tried to contact > Theosophical Organization(s) in the USA. > > Has any one heard about the above story? Yes, I have. The monk happened to visit the ULT in NYC, and also met with the staff at the Roerich Museum in NYC. It turns out that the monk belongs to a tradition which claims a certain MORYA as it's teacher. The plot thickens ... I will contact some friends in NYC, in both the ULT and the Roerich Museum, and try to get more info. From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 06:49:00 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:49:00 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426064900.0069199c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: happy face! At 07:49 PM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I think our fellow gang member knew I was joking. And I loved the Cyril >story too. It reminded me of the birds in the winter. If I am late getting >the seed out they all sit on the fence and yell. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MGF (member, gang of four) >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: when John and I lived in a place called "Sleepy Hollow" in Marin County. I used to feed three coveys of Quail, if I was late the little guys would line up in our Porte cochiere and holler till I came out...the cats would all line up in the gallery and make faces at the quails. Our new place will be bird heaven. It's got lots of trees and we're planting a small orchard (8 trees). We're only awaiting the V.A. approval; to start the move in motion. ciao alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 06:50:07 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:50:07 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426065007.0068c0cc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Yccch! At 07:21 PM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Naughty, naughty, naughty. Did you forget that all theosophists are divinely >chosen by the Masters to be the creme de la creme of humanity.? > >Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker >Panarch of the Universe > > >Oh Yccch! and double Yccch! alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 06:58:50 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:58:50 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426065850.006bba08@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Young uns At 07:23 PM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >For all their sometimes juvenile silliness, the local OTO has a group of very >nice young people who are all great fans of my books, so they must have some >brains somewhere. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: To be totally serious on the subject. Sure the OTO is silly, how not with Crowley as it's founder? But, where can young uns go? The T.S. and be pontificated to death? What is a really adventurous young person (obviously NOT "Rich Tay) to do, ride "the Good Dhip Theosphy" from ennui to tedium and back again? There's no where exciting and vital for young people to expend their energies. That's why so many of them attend Wiccan and Pagan and Shamanic events. That's why over 400 of them came to the ritual John and I did at Mt. Shasta. That theosophy does not provide any venue for young people is almost criminal. The young instinctively recoil from religion and Theosophy has become one. People like RichTay and Eldon almost guarantee that no significant number of young people will be attracted to theosophy. But to be truthful, young folks weren't attracted in Blavatsky's days either. The young are the future, without them there is no future. I'm an apostle to the Gay. Lesbian, and Transgender community. They don't want to hear about Theosophy but they sure flock to Shamanism and Ritual Magic. alexis the apostle, MTI, FTSA the eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti - paro - dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Tulku From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 07:23:17 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:23:17 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426072317.0069e2d4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "repugnant" At 06:59 PM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >Come on, Alexis! Lighten up! Rich wants to have a discussion. Why not >accomodate >him! You might learn something. : ) And the rest of us (including Rich) >might learn >something, too! > >Isn't Theos-l suppose to be a discussion list, at least in part, where >people with differing >and even equally "repugnant" views can halfway calmly discuss their >different viewpoints? > >Alexis, not everyone on Theos-l is in love with your viewpoint. I was somewhat >shocked with your description of Rich's view as "repugnant." Now you are >entitled to >that opinion but DEAL with Rich's ideas. Show us with logic, reason and >commonsense >that Rich's ideas are repugnant. > >Food for thought, > >Daniel > > >Daniel: I have already responded, I think fully to Rich in his original posting which you have re-posted. I told him, and now I will tell you, that I am not at all unwilling to have even the most lively discussion with anyone who stays on a reasonably intellectual level and will maintain themselves like a gentleman. Now what I find repugnant about Rich's viewpoint is both content and attitude. His attitude towards myself and others on this board is unacceptable to me. The content I find repugnant is that I experience his entire stance as coming from a distinctly religious point of view and I find ALL religions repugnant. But I have made that clear. You actually supported that view when you posted The Master K.H.'s Letter on the subject. Now as to dealing with Rich's ideas, He won't let anyone "deal with his ideas". As I have experienced my contact with him, he is always right, and everyone who disagrees with him is a priori dead wrong. You usually like to take people to task for not supplying copious citations, well he doesn't. My paleo-anthropology comes from journals and newspapers, he has on occasion cited people with whom I totally disagree. Other people on this board have commented that Rich is patronizing and condescending, I have to say I find him impertinent and disrespectful. I am after all, old enough to be at least his Father if not his Grandfather. He apparently assumes that he is the only educated person on this board. He's dead wrong. If he could possibly learn not to be so declassee in has responses to others, I might be willing to put up with him, but for now "we are not amused"! Now, just a note for you, I would be horribly disappointed if "everyone on Theos-L was in Love with my viewpoint" I'd be sure I was doing something wrong. Irritation is my intention! alexis dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA. the eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti- paro- dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Tulku From Richtay@aol.com Fri Apr 26 07:28:46 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 03:28:46 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960426032845_281075701@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: attitude Alexis writes, > I am perfectly willing to discuss the > Anthropogenesis with someone I consider a reasonable and equal opponent. Er ... right. But someone who is so BENEATH you should be easy prey, Alexis. Chop chop. > I'm perfectly willing to discuss > anything on a reasonably intellectual level, but, as far as my experience > with you goes, you are a fanatic, and you approach theosophy from a > religious point of view. One of the things they apparently didn't teach you > at Harvard was how to hold a discussion like a gentleman. Nor did I learn to smoke a pipe or invest in stocks.... You are as they > say popularly, "a smart-ass kid". When you develop the ability to discuss, > and even to argue like a gentleman, then I'll be happy to discuss this with > you. I am very much your elder, and frankly, I am very uncomfortable with > impertinent puppies. Strangely enough, Alexis, everyone else on the list seems perfectly capable of holding a conversation with me. At a "reasonably intellectual" level, no less. Doesn't mean we all agree all the time. Even the Masters feel able to stoop to the level of poor infant humanity. But then, they have "super-human" patience, don't they? Strange also that you indulge yourself with swipes at everyone and everything, unapologetically -- but I am too "rude" to deal with. Isn't there a word for this kind of thing? Fortunately, I can not be "shamed" into silence, and I think this latest post of yours -- composed of nothing but insults toward a person you've never met -- reveals your true colors. From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 07:40:05 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:40:05 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426074005.006a0fe8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: The Gang of Five!!!! At 07:24 PM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>cut<<<<< > >If they were all dead, the "Christian Right" would have no influence in >the U.S.A. The "Christian Right" is not a religion, as you would know if you lived here and experienced it in all it's ugliness. It is an entirely political phenomenon wherein the semblance of religion has been created by the entirely unscrupulous to take advantage of the existential needs of the ignorant and insecure! > >In my understanding, your objection is to *organised, hierarchical, and >power-dominated* religion(s). Insofar as there is a "religious" impulse >in muman beings (and both history and psychology suggest that there is) >it is an impulse to "bond" [the origin of the latin *religio* acc. to >many] and to do so in a spiritual context for spiritual nourishment >(whatever that may mean to whoever does it). Alan: I believe you very well know that my opposition, and it is implacable, is not to the dictionary definition of religion, or to any definition (like yours which states what religion "should be" , OH NO! My opposition is to religion as it manifests, especially in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Triad, which is, was, and always will be, entirely oppressive and cruel and whose only goal is the attainment of power, control \, and profit. That has nothing to do whatsoever with "the religious urge" except in so far it manipulates it. > >There *is* an "inner light" in religious practice - such is my >empirically-discovered experience. In an ideal future, it may well take >on an anarchic form such as you suggest, but we are not in an ideal >future, and pro tem must make the best of what we've got. That's >exactly what you do with your Shamanism, as I understand your telling of >it. Which could [stands back in defensive posture] be interpreted as >your presenting yourself as a priest of the Shamanist religion ... Alan, say rather "There is an "inner light" in valid spiritual practice and I will hardly disagree. I seek spiritual practices whose goals are not power, control and profit. Of course we do not live in an "ideal world" but we can work at making it so. Now, Shamanism isn't a religion in any way because there is no object of worship, in fact there is no worship at all! But given that context, I am in fact a Priest of Shaman ism, in fact due to the spirits with which I cooperate, I am more of a Shamanic High Priest. And that's what makes Shaman ism so different from Religion the spirits are colleagues and not deities. > > > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > Your ENORMOUS INGRATIATING SMILE is accepted gladly, I will NOT turn you into a toad. I would happily turn Rich Tay into a toad but someone beat me to it! Chuck? alexis dolgorukii, MTI., FTSA. the eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti - paro - dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Tulku, Priest From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 07:04:01 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:04:01 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426070401.0067a4d4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: dead adept At 07:50 PM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: >Jerry, >Only if you think that Jesus was an adept. Now I happen to think that he was >not the one that got nailed up, but rather he mesmerized a lesser-known >disciple to take the fall in his place and then reappeared at the opportune >moment. >Alexis would not consider Jesus to exist and therefore could not be >crucified. >I don't know of any other person who got killed who would qualify as an >adept. All the adepts died of natural causes, quite unlike those who got in >their way. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 4 >Heretic >Troublemaker >Most ferocious of adepts > >Chuck: Have you forgotten Giordano Bruno? They toasted him! Have you forgotten Hypatia, they stoned her to death! Have you forgotten Socrates? The had him drink poison. I could go on for hours, several adepts died in German Prison Camps. I know of several Adepts who died in Battle, in Wars ranging from before the common era to very recently. anyway, you get my meaning. alexis, MTI, FTSA the eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti - paro - dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Tulku From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 07:49:51 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:49:51 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426074951.0069e394@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: REINCARNATION: At 09:15 PM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<< > >There are many other historical documents that need to be read and >understood in order to >understand this "reincarnation controversy." So far, no writer has ever >tried to do a detailed >analysis of all the relevant historical material and write this up in an >article or pamphlet. > >Daniel Caldwell > > It's all sort of a "jumbled mess" that needs sorting out isn't it Daniel. That's one of the many reasons that I object to (find repugnant) the religious approach to something that hasn't really been sorted out fully to this day. It's really a shame that you apparently neither "believe in" or "approve of" the psychic approach to these things for what both Yelena Petrovna herself, and H.P.B. himself have to say on this subject is an earful! alexis dolgorukii, MTI., FTSA. the eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti - paro -dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Tulku, Priest From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Sat Apr 27 02:47:28 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 19:47:28 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <31818AC0.3914@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Bee's post on Olcott References: <960425162839_382694215@emout19.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Richtay@aol.com wrote: > > Bee writes, > > > I am beginning to get the idea that Theosophy to begin with was very > > piecemeal and evolved bit by bit over a period of time. Olcott says that > when > > Isis was written neither he nor HPB were familiar with the later > > reincarnation theories that became part of Theosophy. > > Bee, I think this is very true from a certain perspective, but not true from > another. From Olcott's view, Theosophy was slowly manifesting itself over > the years he knew HPB. He was absolutely ignorant of the Theosophical > teachings before he met her, and so her personality was very wrapped up in > how he experienced that unfolding. > > I find *Old Diary Leaves* fascinating, there are a lot of tid-bits there. > But I also caution myself that the events Olcott describes took place many, > many years previously, his memory and his attitudes color a lot of what he > writes. > > While Olcott was quite ignorant of Theosophy before he met HPB, for her part > HPB had spent the entire middle part of her life, from ages 20 to 40, > practically, training with Adepts, traveling the world and meeting spiritual > leaders in every tradition. I think there is no way she cold have been > ignorant of such a FOUNDATIONAL doctrine as reincarnation. After all, she > spent something like 7 years in Tibet altogether, not to mention India etc. > > Olcott may never have HEARD Blavatsky talk about reincarnation, but when I > read *Isis Unveiled*, I certainly see reincarnation in its pages. > > Finally, I think that near the end of his life, Olcott was dismayed about the > Esoteric Section, and the huge popularity HPB had in some quarters. She ws > practically worshipped by some, and this greatly annoyed him, both for > egotistical and for very practical and honest reasons. So Olcott was trying > to "set the record straight" and show how very human and liable to error HPB > was. I think his effort it a good one, but perhaps a bit overzealous in that > department. Human, sure, we all know that. But ignornant of such basic > Buddhism as reincarnation? > > I think Olcott is quite mistaken there. Judge and HPB tell a very different > story, and it would be very interesting to compare stories and try to come up > with a "middle of the road" approach. It would indeed be interesting to be able to remember what each of the participants had to say on the various subjects. I will have to remember to take Olcott with a grain of salt. I can get quite absorbed in whatever I am reading at any given time and being reminded to keep the feet on the ground is very handy. As you say the tid bits are fun and I have also learned a lot from his discussion on the use of elementals in much of the phenomena. I am starting to look at the things around me with different eyes :-) Many thanks for the interesting reply Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 08:01:01 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 01:01:01 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426080101.006b74a0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: amerindians At 04:29 PM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote: > I would remind everyone that the American Indians found >a sacredness to life every day of their lives, and were an extremely >religious people. Yes they had no church, no institution, and no >word in their vocabulary that would equate to "religion." Thus the >Christian invaders thought them totally heathen and ungodly. Then >the conversions began. Most Indians today would prefer the older >Shamanistic way of life then the institutionalized religion that they >have been forced to adopt. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Jerry: That is wonderfully well put.It is equally true of Shamnism wherever it has existed, and it has existed everywhere. As to the conversions, at first it was "convert or die" and that changed to "convert or starve" and that eventually became "convert or esle". But today those of us who are involved in shamnic Practice, are seeing the Amerindian Peoples, and many other peoples elsewhare in the world, throwing off the chains of forced "conversions" and returning to their roots. As to their beliefs, they had no word for "religion" and no concept for it either. All of life was a spiritual synergy for them, all of life was one, to them, the spirits were the spirits and they were to become spirits when they died, there was reverence for nature, but no worship. There was reverence for life, but no fear, and all religion is predicated on fear. Becuase of their Shamans the peoples of the shamnic world n\knew there was no such thing as "death" so they didn't fear it, so they didn't need "religion" to assuage a non-existant fear. That isnot to say that religion has an attitude like the spiritualists, but they also don't fully agree with the Theosophical or Buddhist-Brahmanist versions, they have their own version and it's a reasonable combination of those oterh views. alexis dolgorukii, MTI., FTSA. the eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti - paro - dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Tulku, Priest Member of the 'Gang of Five" From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Sat Apr 27 03:51:53 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 20:51:53 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <318199D9.284C@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: REINCARNATION: To Bee References: <199604260109.SAA22218@web.azstarnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Blavatsky Foundation wrote: > > There are many other historical documents that need to be read and > understood in order to > understand this "reincarnation controversy." So far, no writer has ever > tried to do a detailed > analysis of all the relevant historical material and write this up in an > article or pamphlet. > > Daniel CaldwellMany thanks. I have printed it and will have a good read and see if our library has the relevant stuff. Probably will as we have a good library. We have the Theosophist right back to 1903 or there abouts and our librarian had listed some of the more interesting articles in the really old ones. Now that I am spending a couple of afternoons a week there, making myself available, so to speak, I hope to look at the old stuff just to see what was going on. -- Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Apr 26 11:22:26 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 06:22:26 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: HPB in Tibet In-Reply-To: <960426024550_100810963@emout12.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I think everyone would be interested in any information you can find out. ...doss On Fri, 26 Apr 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 02:47:49 -0400 > From: Richtay@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: HPB in Tibet > > Doss writes, > > > At the mention of this story one of the members of the audience told the > > monk that this was HPB and it is well documented in her writings. When > > the monk heard about this corroboration he seems to have tried to contact > > Theosophical Organization(s) in the USA. > > > > Has any one heard about the above story? > > > Yes, I have. The monk happened to visit the ULT in NYC, and also met with > the staff at the Roerich Museum in NYC. > > It turns out that the monk belongs to a tradition which claims a certain > MORYA as it's teacher. The plot thickens ... > > I will contact some friends in NYC, in both the ULT and the Roerich Museum, > and try to get more info. > From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Apr 26 11:35:19 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 06:35:19 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Bee's post on Olcott In-Reply-To: <31818AC0.3914@whanganui.ac.nz> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Bee: I am glad that you are reading the ODL. It is always very helpful to get some historical background of TS and it will make one appreciate (at least it did to me) the sacrifices made by people like Olcott - he gave quite a few years of the prime of his life - to build TS. I have always enjoyed reading ODL. ....doss On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Bee Brown wrote: > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 03:50:24 -0400 > From: Bee Brown > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Bee's post on Olcott > > Richtay@aol.com wrote: > > > > Bee writes, > > > > > I am beginning to get the idea that Theosophy to begin with was very > > > piecemeal and evolved bit by bit over a period of time. Olcott says that > > when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clip > > It would indeed be interesting to be able to remember what each of the > participants had to say on the various subjects. I will have to remember to > take Olcott with a grain of salt. I can get quite absorbed in whatever I am > reading at any given time and being reminded to keep the feet on the ground > is very handy. As you say the tid bits are fun and I have also learned a lot > from his discussion on the use of elementals in much of the phenomena. I am > starting to look at the things around me with different eyes :-) > Many thanks for the interesting reply > > > > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L > From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Apr 26 12:19:13 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 07:19:13 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: World Suffering-World Servers In-Reply-To: <960426041612_74024.3352_BHT198-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Keith: From a personal point of view, after all said and done, what is left is each one of us and other human beings (and other species) with whom we come into contact in our daily life. Each one of us can make a difference in the lives of people we interact with. It is with taking small opportunities to help others, that we become aware to recognize big opportunities when they present themselves. I have known a number of people who are well endowed with their good Karma and are affluent and they are no more happier than a homeless person. May be the homeless person is leading a more happier life. I am not suggesting that we all should choose the homeless life style!!! Personally, what I would be looking for a life that moves on without much obstacles. I have seen unexpected help and advise come up to help life go smoother. Keep up your optimism. Cheers. ....Doss On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Keith Price wrote: > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:19:17 -0400 > From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: World Suffering-World Servers > > 1996 has been a year of karma in my face, demanding to be repaid now, with > Snidely Whiplash twirling his greasy moustache at the foreclosed note due etc. > > And it has forced me to examine ideas I have often heard, but never experienced > the truth of such as > >>>>>clip>>>>> > The Buddhist doctrine of the wheel of karma as desire leading to the suffering > of unfullfiled desires as the nature of human consciousness leads to the desire > to escape into nirvana. To hold back to help others as the Nirmankaya vestiture > blows out the difference between Nirvana and Samsara to a unity awareness. > World Service seems not to depend so much on special knowledge, but attitude. > World Servers can be the ordinary people who provide the link unconsciously to > the goodness behind suffering: that is health professionals, doctors, ministers > and on down to the levels of cook and office cleaner. > > I am beginning to think that intellectual analysis is necessary, but actually > lies midway on the spiritual path. It lies actually on the lower mental plane > although it often claims to have acces to the higher mental through contact with > inspiration from the buddhic or atmic planes ( a lot of wishful thinking > sometimes, don't you think?). > > I have been synchronistically reintroduced indirectly and through my own > conscious and unconscious processes (dreamwork) to the notion of the World > Server. Many like Eldon reiterate the thesophical goal or a Brotherhood of > Humanity. Is a political system necessary for this? Are we in collusion with > some dark tyranical movement that wants to reduce the freedom of the individual > in the name of world peace as many so-called kooks would suggest. The goal is > not the brotherhood of humanity, but the more humble nucleus of a brotherhood of > humanity. This modest goal is perhaps all we can achieve at this point in the > evolution of humanity. How many have been called to the path by suffering > more than by complacency, boredom or simple curiosity? Until the Buddha stepped > out of the palace and Christ out of the carpenter's shop spirituality was > superfulous to the enjoyment and struggles of life. Suffering was the > initiation fee, so to speak. > > Namaste > Keith Price > > > From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Apr 26 13:37:04 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 08:37:04 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960426083922.27a701fc@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Geneology Hi There is an interesting tradition in India that *everyone* there consider themselves as descendants of one of the Seven Great Raja (Kingly) Rishis. In most of the Hindu rituals, you identify yourself. In identification, apart from your name, you also trace the specific geneology upto the third ancestor and then add on the name of the Rishi at the top of the ancestry. So each can claim Royal Princely ancestry. If this is true of the people of India, then everyone in *every* part of the world is a descendant of a King and hence is of Princely ancestry. No matter what you are - young, old, man, woman, short, tall, thin, obese, white, yellow, black, brown, green etc each can feel Princely -- even though in most of the parts of the world now all the Kings have been deposed. So let us all feel good about ourselves. ...doss From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Fri Apr 26 14:27:50 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 10:27:50 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604261427.KAA02679@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: to Daniel re Alexis Dear Daniel-- You asked me what I make of Alexis's identifications of Morya and Koot Hoomi. My reaction can be summed up in three points: 1) I am chagrined that I did not pursue the Maharaja of Varanasi in my research, or find out that "Maurya" was part of his name. He certainly belongs in the pantheon of Theosophical maharajas who collectively are part of what I regard as HPB's group of occult sponsors. 2) As for Karan Singh's remarks to Alexis, it would be great for the progress of Theosophical history to know what they were. I find the identities of M. and K.H. to be overlapping enough (in terms of parallel qualities like the name Singh, given in Theosophical lit) that it wouldn't bother me in the least to have definitive evidence of Alexis's hypothesis come forth. 3) The Theosophical movement would be far better off IMO if there were a proliferation of attempts to identify various Masters and argue for and against various hypotheses. So far I have seen absolutely no signs of this happening. From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Fri Apr 26 14:31:28 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 10:31:28 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604261431.KAA03804@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Send me Rich's message Due to something weird either in vnet or in my own VLIN, I cannot print the entirety of a message. And since I get the digest, I cannot reasonably use the reply function, quote the whole digest, and then delete the hundreds of lines I don't want to answer. Have tried that, and things get garbled by it. Therefore, if I am to answer Rich's aggressive remarks-- before I sign off for a while to concentrate on writing-- somebody will need to forward his post to me. Thanks, PJ From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 26 15:17:14 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:17:14 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960426111713_281254215@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Rigidity/Flexibility Alan, Jerry has had the plans for the helmet since 1987. Of course if he wants to buy one, I know who makes them. It ain't me, I don't have the time. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA MG4 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 26 15:17:59 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:17:59 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960426111758_281254774@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: legitimate? Alan, Member, Gang of 4 and all of the other ones you came up with. :-) Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MGof4 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 26 15:18:37 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:18:37 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960426111836_281255125@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: HPB in Tibet Doss, I've never the story before but it would be interesting if true. Maybe we could learn how someone of HPB's girth could get around those mountains and live to tell the tale. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Fri Apr 26 15:56:27 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 08:56:27 PDT From: Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Message-Id: <9604261559.AA21087@orchid.tc.pw.com> Subject: Re: Adding My Two Cents To respond to what Richard Ihle sets forth below: Richard asks: "Why is it that for thousands if not millions of years parents in every type of culture have been at least able to successfully raise their own children . . . but that it seems like such a major problem for us?" Children today have greater obstacles at hand, ones that put them at greater risk, and many if not often times parents and/or guardians can be counted amoung those obstacles ... particularly when given a parent who cannot hope to even be aware of what Richard stated below, never mind use practical application. I'm talking about a generation of adults who dwell in perpetual "reactive mode", whose every thought, action and response is in reaction to their own pain, be it spiritual, mental, emotional, or physical. These individuals are dangerously blind to how their behavior affects others. How the next generation makes it out of perilous childhood, in my opinion, has everything to do with the gifts they were born with. ------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry S.> >I work with foster children, and have for over 30 years now. The new >ones are infinitely worse than the old. The new >generation of foster/abused children is too scary to contemplate. > One problem that I have found--overly permissive and protective >society today. Touch a child today, and you have child abuse. This is >taught to children in schools, and all too soon they learn that they can >pretty well get away with anything. My wife and I are almost ready now >to quit with foster children. Richard Ihle writes> Hi, and thanks to Donna Faber for starting this interesting thread. Jerry, you are right there on the front lines, aren't you?! As usual, I find myself agreeing 100% with your assessment. In fact, the main reason I started looking into the possibility of something like a "psychogenesis" was because of my work with "at-risk" high-school students a few decades ago (now I only deal with "talented-and-gifted" and college-bound sections). I had been, of course, familiar with all the "cognitive and moral maturalists"; however, their ideas just did not seem helpful enough when it came to the day-to-day problems with children. I found myself asking the same simple question again and again: Why is it that for thousands if not millions of years parents in every type of culture have been at least able to successfully raise their own children . . . but that it seems like such a major problem for us? The mystery started to clear up considerably when, unlike most of the academic maturationalists, I considered the possibility that perhaps the focus should not be on what ~attributes~ of children may be maturing in sequential fashion, but rather, on ~what children can potentially believe they ARE~ which also may be maturing according to a predictable, age-related pattern. The egoic possibilities of the first five seven-year cycles in aborted form: I am my "energies" (animating); I am my body (physical); I am my desires and/or the emotions which follow their satisfaction or frustration (desire-feeling); I am my desire-tainted ideas or mental postures which secure advantage for me (desire-mental); I am my pure, dispassionate ideas or things I know how to do (mental). (The potential "semi-Selves" which can form within these broad categories are countless, of course--e.g., having liked ice cream in one moment and having liked French fries in another would count as two different semi-Selves which have appeared and passed away.) One problem with child-rearing, I believe, is the inability for people to understand how, for example, a five-year-old child can have a strong emotion but not yet BE that emotion in the same egoic sense as a fourteen-year-old. The main tenant of my version of Psychogenesis, at least, is that opening up opportunity for new egoic delusion ("delusion" because it is a "contamination" of *Self*) is an age-related process. Unfortunately, the neat seven-year pattern is complicated somewhat by the circumstance that the egoic possibilities of the next cycle start showing up in "experimental" form at the mid-point of the current cycle. Be that as it may, I believe even a rough idea of Psychogenesis can help with parenting. For example, somewhere in the Animating Cycle, perhaps about age three-and-one-half, the simple technique of "channelling" of a child's energies has to be augmented, when necessary, with the operating principle of the coming Physical Cycle--*dominance*. The big person bosses the small person--period. Now, if there is not something fundamentally more seriously wrong (an actual organic physical/psychological debility or the fact that people did something really bad to her early in the Animating Cycle) many of the problems with the nine-year-old girl you described may well stem from her never having had the feature of subordination/superordination consistently inculcated into her behavioral patterns as she approached and passed into the Physical Cycle. The key term here is *consistently.* The popular issue of spanking versus not spanking may be largely irrelevant. I have known students who have never had a hand laid on them who turned out great; I have known students whose parents often "took the belt to them" who turned out great. The common denomenator often seems not to be method but ~consistency in application~ of whatever method is used to subordinate the child's will to that of the parent's during the critical years when a child is testing the semi-Selves (temporary egoic identities) which form in the physical type of differentiated consciousness. Sometimes people point to the lack of success of parents who used overly harsh methods. In my experience, however, it does not seem like this so-called "child abuse" is always the principal issue. It is many times a situation like this: the child is allowed to do whatever he or she wants for a while; then the parent beats the crap out of the kid. The child is again allowed to run free; then somewhere down line the parent beats the crap out again. If the harsh parent had been dominating the child on a more moment-to-moment basis, there might be fewer big problems later. Similarly, if the "time-out" type parent could keep the child under his or her gentle thumb without any frequent or extended hiatus, there might be fewer big problems. (Both types of parents, however, have to face the fact that any simple "dominance" technique has to start being phased out, sometimes as early as age ten-and-one-half but almost certainly after fourteen, when the child approaches and then later enters the Desire-Feeling Cycle.) To many parents, ~simple dominance~ does not have a pleasant ring to it. In their modern wisdom they may prefer using "giving the reasons for things" etc. as a substitute technique, even with very small children. Unfortunately, we often see the sad results. In the case of a young person of middle- or early high-school age, typically what you have to work with are these two things: 1) the ~habits of compliance~ the young person brings from the Physical Cycle, and 2) the ~emotional rapport~ which, all other things being equal, the young person actually wants to establish with you. However, if the teenager brings no habits of compliance . . . well, a fourteen-year-old really running wild is not nearly as amusing as a five-year-old sort of running wild. . . . The parents of the old days probably made many mistakes; however, turning into ineffectual humanistic philosophers whenever their own children started throwing stones at them (as in the example you cited) was probably not among these mistakes. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Apr 26 16:55:24 1996 Date: 26 Apr 96 12:55:24 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: ARE and two Jerrys Message-Id: <960426165524_76400.1474_HHL81-1@CompuServe.COM> Paul: > Cayce insisted so continually that >you should *take what you can use and leave the rest alone.* Thanks for the quote Paul. These are my sentiments as well. BTW, what did he recommend for arthritis? I have heard it was wheat germ, but I need confirmation. Jerry S. Member, TI From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Fri Apr 26 17:00:38 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:00:38 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9604261700.AA09668@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: bodies--a dead horse >>JHE: >>However, if someone on this board wishes to continue this >>discussion concerning differences between HPB and CWL, I would >>be more than happy to start again. >Me too, consider the glove taken, Jerry. Let us pick up where we >left last week. OK Kim, I expected that you would be lurking in the shadows and would be ready to continue this discussion with you. However, as I mentioned to Dan Caldwell, our discussion was on quite a different plane than was mine with Jerry S. Therefore, I think that some of the suggestions Dan had made or indicated are appropriate here: 1. All statements on our parts must be at least backed up by a reference. Short illustrative quotes are even better. 2. When discussing HPB's system, the quotes supporting her must come from HPB. Supports from CWL must come from CWL. Using other "authorities" such as, for instance, Bailey, Purucker, Subba Row etc. to either support or to not support HPB or CWL cannot be acceptable because if raises questions concerning the understanding of that "authority." 3. My own bias is that HPB's system is not borrowed from any extant Indian system, so I would not find the quoting of this or that Indian system to support HPB's system to be acceptable either. If you feel differently, then I would be interested in hearing your arguments as to why you might believe that HPB's system is borrowed from an Indian system. I think the above will help to minimize side tracking and tangents and will help keep the discussion progressive. It should also make it easier for other readers to follow, if they care to. If the above is acceptable to you, then perhaps the best way to start is for you to append the supporting evidence to the statements (references quotes etc.) in your last reply. In the mean time, I will look over your replies and re-examine those citations I made that you believe I misunderstood. Also, please let me know of any statements I made that you may feel to be unsupported. Since this is the end of the semester, please understand that my replies may be a bit erratic for the next month. Best Jerry HE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Fri Apr 26 17:01:57 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 13:01:57 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199604261701.NAA09843@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Rich, HPB and me Whatever was wrong, wherever it was, has been fixed, so I have printed out Rich's comments in order to reply to them. Dear Rich, I asked for a one-page summary of Blavatskian anthropology, stating where and how you thought it would be confirmed by future science. Your response has no such summary, just a list of challenges to current anthropology in general. No mention of HPB is in there at all, so it will hardly do for the purpose at hand. Thanks for trying, but as I'm unsubscribing today I won't be available to be go-between for the proposed dialogue. You write, "the major source of your [my] frustration" is the fact that I "don't feel terribly committed to Theosophy-- the modern work of HPB" which makes it inevitable that I feel "excluded, even beat up, by current Theosophists." Whoa, there! Do you mean to say that anyone who is strongly interested in modern Theosophy, but less than "terribly committed" to it cannot possibly engage in discussion with "current Theosophists" without receiving treatment that amounts to being excluded, or even beat up? That is a truly damning indictment of Theosophists! But I don't think it's true at all of the majority. My experience, on the contrary, is that the great majority of current Theosophists are NOT "terribly committed" (nice phrase, thanks) to the Blavatskian interpretation of the universe. At most they are committed to interpreting the universe in a way that *takes account* of HPB. A large handful of Theosophists have been outraged by my work and hateful to me. But in large and small groups, in Virginia, D.C., Maryland, North Carolina, California, and even in Wheaton-- ever since my first book came out, I've been talking about these things to Theosophists and been consistently welcomed and treated in a brotherly, inclusive manner. The ratio of positive to negative treatment accorded me by Theosophists responding to my work has been at least 100-1. Only in print and online have people acted as if they wanted to exclude me and beat me up-- at most one or two in person out of hundreds. If Theosophists were as unified in their orthodoxy as you seem to indicate, there would be no need for anyone to attack me. It's precisely because those who see themselves as custodians of the Only Accepted Interpretation are *fearful* of my books' influence that they behave as they do. Add up all the attacks made by Theosophists on Elizabeth Clare Prophet, Benjamin Creme, Greg Tillett, Bruce Campbell, and Peter Washington-- all of whom have written books that express or imply views of the Masters quite alien to Theosophists-- and they don't come near the attacks on The Masters Revealed. Why, for that matter, did In Search of the Masters escape being attacked that way? Not until TMR was published by an impressive press, distributed widely, favorably reviewed in a great many places (including a recent one that is a real coup) did the same ideas I had published years before suddenly become the great enemy to be destroyed at all costs. You seem to want to portray the situation as "all the Theosophists united in agreement against someone who is not really one of them." That, I can assure you, is VERY far from the truth. The truth is that there is an immense diversity of views of the Masters among Theosophists, a great many of whom are not in the least offended or threatened or made angry by my work. The few who are extremely offended or threatened or angry managed to make my life hell for much of 1995. But they are, nonetheless, a minority. Most Theosophists, I think, are like me, more committed to an ever-expanding quest for truth than to adhering to a single author's viewpoint, no matter whose. You say it is "bullshit" to assert that HPB would differ from your suggestion that to be a Theosophist means to make an a prior assumption that Blavatskian Theosophy is correct. If you were not so resistant to citations of chapter and verse coming from someone you perceive as a heathen, I could throw a bunch of quotes at you. But why bother? You go on to assert that HPB really cared about just a few students, that the ES, and then the Inner Group, show her real commitments, and that the TS and society at large were at best side interests. How elitist! If HPB was even one tenth the spiritual giant I believe her to be, she was overwhelmingly concerned with "the orphan humanity" and not with a handful of disciples who started to behave like cats in a bag the minute her back was turned-- more so after she died. You write sarcastically that you find it "exceedingly interesting" that I should quote HPB as an authority, cite her about what is normative in Theosophy. Well who am I writing to here? It's YOU who needs to have HPB's authority dragged in to convince you. I'd quote Baha'u'llah to a Baha'i for exactly the same reasons. Not my choice at random, or the way I tend to think. But when the questions are things like "what did HPB think about x?" then the obvious authority is HPB herself. And there are probably 200 passages that make it clear that HPB welcomed as Theosophists people who were quite skeptical of her particular version of theosophy. You accuse me of rhetoric without substance because I point out that defining adepts as infallible is equivalent to rendering them nonexistent. In fact, I was defending my work against YOUR accusation that MY definition of adepts as fallible renders HPB's teachers nonexistent. THAT was rhetoric without substance. What started this was your argument that if the SD's anthropology was wrong, this would indicate that HPB did not in fact derive it from adepts. When I replied that this was not necessarily true, and that no adept in history could be shown to have had a full understanding of such scientific questions, you were the one to engage in rhetorical blasts. There is an interesting discussion going on now on medit-l about "casting out demons" in the Bible, and how this relates to attitudes and emotions rather than invisible beings, etymologically. Thus to cast out a demon is to cast out an attitude. Well, Rich, I really despair of any discussion with you unless you are willing to consider casting out some attitudes that are abundantly visible in your posts. To name them would probably be superfluous, but I'll give you a hint: they all have to do with feeling not just authorized but encouraged to display blame, condescension, sarcasm, anger, and aggression to anyone who doesn't see HPB and Theosophy your way. Please reconsider. I'll try if you will-- or if you won't for that matter. From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 17:36:24 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:36:24 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426173624.00676600@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Children Jerry: what a frightful and horrifying tale! What a terrible loss to both adults and children this situation is. David Eddison, who usually writes very wonderful "Swords and Sorcery Epics", wrote a Book called "Losers" and in it he deals, I believe with another aspect of this problem. I will not discuss it herein but i suggest you find it and read it. As to myself, because of my work with animals, and because I'm a Shaman, for some reason small kids are drawn to me, Once upon a time this led to some happy times. but today when a child wants to hug or touch me I draw back and am afraid to permit it. That's such a loss. The kids are all right because they have the wolf to hug. But it's still a removal from human to human contact. I see no end to it nor do my sources. alexis dolgorukii > From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 17:36:26 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:36:26 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426173626.0067ae98@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB in Tibet At 12:25 AM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >It is well known that HPB lived for a time in Tibet and underwent some >training. > >Recently in a group of monks from one of the monasteries in the Eastern >Tibet was travelling in the USA, one monk mentioned about what he had >heard from one of the older monks about the tradition of a Russian woman >having visited and stayed in the monastery in the latter half of 1800s. >At the mention of this story one of the members of the audience told the >monk that this was HPB and it is well documented in her writings. When >the monk heard about this corroboration he seems to have tried to contact >Theosophical Organization(s) in the USA. > >Has any one heard about the above story? > > ....doss > > >Doss: I have heard the story. But then I have always known her stories about her travels to Tibet were absolutely true. But I am glad to see absolutely unbiased corroberation. alexis From am455@lafn.org Fri Apr 26 17:53:37 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:53:37 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199604261753.AA08567@lafn.org> Subject: Elitist Bodhisattvas? Paul Johnson to Rich Taylor> >...You go on to assert that HPB really cared >about just a few students, that the ES, and then the Inner >Group, show her real commitments, and that the TS and society >at large were at best side interests. How elitist! If HPB was >even one tenth the spiritual giant I believe her to be, she was >overwhelmingly concerned with "the orphan humanity" and not >with a handful of disciples who started to behave like cats in >a bag the minute her back was turned-- more so after she died... You are both right. In SD I, 207 it says: "He [the "Nameless One"] has sacrificed himself for the sake of mankind, though but a few Elect may profit by the GREAT SACRIFICE." In the Bhagavad Gita there is a line about "one in 10,000 knowing me [Krishna, our Higher Self] as I really am." Adepts are the "efflorescence of an age." So there is no conflict in caring, and working for all beings, yet knowing full well that only "The Few" will profit by it. Thus, focusing on sprouts that arise from fertile soil, rather than the seeds rotting on rocky ground, is only compassionate. To do the opposite would not be just to those who are ready, spiritually. -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Apr 26 19:15:13 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:15:13 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: HPB in Tibet In-Reply-To: <960426111836_281255125@emout07.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Chuck: From what I have read, at that time she was slim. ..doss > > Doss, > I've never the story before but it would be interesting if true. Maybe we > could learn how someone of HPB's girth could get around those mountains and > live to tell the tale. > > Chuck MTI, FTSA > From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 19:20:04 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 12:20:04 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426192004.0067b854@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "Masters" At 10:30 AM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >3) The Theosophical movement would be far better off IMO if >there were a proliferation of attempts to identify various >Masters and argue for and against various hypotheses. So far I >have seen absolutely no signs of this happening. > >Paul: As you have already more than amply illustrated a truly sincere interest in this apparently forbidden topic, please consider this. I am more than willing to participate in such an activity, and I am hoping that others of "The Gang of Five" will participate in it with me. Want to make it "six". As you know, you are already viewed as an "enemy" of THEOSOPHY, and I rather imagine that the rest of the "gang" are too, so what's to lose? In reality, demythologizing the Adepts will do theosophy a favor as it will make it seem less of a "nut cult' to far more people. You know that if people understood that the Indian Adepts names were kept confidential to keep the "Raj" from deposing them and putting them in jail. You know my friend Karan Singh, spent quite a bit of time in jail. alexis dolgorukii MTI, FTSA. the eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti - paro -dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Priest Member: "Gang of Five" From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 19:20:07 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 12:20:07 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426192007.0067e720@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB in Tibet At 11:21 AM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >Doss, >I've never the story before but it would be interesting if true. Maybe we >could learn how someone of HPB's girth could get around those mountains and >live to tell the tale. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > >Chuck: She wasn't ALWAYS fat! As a younger woman she was very well built in a masculine way. It was the Bright's Disease that put all that weight on her. Much of it wasn't adipose tissue but "bloat". If Dialysis had been available it wouldn't have happened. She liked it less than anyone! It caused her to change from a vital and active person to one who could hardly move. It was utterly frustrating, and she knew that to others it made her an object of some ridicule. How do you think she felt about that? alexis, MTI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 19:20:09 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 12:20:09 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426192009.0067c0f4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Arthritis At 01:00 PM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >Paul: >> Cayce insisted so continually that >>you should *take what you can use and leave the rest alone.* > > Thanks for the quote Paul. These are my sentiments >as well. BTW, what did he recommend for arthritis? I have heard >it was wheat germ, but I need confirmation. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Jerry: I assume you know that, even at my age, the spirits and I have "licked" my own Arthritis. Now, the kind of healing which I do with the spirits is a "hands on" kind of thing and I assume that's impossible in this case. But my Partner, John, does exactly the same thing that Cayce did, with the exception that he does not go into a deep trance and is fully conscious of what he's doing. The results, however, are excellent, and I am permanently following the advice his Doctor gave me. I take rather large doses of Amino Acids three times a day (some 2,000 mgs per pill). I don't know for sure what it does, but the results are certainly pain free, and I've tried "doing without" and I begin to get "minor twinges" almost immediately. That's as far as it goes though, because of the spirit's work. You might also try to avoid highly acid foods. alexis dolgorukii, MTI., FTSA. The Eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti - paro - dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Priest From alexei@slip.net Fri Apr 26 19:20:11 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 12:20:11 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426192011.00679344@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Rich, vs the world At 01:10 PM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >Whatever was wrong, wherever it was, has been fixed, so I have >printed out Rich's comments in order to reply to them. > >Dear Rich, > >I asked for a one-page summary of Blavatskian anthropology, >stating where and how you thought it would be confirmed by >future science. Your response has no such summary, just a list >of challenges to current anthropology in general. >No mention of HPB is in there at all, so it will hardly do for >the purpose at hand. Thanks for trying, but as I'm >unsubscribing today I won't be available to be go-between for >the proposed dialogue. > Paul: This is Rich's apparent methodology, the "Pit Bull Approach"! It's very juvenile, and no matter what one says to him his response is "Nyah, nyah, you're another". He is all the things you say he is, but primarily his main focus is fanaticism. He has a typically ULT view of the subject and anyone or anything who disagrees with him in any way, he attacks. He's a typically "Generation X" type in that he views hostility and disrespect as apparently "cool", and is apparently proud that the definition of Gentleman is a mystery to him. I have added his address to my filter and so I won't be bothered by his existence any longer. If you are in fact, "un subscribing to Theos-L, I'm sorry, but do keep in touch. As things stand now, we're moving to the country on or around June 5th. We've found a lovely house in Geurneville on the Russian River and it will be nice to get out of the Castro. (Too many overlapping problematical auras, and too much drugs and booze..makes an empath "itchy") alexis From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Apr 26 19:24:19 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:24:19 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: HPB in Tibet In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960426173626.0067ae98@mail.slip.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII You may have seen a response that the monk visited ULT in NY and I am trying to find out more about the monk's side of the story. ....doss On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, alexis dolgorukii wrote: > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 13:36:28 -0400 > From: alexis dolgorukii > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: HPB in Tibet > > At 12:25 AM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote: > >It is well known that HPB lived for a time in Tibet and underwent some > >training. > > > >Recently in a group of monks from one of the monasteries in the Eastern > >Tibet was travelling in the USA, one monk mentioned about what he had > >heard from one of the older monks about the tradition of a Russian woman > >having visited and stayed in the monastery in the latter half of 1800s. > >At the mention of this story one of the members of the audience told the > >monk that this was HPB and it is well documented in her writings. When > >the monk heard about this corroboration he seems to have tried to contact > >Theosophical Organization(s) in the USA. > > > >Has any one heard about the above story? > > > > ....doss > > > > > >Doss: I have heard the story. But then I have always known her stories > about her travels to Tibet were absolutely true. But I am glad to see > absolutely unbiased corroberation. > > alexis > > From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Apr 26 19:18:50 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:18:50 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: ARE and two Jerrys In-Reply-To: <960426165524_76400.1474_HHL81-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Jerry: Have your read about the use of apple cider vinegar for arthritis? Blackstrap Molasses which is high in potassium and iron may also help. ...doss PS: The above has nothing to do with Cayce. On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Jerry Schueler wrote: > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 12:59:33 -0400 > From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: ARE and two Jerrys > > Paul: > > Cayce insisted so continually that > >you should *take what you can use and leave the rest alone.* > > Thanks for the quote Paul. These are my sentiments > as well. BTW, what did he recommend for arthritis? I have heard > it was wheat germ, but I need confirmation. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 26 22:36:09 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 18:36:09 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960426183608_522792965@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Alexander Alex, The problem with Alexander was that he ended up believing his own press releases and ultimately got his own troops mad at him, forcing him to do stupid things like try to single-handedly take a city and take an arrow instead (the wound that ultimately killed him). Just think of what the world might have been like if he had a little more humility and a lot longer life. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA MGof5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 26 22:37:16 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 18:37:16 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960426183715_522793646@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Yccch! Alex, Only if you take it seriously. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MGof 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 26 22:37:24 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 18:37:24 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960426183724_522793763@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The Gang of Five!!!! Alex, Someone turned Rich T. into a toad? How could you tell? :-) It wasn't me. I'm too busy killing catholic charismatics. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 26 22:37:21 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 18:37:21 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960426183720_522793734@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Young uns Alex, You and John did a ritual on Mt. Shasta? Didn't the space people get terribly upset with you for drumming on their roof? Seriously again, I have a hard time seeing my chaos magicians coming to the TS, but I would love to see it happen, if only to watch the utter consternation of the old duddy-fuddies who inhabit the society. I think a Vortex ritual in the Olcott Parking Lot would be great fun. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker Apostle to the Magicians From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 26 22:37:29 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 18:37:29 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960426183728_522793813@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: dead adept Alex, You keep forgetting that I define an adept somewhat differently than you do and except for Socrates, the folks on your list did not make serious historical contributions. Let's be honest, if weren't for the TS, who would ever hear of Hypatia and Giordano Bruno was nothing compared to his mentor Bacon. As far as Socrates, that old fraud was no more an adept than Rich T. and probably similar in personality without the excuse of youth. About the ones who died in Hitler's camps, well that's what happens when adepts collide because only an adept can kill an adept. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Apr 26 22:36:42 1996 Date: 26 Apr 96 18:36:42 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Bodies--a dead horse Message-Id: <960426223642_76400.1474_HHL71-1@CompuServe.COM> Dan, In fairness, I feel the need to respond to your post. While the discussion of bodies and planes has some merit, I suppose, as an intellectual exercise, this was not my goal. I was trying to find why JHE thought the two models to be so different. Certainly the terminology is different, and I am yet to be convinced that the there is any real structural differences. You write: >Jerry HE said in one of his posts that he believed Jerry S. misunderstood >the planes/principles as given by HPB. I believe Eldon in previous posts >had said something to that effect. Here we have one of the problems. I am not "misunderstanding" what JHE or Eldon says. I am also not "misunderstanding" what HPB has said. But I do, it would seem, interpret what HPB said a bit differently than JHE or Eldon. Neither JHE nor Eldon have provided direct quotes from HPB, because they can't--because our interpretations of those quotes are different. When JHE responded to me, for example, I did not understand what the response had to so with differences between the models. It soon became obvious that we are interpreting HPB differently. I do not think that there is any disagreement between us on CWL (whose writings are more direct and less obtuse than HPBs) For example, JHE pointed out that the CWL model has the lower five planes as "atomic." Now, as Kim has recently shown, this is not necessarily wrong. My understanding of Buddhism tells me that the lower four planes, those below the Abyss, are composed of "aggragates." Now, an aggragate is something that is composed of many smaller things. Aggragates are the polar opposite of monads. As G de P says, aggragates are "hosts of monads." Is there any real difference between aggragates and atoms? Could it be possible that "atomic" is just another word for "composed of aggragates?" And when we look at HPB, I have no idea where JHE gets the idea that only the lower solar plane is atomic. I suspect that this is used in some other context, but I am not familiar with the quote (yes, I have read about everything that she wrote, but I don't claim to have Alexis's total recall). Now, as to the 5th plane, this lies between the "lower four" and the spiritual and divine above. It is, IMO, the Abyss itself, and contains the "shistas" or seeds of each manvantaric manifestation. So, in a way, this plane too could be called "atomic." So, in a way, I can agree with CWL that the lower five planes are atomic. However, I still don't see where this differs from HPB--who never said a word about the upper 3 planes at all, confining herself to the lower four that contain the seven lower globes. And is we can agree that "aggragates" is not so far from "atoms" then there is no real conflict. This is just one example. I could go on, but I don't want to bore everyone. However, if you find this kind of thing of interest, then I would suggest we discuss it one subject at a time, so that we are not rambling all over the place. I hope that this helps. I would hate to leave everyone with the mistaken idea that I am some kind of dunce who can't understand what JHE or Eldon is saying. I also don't want to suggest that it is JHE or Eldon who have it all wrong. I think that it is all a matter of interpretation; HPB's writings especially are open to interpretation (which is exactly what she intended). Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Apr 26 22:36:54 1996 Date: 26 Apr 96 18:36:54 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Independent Bodies Message-Id: <960426223654_76400.1474_HHL71-3@CompuServe.COM> >>JS >>You have lost me here. No bodies, however we >>want to define them, have "independent existences." >> >Jerry: > >Wanna Bet? I think we have a semantics problem. I am not referring to "independent" as in "external" but rather as in not needing anything else to survive. As far as I am concerned, all "bodies" on all planes, can only exist if they are infilled with a consciousness. In other words, an objective body has to have a subjective self within it. JHE was implying that after we die, we will receive a body (kama-rupa) that was either standing around waiting for us, or made by someone at that instant in time just for us to inhabit, and until we enter it, it is entirely independent of us. I don't buy that. Besides, technically no living thing can ever be "independent" as all living things must depend on something (food, energy, communication, whatever). Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Apr 26 22:36:49 1996 Date: 26 Apr 96 18:36:49 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Bringing up Children Today Message-Id: <960426223649_76400.1474_HHL71-2@CompuServe.COM> Richard, Thanks for the moral support. > perhaps the >focus should not be on what ~attributes~ of children may be maturing in >sequential fashion, but rather, on ~what children can potentially believe >they ARE~ which also may be maturing according to a predictable, age-related >pattern. Here we have a real problem with today's children that is going to bite society pretty soon--the TV. My adopted daughter came to us having been diagnosed at Johns Hopkins as mentally retarded. She was not. But she had been in the foster care system for 6 of her 8 years, and spent almost all of that time in front of a TV. Her concept of reality is like a bad dream. Even today she thinks that people get money by going to Washington DC and pulling it out of a "machine." I have tried to explain to her that in order to get money out of a bank, you first have to put it into the bank, but she has yet to be able to cognize this idea. Her self-image was zero, and as a borderline, she lived vicariously through others. The "predictable" pattern of growth that you discovered is obviously for the mean child. This girl is 11, as tall as my wife, with the behaviors of a 3 or 4 year old. >The main tenant of my version of Psychogenesis, at least, is that opening up >opportunity for new egoic delusion ("delusion" because it is a >"contamination" of *Self*) is an age-related process. Unfortunately, the neat >seven-year pattern is complicated somewhat by the circumstance that the egoic >possibilities of the next cycle start showing up in "experimental" form at >the mid-point of the current cycle. Yes, it does get confusing. The idea of stages must always be based on averages anyway, because individual karma can have drastic effects. I was at the "I am spiritual" stage in my teens, though my concept of "spiritual" at the time was rather naive. >Be that as it may, I believe even a rough idea of Psychogenesis can help with >parenting. For example, somewhere in the Animating Cycle, perhaps about age >three-and-one-half, the simple technique of "channelling" of a child's >energies has to be augmented, when necessary, with the operating principle of >the coming Physical Cycle--*dominance*. The big person bosses the small >person--period. You are right about the channeling. The children that I see are "children of rage." They are filled with anger. Since the foster parents are the closest thing to hand, they tend to take their anger out on the foster parents (the logic that the foster parents are blameless and only trying to help, goes unnoticed in the heat of emotions). We have to channel that anger into less destructive outcomes, if we can. BTW, in Maryland there is no longer a "dominance" stage. It is illegal to "boss" children around in this state. In fact, the state guidelines now read that "touching" a child can be considered abuse (you no longer need to leave a bruise or scar). And you can't throw water on a child--so be careful in any swimming pools while you are in Maryland. (I only wish that I were kidding--I am not). >Now, if there is not something fundamentally more seriously wrong (an actual >organic physical/psychological debility or the fact that people did something >really bad to her early in the Animating Cycle) many of the problems with the >nine-year-old girl you described may well stem from her never having had the >feature of subordination/superordination consistently inculcated into her >behavioral patterns as she approached and passed into the Physical Cycle. All of the kids that I deal with have a "physical/psychological debility" of some kind. I have had 4-year olds with scars from where someone put out cigarettes on them. And much worse. > ... The common >denominator often seems not to be method but ~consistency in application~ of >whatever method is used to subordinate the child's will to that of the >parent's during the critical years when a child is testing the semi-Selves >(temporary egoic identities) which form in the physical type of >differentiated consciousness. Agreed. In fact, this is believed to be the cause of the borderline personality disorder--inconsistent parental responses. And they say it occurs around age 2 to 3. > It is many times a >situation like this: the child is allowed to do whatever he or she wants for >a while; then the parent beats the crap out of the kid. The child is again >allowed to run free; then somewhere down line the parent beats the crap out >again. Yes. This kind of parenting always causes dysfunction in the child. >To many parents, ~simple dominance~ does not have a pleasant ring to it. In >their modern wisdom they may prefer using "giving the reasons for things" >etc. as a substitute technique, even with very small children. This is no longer a "many parent" issue in Maryland. Here, it is the law. The official word in Maryland is the use of logic and reason. This is the *only* accepted response unless you are specially trained in restraining techniques. As a foster parent, when a child throws a rock at my head, I am supposed to reason with him/her. The 9-year old that got my wife into so much trouble has an anti-social personality. According to all the textbooks, this is permanent and won't change. It certainly won't change by the use of logic and reason (most children are in the concrete stage until their teens and can't reason their way out of a wet paper bag until then but our state is undetered by this). Anyway, I am now stepping off my soapbox, and going back to the trenches of my life. The next time a child throws a rock at me, I am going to ask Chuck to borrow his helmet. Jerry S. Member, TI From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 26 22:29:52 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:29:52 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: happy face! In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960426064112.0069fab8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960426064112.0069fab8@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >>I see, but I asked the question this morning when your postings were >terribly sparse. > >alexis There was no room left - you had used it all :-))) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Fri Apr 26 23:19:43 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 16:19:43 PDT From: Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Message-Id: <9604262322.AA25756@orchid.tc.pw.com> Subject: Re: Bringing up Children Today I think Jerry S. deserves a big time round of applause and some well-deserved recognition for the work he's done with wounded children! I think your dedication is wonderful. My hats off to you and Chuck's helmet. Donna __________________________________________________________________________ Richard, Thanks for the moral support. > perhaps the >focus should not be on what ~attributes~ of children may be maturing in >sequential fashion, but rather, on ~what children can potentially believe >they ARE~ which also may be maturing according to a predictable, age-related >pattern. Here we have a real problem with today's children that is going to bite society pretty soon--the TV. My adopted daughter came to us having been diagnosed at Johns Hopkins as mentally retarded. She was not. But she had been in the foster care system for 6 of her 8 years, and spent almost all of that time in front of a TV. Her concept of reality is like a bad dream. Even today she thinks that people get money by going to Washington DC and pulling it out of a "machine." I have tried to explain to her that in order to get money out of a bank, you first have to put it into the bank, but she has yet to be able to cognize this idea. Her self-image was zero, and as a borderline, she lived vicariously through others. The "predictable" pattern of growth that you discovered is obviously for the mean child. This girl is 11, as tall as my wife, with the behaviors of a 3 or 4 year old. >The main tenant of my version of Psychogenesis, at least, is that opening up >opportunity for new egoic delusion ("delusion" because it is a >"contamination" of *Self*) is an age-related process. Unfortunately, the neat >seven-year pattern is complicated somewhat by the circumstance that the egoic >possibilities of the next cycle start showing up in "experimental" form at >the mid-point of the current cycle. Yes, it does get confusing. The idea of stages must always be based on averages anyway, because individual karma can have drastic effects. I was at the "I am spiritual" stage in my teens, though my concept of "spiritual" at the time was rather naive. >Be that as it may, I believe even a rough idea of Psychogenesis can help with >parenting. For example, somewhere in the Animating Cycle, perhaps about age >three-and-one-half, the simple technique of "channelling" of a child's >energies has to be augmented, when necessary, with the operating principle of >the coming Physical Cycle--*dominance*. The big person bosses the small >person--period. You are right about the channeling. The children that I see are "children of rage." They are filled with anger. Since the foster parents are the closest thing to hand, they tend to take their anger out on the foster parents (the logic that the foster parents are blameless and only trying to help, goes unnoticed in the heat of emotions). We have to channel that anger into less destructive outcomes, if we can. BTW, in Maryland there is no longer a "dominance" stage. It is illegal to "boss" children around in this state. In fact, the state guidelines now read that "touching" a child can be considered abuse (you no longer need to leave a bruise or scar). And you can't throw water on a child--so be careful in any swimming pools while you are in Maryland. (I only wish that I were kidding--I am not). >Now, if there is not something fundamentally more seriously wrong (an actual >organic physical/psychological debility or the fact that people did something >really bad to her early in the Animating Cycle) many of the problems with the >nine-year-old girl you described may well stem from her never having had the >feature of subordination/superordination consistently inculcated into her >behavioral patterns as she approached and passed into the Physical Cycle. All of the kids that I deal with have a "physical/psychological debility" of some kind. I have had 4-year olds with scars from where someone put out cigarettes on them. And much worse. > ... The common >denominator often seems not to be method but ~consistency in application~ of >whatever method is used to subordinate the child's will to that of the >parent's during the critical years when a child is testing the semi-Selves >(temporary egoic identities) which form in the physical type of >differentiated consciousness. Agreed. In fact, this is believed to be the cause of the borderline personality disorder--inconsistent parental responses. And they say it occurs around age 2 to 3. > It is many times a >situation like this: the child is allowed to do whatever he or she wants for >a while; then the parent beats the crap out of the kid. The child is again >allowed to run free; then somewhere down line the parent beats the crap out >again. Yes. This kind of parenting always causes dysfunction in the child. >To many parents, ~simple dominance~ does not have a pleasant ring to it. In >their modern wisdom they may prefer using "giving the reasons for things" >etc. as a substitute technique, even with very small children. This is no longer a "many parent" issue in Maryland. Here, it is the law. The official word in Maryland is the use of logic and reason. This is the *only* accepted response unless you are specially trained in restraining techniques. As a foster parent, when a child throws a rock at my head, I am supposed to reason with him/her. The 9-year old that got my wife into so much trouble has an anti-social personality. According to all the textbooks, this is permanent and won't change. It certainly won't change by the use of logic and reason (most children are in the concrete stage until their teens and can't reason their way out of a wet paper bag until then but our state is undetered by this). Anyway, I am now stepping off my soapbox, and going back to the trenches of my life. The next time a child throws a rock at me, I am going to ask Chuck to borrow his helmet. Jerry S. Member, TI From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 26 23:37:55 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 19:37:55 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960426193754_101253256@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Rich, HPB and me Paul, Greg Tillet, Bruce Campbell and Peter Washington would be terribly offended if they knew you put them in the same category with Elzabeth Clare Prophet and Benjamin Creme. There is a difference, albeit sometimes hard to find, between being a scholar and being a nut. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 26 23:38:39 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 19:38:39 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960426193839_101253672@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: HPB in Tibet Doss, For her sake, I hope she was. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker Allergic to mountains From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 26 23:38:51 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 19:38:51 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960426193849_101253741@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: "Masters" Alex, I'm ambivalent about the masters. On one had, I like Paul's work but on the other it is somewhat embarrassing to have one appear in the bedroom with me and my girlfriend. (I didn't know they were voyeurs.) Perhaps we have two groups, the very human figures that Paul writes of and at the same time a group of not quite competant demigods who keep falling off their carpets (hopefully at very low altitude), watch theosophists making whoopee, and trying to decide which to play, the piano keyboard in the living room or the organ keyboard in the drawing room, while trying vainly to keep mankind on track, the TS from becoming totally silly and the Disinherited from setting fire to the Ashram in revenge for being buggered by the Bishop. And doing all this while hiding from the Chinese army! No wonder Morya kept falling off his horse! And what is it that he really puts in that pipe? The reason our merry gang has not done a serious study of the Masters is that it is really very difficult to take them seriously as they have been presented. Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker HOO HAH! Am I in trouble now! Now all I have to do is figure out a way to get the Master DK to come out of the closet--my linen closet! From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 26 23:39:10 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 19:39:10 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960426193910_101253933@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: HPB in Tibet Alex, Knowing the sense of humor and wicked tongue our beloved Madame Blavatskaya had, she probably gave as good as she got. In fact, she still does. I really must get a copy made of the tape of me channeling her and send it to you. By the way, do you have any way of getting a master out of the closet. I don't have any room for my towels. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Apr 26 23:39:15 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 19:39:15 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960426193914_101253966@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: the WHAT river? Alex, Your new house is on the Russian River? Too much! Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 26 22:11:02 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:11:02 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Spiritual Path? In-Reply-To: <960426041612_74024.3352_BHT198-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960426041612_74024.3352_BHT198-1@CompuServe.COM>, Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> writes >I am beginning to think that intellectual analysis is necessary, but actually >lies midway on the spiritual path. It lies actually on the lower mental plane >although it often claims to have acces to the higher mental through contact with >inspiration from the buddhic or atmic planes ( a lot of wishful thinking >sometimes, don't you think?). Keith - I have been thinking this for years! Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 26 22:27:56 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:27:56 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: attitude In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960426062043.006adf48@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960426062043.006adf48@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >I am very much your elder, and frankly, I am very uncomfortable with >impertinent puppies. > >alexis dolgorukii Woof Woof! Eat your heart out :-) Alan (member, gang of 5 thousand - please feed me) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 26 22:22:08 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:22:08 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: anthropology-biology In-Reply-To: <960426004516_522293301@emout19.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960426004516_522293301@emout19.mail.aol.com>, Richtay@aol.com writes >G de P is neither here nor there to me. This is an example of >MISUNDERSTANDING. So? I am interesting in the Masters' teachings, and >HPB's, and the possible uses thereof in my own spiritual development. Find >me some good HPB quotes, if you will, and then put them in context of >Universal Brotherhood. A curious request. Why HPB quotes and not others? Why not the Masters' quotes (as in Mahatma letters)? Maybe there is a case for adding "comparative theosophy" to the second object ..... this would get G de P a hearing, right or wrong. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 26 22:17:53 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:17:53 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: "My friend" In-Reply-To: <960426004511_522293251@emout14.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960426004511_522293251@emout14.mail.aol.com>, Richtay@aol.com writes >No one -- NO >ONE, my friend -- on this list, is claiming that an Adept, or anyone daring >to call themself an Adept, must be ALWAYS right. A small niggle, Rich, but I invariably feel uneasy when I see someone addressed as "my friend" as in your post quoted above. It comes across as strangely "un"friendly - does anyone else feel this, or am I over- sensitive? Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Apr 26 22:38:48 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:38:48 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Religion In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960426074005.006a0fe8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960426074005.006a0fe8@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes, first quoting Alan >>There *is* an "inner light" in religious practice - such is my >>empirically-discovered experience. In an ideal future, it may well take >>on an anarchic form such as you suggest, but we are not in an ideal >>future, and pro tem must make the best of what we've got. That's >>exactly what you do with your Shamanism, as I understand your telling of >>it. Which could [stands back in defensive posture] be interpreted as >>your presenting yourself as a priest of the Shamanist religion ... > >Alan, say rather "There is an "inner light" in valid spiritual practice and >I will hardly disagree. Compromise: religious spiritual practice. > I seek spiritual practices whose goals are not >power, control and profit. Of course we do not live in an "ideal world" but >we can work at making it so. Now, Shamanism isn't a religion in any way >because there is no object of worship, in fact there is no worship at all! Where do I say that religion requires an object of worship? Did I not draw the definition of religion from "religio" - "to bond" or bring together? >But given that context, I am in fact a Priest of Shaman ism, in fact due to >the spirits with which I cooperate, I am more of a Shamanic High Priest. And >that's what makes Shaman ism so different from Religion the spirits are >colleagues and not deities. Good! That's how I find it too, but from a very different direction (maybe). Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From am455@lafn.org Fri Apr 26 14:35:02 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 07:35:02 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199604261435.AA09938@lafn.org> Subject: Burden of Proof Around 1907 Katherine Tingley wrote the following, as part of her preface to the series of ~Theosophical Manuals~. ******************** Theosophy strikes unfamiliar ground in modern civilization, because it does not come under any particular one of the familiar heads of Religion, Science, Philosophy, etc., into which our age has divided its speculative activities. It date back to a period in the history of mankind when such distinctions did not exist, but there was one Gnosis or Knowledge embracing all. Religion and Science, as we have them today, are but imperfect growths springing from the remnants of that great ancient system, the Wisdom-Religion, which included all that we all know as religion and science, and much more. Hence Theosophy will not appeal to the same motives as religion and science. It will not offer any cheap and easy salvation or put a premium upon mental inactivity and spiritual selfishness. Neither can it accommodate itself to the rules laid down by various schools of modern thought as to what constitutes proof and what does not. But it can and does appeal to the Reason. The truth of doctrines such as Theosophy maintains, can only be estimated by their ability to solve problems and by their harmony with other truths which we know to be true. But in addition to this we have the testimony of the ages, which has been too long neglected by modern scholarship, but which is now being revealed... It may perhaps be as well also to remind those who would criticize, that the state of modern opinion is scarcely such as to warrant anybody in assuming the attitude of a judge. It would be quite proper for a Theosophist, instead of answering questions or attempting to give proofs, to demand that his questioners should first state their own case, and to be himself the questioner. The result would certainly show that Theosophy, to say the very least, stands on an equal footing with any other view, since there is no certain knowledge, no satisfying explanation, to be found anywhere... Until, therefore, religious teachers have something definite, consistent, and satisfactory to offer, and until science can give us something better than mere confessions of nescience or impudent denials with regard to everything beyond its own domain, Theosophy can afford to assume the role of questioner rather than that of questioned, and does not *owe* anybody any explanations whatever. It is sufficient to state its tenets and let them vindicate themselves by their greater reasonableness; and any further explanation that may be offered is offered from goodwill than from any obligation... An earnest student of Theosophy will be wise enough to hold many of his difficulties in reserve, until, by further investigation, he has gained better acquaintance with his subject. In the case of those who are not willing to adopt these wise and patient methods of study, it may be reasonably questioned whether they are the more anxious to learn or to disprove... ************************ -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From nlporreco@bpa.gov Fri Apr 26 15:56:00 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 08:56:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: RE: Question about "Facts Underlying Adept Biographies" Message-Id: <3180FD9A@mortar.bpa.gov> Encoding: 161 TEXT The following is an excerpt from a small book by G. De Purucker called "Clothed with the Sun, The Mystery-Tale of Jesus The Avatara." It is meant to give you more information on your question and hopefully be of some help. As with all Theosophical writings, I use them for insight and do not try to convince others of their validity. I have always found the truth to ring when my ears are ready, the hearing of course is with the ears of the higher mind of the higher (real) self. If any of you have this book, I apologize for inconveniencing you, just delete it, and it will go away. Also if there are some misspellings that I missed, it was not intentional. I do not have a scanner, and my typing is not what I do best. Shanti, Nick. Chapter VI THE CRUCIFIXION-MYSTERY The Spear-Thrust, and the Cry On The Cross The crucifixion itself was one of the phases of ancient ceremonial rite. The neophyte in trance was laid upon a cruciform couch, a couch in the form of a cross, with arms outstretched; and for three long days and nights -- and sometimes for a longer period, such as six or even nine days and nights -- the spirit of the neophyte passed through the spheres of cosmic being, thus learning at first hand the mysteries of the Universe. For I tell you truly, there is a way of unloosing the spirit of man from the trappings and chains of the lower part of him so that, free, it may pass as a pilgrim from planet to planet and from planet to sun before it returns to the earth-body that it had temporarily left. In this connection there is an exceedingly interesting, very profoundly mystical, and suggestive passage from one of the Scandinavian Eddas, taken from what is know as Odins' Rune-Song. It is as follows: "I know that I hung on a wind-rocked tree, nine whole nights, With a spear wounded and to Odin Offered-myself to myself- On that tree of which no one knows from what root it springs." In these few lines this passage from the Edda gives another version, and a most interesting one, of the 'crucifixion'-mystery. The reference also to 'hanging on a tree' is most suggestive, because this very phrase was frequently used in the early Christian writings as meaning 'hanging on the cross.' In this Scandinavian mystical story, the 'Tree' is here evidently the Cosmic Tree, which is a mystical way of saying the embodied Universe; for the Universe among the ancient of many nations was portrayed of figurated under the symbol of a tree of which the roots sprang from the divine heart of things. The trunk and the branches and the branchlets and the leaves were the various planes and worlds and spheres of the Cosmos; the fruit of the Cosmic Tree containing the seeds of future 'Trees,' being the entities which had attained through evolution the end of their evolutionary journey, such as men and the gods -- themselves Universes in the small, and destined in the future to become cosmic entities when the cycling wheel of time shall have turned through long aeons on its majestic round. This Scandinavian version of the cosmic crucifixion, which crucifixion is also mentioned by Plato in a Greek form of it, refers to the cosmic Logos 'crucified' in and upon the cosmic World-Tree of which that same Logos is the enlivening and intellectual Spirit. All initiation, so fax as pictorial rite or figurative symbolism went, portrayed the mystic structure and operations and secrets of the hid Universe and expressed into the acts and words of the Master Initiator and the neophyte. The 'Spear-thrust' was one of the parts of the initiatory rite or ceremony, having its own particular signification, but it was not a physical act causing a physical wound. In some of the initiatory ceremonials, instead of a spear being used, some other instrument as a dagger was employed in the symbolic rite; but the fundamental meaning in either case was the same, to wit, that the man gave up his lower personal being as a sacrifice, so that the power and influence of the god within might have free flow through the entirety of the constitution of the man when he left the 'chamber of light' after the initiation was completed. The spear-thrust signified the dying of the personal, so that the inner spiritual man could be freed, untrammeled, unhindered. The last words, as given from the cross, are found in the first two Gospels, in Matthew, chapter xxvii, verse 46, and in Mark, chapter xv, verse 34: 'Eli, 'Eli, lamah shavahhtani. These words, called "the cry on the cross," have been translated into Greek in the Christian New Testament as follows, and this is the English rendering of the Greek translation: 'My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?" This is a false translation into Greek, although correct in English from the Greek, because these words in the original Hebrew mean "My God! My God! How thou hast glorified me!" For these words are good Hebrew, ancient Hebrew, and the verb shavahh* *The entire point of this so-called 'Cry form the Cross" lies in the meanings and force of the Hebrew verb shavahh, for this verb signifies several things, as, for instance, 'to bring peace to,' 'to glorify,' 'to soothe,' and all with the atmosphere of consequential reward, or perhaps rather the fruits of some notable spiritual and intellectual achievement. The other verb mentioned in the text, 'azav,, means 'to abandon' or 'to forsake.' means to glorify,' certainly not 'to forsake.' But in the twenty-second Psalm of the Old Testament in the first verse, there are the following words in the original: 'Eli, 'Eli, lamah 'azavtani, which mean "My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?" This is proof that the Christian Scriptures are written in symbolic form and with mystical allusions. But why in the name of holy truth should the writers of these two Gospels use words which are good Hebrew and yet give a perfectly wrong translation of them? Because the intent was to hide the truth and yet to tell a truth -- typically in line with the mystical atmosphere and manner of the ancients when dealing with the Mysteries. Both the original Hebrew meaning and the wrong Greek translation are right when properly understood. The personal man, when it dies, always cries 'My God! Why hast thou forsaken me to become dust?" But the higher, the nobler, part of the man, the spiritual man within, exclaims with a shout of job: "My God! My God! How thou dost glorify me!" This last was an exact rendering of the actual reaction of the neophyte when reaching glorification during initiation. It was the symbolic cry of every neophyte initiated by the Great Teacher into the Grander life. It is also a proof, to one who knows how to read it, of the symbolic character of the writings of the Christian Gospels: Although the meanings were all tangled up, they were deliberately so tangled, so that the real inner teaching could not be received by every curious eye which ran along and tried to read; and they contained just enough of mystical thought-suggestion to be a bait to men whose inner character, whose inner being, had begun to awaken; so that reading these things, seeing these strange discrepancies and contradictions, their interest would be aroused -- and they would come to the Temple-door and 'knock,' give the right 'knock,' and enter in. > Date: Thursday, April 25, 1996 5:39PM > From: theos-roots > Subject: Question about "Facts Underlying Adept Biographies" Could anyone tell me if I am correct in my reading of the article, "Facts Underlying Adept Biographies" by HPB in Collected Writings (V. XIV, page 137 but especially pages 146-50) that the Ebionite "Gospel of Matthew" in Hebrew was not available when HPB wrote and is still not accessible? If this is correct, could anyone also tell me if am correct in my reading of the quotes from Skinner's "...Source of Measures" that Skinner derived his Hebrew translation from the Greek version of Matthew's gospel - (sort of a back translation)? Usually I don't pay much attention to Bible translation debates but this one about the words "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" vs. "My God, my God, how thou dost dazzingly glorify me!" comes up rather frequently among people I know who profess to be variously New Age, mystic, or esoteric Christians. If I'm in the midst of such discussions again I'd like to add, as best I can, what I've read from this article. Thanks much in advance! Virginia Behrens, Member TI, TSA From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 27 14:48:12 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:48:12 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604271552.LAA00186@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: to follow through Dear folks, During the past few days I've been trying to promote the idea that it would be profitable if we talked about some things that have some sort of bearing on our present lives. Alan has been doing yeoman's work skanning all those classics & putting them into our files. While I was introspecting this AM, I realized that I had just assumed that since he's now given us all this good material right to hand, we'd be reading up on things. I know that I myself have in back of my mind to look at WQJudge's book, because I don't know beans about him, but of course, I haven't gotten to it as yet. Then I got to wondering whether anyone *has* really gotten around to reading some of it, about which I wasn't so sure, and so I went on to try to figure out a way to make it more productive, like if we discussed some of the material. So I pulled out "Isis" to see what I could find. So I thought maybe if I give a couple of quotes we could start a discussion going. So I'm trying: "In the presence of a corpse, the skeptical physiologist stands dumb when asked by his pupil whence came the former tenant of that empty box, and whither has it gone." "Who has been able to penetrate the secret formation of a body ... ? who has sounded to the bottom the abyss in a grain of sand" which"has been studied for thousands of years?" "Why should there be an attraction between the molecules of matter, & none between those of spirit?" "The Hermetic, Orphic, and Pythagorean cosmogonical doctrines, ... are all based upon one irrefutable formula, viz. that the Aether & Chaos, or, in the Platonic language, mind and matter, were the 2 primeval and eternal principles of the universe..." Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 27 02:15:43 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 03:15:43 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Another TI Welcome Mime-Version: 1.0 THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL welcomes Albert Adalsteinsson! Now we are in *nine* countries, even if there *are* only 35 signed up. Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 27 22:53:05 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 18:53:05 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604272357.TAA14194@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Another TI Welcome What country is Albert from? LFD ......................................................... > >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL welcomes Albert Adalsteinsson! > >Now we are in *nine* countries, even if there *are* only 35 signed up. > >Alan :-) >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > > From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 28 02:37:21 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 03:37:21 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: Another TI Welcome In-Reply-To: <199604272357.TAA14194@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604272357.TAA14194@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. deutsch" writes >What country is Albert from? >LFD Iceland Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 27 01:50:25 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 21:50:25 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604270254.WAA15200@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: How do we broadcast theosophy nowadays Doss writes> The question that arises in my mind is what we as individuals can do >to further Theosophy so that it can benefit more and more of the masses? >With the technological progress it is possible to reach mass audience >more easily and quickly than ever before. Dear Doss, I joined TI, in the hope that we would accomplish something in that direction. I can't see that we're going to attract any new members by debating among ourselves on theos-l or anywhere else, whether the Mahatmas had green hair or blue hair; nor whether the SD is right or wrong or whether Isis is any better. I also don't really give a hoot whether HPB was or wasn't Lesbian, or whether she had a child. If the latter is true. Good for her. Motherhood is the greatest. If the former is true, I'd quote Bill Nicholson " Wherever there is love ..." & I'd let it go at that. It comes from the same morass as Jenifer Flowers & is just as useful to our own daily lives. I think it would be much more attractive to new people, if we discussed some of the subject matter of the SD and Isis, as well as the ideas as expressed by the Masters, & chose some ideas which had relevancy to what's happening at this moment. Of course, since this is what *I* would do, I would also bring in the ideas of Leadbeater & Besant, which I find very cogent. That's my considered opnion. Honi soit qui mal y pense. Liesel Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR From 76400.1474@compuserve.com Sat Apr 27 00:44:00 1996 Date: 26 Apr 96 20:44:00 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: ARE and two Jerrys Message-Id: <960427004359_76400.1474_HHL64-2@CompuServe.COM> >Have your read about the use of apple cider vinegar for arthritis? >Blackstrap Molasses which is high in potassium and iron may also help. > > ...doss Thanks. I have tried blackberry vinegar for several years. It worked for awhile, and then seemed to quit working. Actually, I rather like vinegar. But so far, the effects on my arthritis are minimal. I hate to say it, but so far exercise seems to work the best (I hate to say it, because I hate to exercise). Jerry S. Member, TI From eldon@theosophy.com Sat Apr 27 01:46:40 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 18:46:40 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960427014640.00687e94@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: stray comments on anthropology-biology There's a few stray comments I'd like to add to the discussion on physical evolution. 1. The "survival of the fittest" explanation of evolution seems philosophically flawed. That is, it does not describe what happens very well. It should be "survival of the cooperators". Life is a cooperative endeavor, and as changes happen, those species that don't adapt to the changes and carve out new ecological niches to exist in -- they die off. The important point here is cooperation with others being important, not competitive individualism. 2. Some of the early races may have been essentially astral in nature, and so we can only trace backward our physical ancestry to a certain point. Perhaps this would only go back to the Third Race, when we were given our physical forms by the Lunar Pitris. (Maybe Rich could comment on this.) 3. Considerable information on how our bodies will work and even aspects of personality are encoded in our genes (in the DNA). I use the word "encoded" rather than "determined" because I go with the idea that we are basically non-physical beings using the physical form. The "impress" given the physical form at conception would be strongly determined by the person about to be born. The genes, I'd say, no more *cause* our lives than the brain *causes* thought. They both are attributes of the physical machinery we're using. The genes themselves may not be as fixed as we might think. I recall reading in "Turbulent Mirror" mention of an example where a creature changed its genetic structure in response to its environment. (I'm a bit fuzzy in my recall of details from the book, or I'd mention more about it.) 4. We are basically entities of consciousness. The seven principles outlined by HPB describe a breakout of that spectrum of consciousness into its various aspects like thought and understanding, feelings and desires, volition or motion, sense perceptions, etc. We are capable of (but not trained in) existing apart from the physical body, and could function as full humans minus the lowest principle, the physical body, the Sthula Sarira. We would exist in our full awareness, including sense perception, but not have a concrete, organic anchor to call "me". With sufficient training, we could create an ad hoc "anchor", the mayavi rupa, which would be something like a self-created materialization on whatever plane we would exist on. The various models of the organic physical machinery that we've been incarnating into lately (perhaps the last 18 million years since the middle of the Third Root Race) -- these models change over time. Their changes are only a minor aspect of human evolution, like the changing styles and fashions of the clothes that we wear. Far more significant changes are in our minds and hearts, as both individuals and cultures. It's in the inner lives, in the intangibles for which no physical artifacts remain, in which mankind has made its greatest strides, even if experienced in and through monkey-like physical forms. There's a few more items I might mention, but I'm running out of time, so I'll have to stop at this point ... -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Sat Apr 27 01:46:37 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 18:46:37 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960427014637.00681ba8@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Has Theosophy Done Its Work? What Now? Alexis: [writing to Bee] >The earliest motivation and/or agenda of theosophy was to introduce >to the materialistic west certain ideas and principles that had >been long forgotten by western thinking. Theosophy certainly succeeded >in its informational purposes. In a general way, it has done this work; I'd agree with you. There are many groups and people working to spread basic ideas about reincarnation and karma, spiritual evolution, other planes of existence, the unity of life, etc. These ideas, though, are the most basic and simple of the occult doctrines, and are not being popularized in what I'd consider their pure and accurate form. They could be considered fourth, fifth, or sixth generation Theosophy, which much added and taken away. Why would I care if the ideas change as they take hold in western society? Because of my belief that they are based upon a Wisdom Tradition, that they are doctrines that express some of the knowledge about life carried by the Mahatmas, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas, the elect of mankind. >I feel (and approve) that at least back then, Theosophy got >coopted for the purpose of giving the Indian people their >self-respect back and gaining Indian Independence from >English domination. This was Theosophy's primary success. Annie Besant and the Adyar T.S. did get involved in Indian politics, and there was good that resulted from their efforts. Earlier, Col. Olcott helped reform Buddhism in Sri Lanka, earning himself the status of national hero; he is still held in high regard for the work that he did. What we need in the western world is the same efforts to apply Theosophy in the world. This includes religious reform as well as social, political, and lifestyle reform (and yes, even a movement towards the gradual introduction of vegetarianism). What is needed? Brotherhood, including a sense of tolerance for the differing views and lifestyles of others. Unselfishness including the willingness to help others, not by politicians with their hands in your wallet, but by people feeling generous and willing to share what they have on their own initiative. And people setting the example and encouraging others to take self-initiative in their lives, taking personal responsibility to reform themselves economically, psychologically, socially, and spiritually. People are not stupid puppets waiting to be told what to do and think by their political/religious leaders, but get that way out of laziness and because they were never taught to be self-sufficient. >But it's been accomplished. The ideas are accessible now. It's possible to go into a bookstore or library and find materials, and one can read in the local newspaper of programs and classes to go to, held by many different organizations. It's in the open now -- but I would submit that the Gnosis is still not available to the common person, because most people can still go through life and not have enough exposure to it to feel an attraction. There's a long way to go before a majority of people find their lives changed by the theosophical movement. >What is there for theosophy to do now? I feel that perhaps >that's what groups like Theos-L are to "figure out". A lot of things, really ... Future religious organizations can be founded out of the raw materials provided by the theosophical teachings. This may include those organized along more traditional lines and would appeal to an average person. This may also include those organized along the lines of the Mysteries or schools of Magic, intending to appeal to those approaching the Path; this later variety may not necessarily bear any connection with any existing Esoteric School associated with a theosophical group. The terminology needs to be sorted out a bit, and the materials need to be written in a form that makes them more presentable to modern readers. This does not mean that the original works like "The Secret Doctrine" would go out of print or be rewritten, just that a fresh wave of second generation writings be produced. (Some of the writings may, depending upon the writer, be possibly called "first generation" if they are based upon original insight and personal experience, and not just intellectual study.) A third aspect would be to continue to follow the advances of modern science, and bring an understanding of Theosophy and the Platonic method of understanding to help with the scientific process. Advances in science can be taken back into theosophical literature, providing new metaphors and imagery for study and contemplation. (Look at the rich field of materials from chaos and nonlinear physics, like fractals, iteration, strange attractors, the bifurcation curve, phase space, etc.) The fourth aspect that occurs to me is something that is personal and individual to each of us: treading the Path. How can we expect to make productive use of materials based upon the Mysteries if we won't apply them in our own lives and begin the process of self-genesis? I would submit that it is *not* hard to so, if we are sincere and willing. Although there may not be outward signs of progress for perhaps many years, changes do happen, and we grow towards major bifurcations in our lives where the transformations show themselves in the world. -- Eldon er and everything she wrote, not giving her a serious consideration, because they look upon her personally and upon the theosophical philosophy with far less admiration and appreciation than we do. -- Eldon From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Sat Apr 27 15:11:45 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 08:11:45 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9604271511.AA17913@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: Independent Bodies >>>JS >>>You have lost me here. No bodies, however we >>>want to define them, have "independent existences." >>> >>Jerry: >> >>Wanna Bet? > I think we have a semantics problem. I am >not referring to "independent" as in "external" but >rather as in not needing anything else to survive. As >far as I am concerned, all "bodies" on all planes, can >only exist if they are infilled with a consciousness. In >other words, an objective body has to have a subjective >self within it. JHE was implying that after we die, we >will receive a body (kama-rupa) that was either standing >around waiting for us, or made by someone at that instant >in time just for us to inhabit, and until we enter it, it is >entirely independent of us. I don't buy that. Besides, >technically no living thing can ever be "independent" >as all living things must depend on something (food, >energy, communication, whatever). > > Jerry S. > Member, TI Jerry, if this is your interpretation of what I wrote, then I think our problem is a lot deeper than "semantics." JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 27 01:09:48 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 21:09:48 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604270214.WAA23706@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: new ideas, new feelings Dear Jerry, Was it June that you were going to start your own board? How about making it May. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Apr 27 00:37:09 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 20:37:09 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604270141.VAA07531@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Lighten Up Good God Alexis! You've also lost your sense of humor. Liesel >>Nick: > >The only "negative effect" of that poem was to make me speculate that it's >author should "Lighten up" too.My point being that the author of the poem >portrays a contemptuous viewpoint regarding the spiritual searches of >others. Some folks, in fact a majority in my experience, first have to look >out wards before they can look inwards without total self-absorbtion, also I >think the author should remember that in spiritual searching their are many >paths and all of them are valid for those whose proper pathways they are. I >also cannot help but wonder from what perspective the author presumes to >rate other peoples searches in such general and sarcastic terms. I didn't >take it personally because all the Gods know I am a Theosophist and we are >all above personal things. > >alexis dolgorukii >The Eclectic Theosophist >Shaman, Healer, Psychic From blafoun@azstarnet.com Sat Apr 27 02:33:15 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 19:33:15 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604270233.TAA10120@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB's anthropogenesis: More comments on what Alexis has written Alexis, you write: > When you combine these, which are >a very concise version of my objections [to anthropogenesis] , with my equal objections to the >Cosmo genesis. I think you can understand why I prefer "Isis Unveiled" to >the "Secret Doctrine"...... As you well know, Morya and Kut Humi : ) in the Mahatma Letters (1880-1882) wrote on Atlantis, Lemuria and the root races. I guess they were mistaken, too? Or did they make "intentional" mistakes? Or write using blinds? But even in your ISIS UNVEILED, HPB writes of Atlantis, "the great lost continent" and mentions various races before our present race. Sounds familiar to her more detailed exposition in THE SECRET DOCTRINE? Hopefully, you have razorbladed those paragraphs out of your copy of ISIS. : ) And I have found similar paragraphs in ISIS that echo what HPB says later in THE SECRET DOCTRINE on that cosmogenesis stuff to which you object. Oh BTW, exactly what teaching does HPB present in any of her writings that you don't object to? Please list a few of them and I will give them to some of my scientist friends to see if these teachings accord with present day scientific findings and studies. From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Apr 27 16:19:05 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 11:19:05 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: HPB in Tibet Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII This is a follow up on the subject. It appears that the monk from Tibet who mentioned about the info that a lady from Russia visited the monastery, seems to have put all his information in writing - a couple of pages I suppose. Has anyone heard or seen anything? It would be very interesting to find out what the information is. ...doss From blafoun@azstarnet.com Sat Apr 27 01:48:35 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 18:48:35 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604270148.SAA23869@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB's anthropogenesis: Comments on what Alexis wrote Alexis, you write: >. If Homo Sapiens , and that's the only kind there is, is >no more than 70,000 to 100,00 years old and the latest >anthropological/paleontological studies all generally agree that is true. >Then all the Anthropogenesis falls to pieces. If all of humankind is >descended from a breeding stock of some 10,000 individuals, and this too is >generally accepted, and if all the races are simply mutations of that one >group in response to an entire congerie of influences ranging from >environmental pressures, to simple survival and a thousand or so other >influences in between the two, then the entire "Root Race Premise" falls >apart. Homo Sapiens is a new species (my wolf is some 3,000,000 years old >genetically) and it is a single species. That there was a precursor culture >i personally have no doubt, but it certainly doesn't present adequate proof >of it's existence to accept it as gospel. When you combine these, which are >a very concise version of my objections, with my equal objections to the >Cosmo genesis. I think you can understand why I prefer "Isis Unveiled" to >the "Secret Doctrine"...... >> Daniel comments as follows: In the above remarks you write: " the latest anthropological/paleontological studies all generally agree...." To me this statement means or at least implies that official science or the scientific community or the majority of anthropologists/paleontologists agree on "such and such". And you say that this "such and such" knowledge therefore invalidates HPB's anthopogenesis. Hence throw out Root Races, Atlantis, Lemuria, etc. But if we go by that kind of thinking, how much of what is left in HPB's teachings (after throwing out anthopogenesis) would merit our attention? Well, for starters, there are HPB's teachings on the occult constitution of a human being. ( The kind of stuff Jerry HE and Jerry S have been going around and around on.) HPB's affirms the reality of psychic phenomena and affirms the reality of other invisible planes of existence. She affirms the reality of life after death and even reincarnation. She even performed psychic feats such as materializing a cup and saucer at a Simla, India picnic. But what does official science and the scientific community as a whole say that is relevant to these teachings and claims of HPB's? For example, in an 1988 report prepared under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, the following conclusions were drawn: "...the best scientific evidence does not justify the conclusion that ESP...exists." "...Nor does scientific evidence offer support for the existence of psychokinesis...." "The Commitee finds no scientific justification from reserach conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena." Most members of this committee are well-known psychologists. Furthermore, if ESP and PK were accepted in the scientific community, would we not see parapsychology being taught in universities and colleges? Would we not see parapsychology as a valid part of departments of psychology in universities and colleges? In reality, very few universities in the WHOLE world even have courses on parapsychology. And can you name the departments of psychology that have parapsychological sections? I think we can truthfully say (paraphrasing Alexis and the above mentioned report on psychic phenomena) the following: The latest psychological studies all generally agree that there is no scientific justification for the existence of parapsychological (psychic) phenomena. And Dr. Michael Mueckler, a cellular biologist, (who has been posted and mentioned on this list before), would agree with the above statement. Mueckler says that his scientific colleagues would also concur with such a dismissive summary about psychic phenomena. Therefore, in light of this scientific finding, who would be foolish enough to believe what HPB's says about the psychic, about life after death, etc. Following Alexis' reasoning, we should therefore throw out everything HPB said on THIS subject, too. Right? Well, remember HPB was fallible and was (let's face it) simply wrong. And she could have made "intentional" errors? Right? Okay, now what is left of HPB's teachings? Let us turn to an examination of WHATS LEFT...................... From Richtay@aol.com Sat Apr 27 02:42:04 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 22:42:04 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960426224203_281754397@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: An interesting letter about a tulku The following is a transcript of the letter which was "taken out of the trashcan" at Krotona. No other details are available at this time. **************************************** 5 December 1993 Om Mane Pem[e] Hung Greetings to the Theosophical Society ESS. I am Richard Page, a grateful recipient of Theosophical teachings and blessings since entering the Besant Lodge as a desperation seeker some twenty-five years ago. I am known to Avis Blum, ESS member from Ohio and to James Black and Joe Miller who are yet alive in my heart. Last evening I was invited to dine with Tulku Kalzang Rinpoche, Abbott of Dzogchen Monastery in Eastern Tibet. He wished to know all possible about his uncle, lama Mora s first incarnation, who he states was HPB s Tibetan benefactor. I volunteered to present my own meager knowledge and to bring his request to you. As the Chinese have only allowed him two months for travel here to seek medical treatment, any reply to his enquiry would need to reach him by his departure date, ? ? ? ? ? line undecipherable ? ? ? ? ? ? ? page=============== [2] to deliver any material you may wish to send with me. I suggested he make the journey to Krotona from Aptos and he may be able to do so. His temporary telephone number is 408/688-2535. Ask for his translator, Anna [F]igme. As Tulku Kalzang is currently re- assembling the most learned senior teachers in the Dzogchen tradition, any inner teachings relating to Lama Mora would return to good hands. From his account to me of the Tibetan version of Lama Mora s transmission to HPB, I understand that both Sanscrit and Tibetan writings fell from the sky and were also revealed in dreams. A Tibetan scholar, Gendro Zundap, deceased now some 40 years, wrote of this and of Tulku Kalzang s relationship to Lama Mora. It appears that Tulku Kalzang s uncle, the third incarnation of Lama Mora, was attempting to escape the Chinese invasion in 1959. Over thirty of his family were killed in flight. Only page=============== [3] Tulku Kalzang and his sister escaped. Lama Mora is said to have ridden off on a white horse or, alternately, to have risen with his robes into the sky. Neither Chinese bullets nor lassos could prevent his disappearance. Any consideration you might provide to speed my research on behalf of Tulku Kalzang would be deeply appreciated. Yours in service, Richard Page 1185 Keith Avenue Berkeley, CA 94708 510/527-3600 From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 27 17:27:49 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:27:49 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960427172749.00694840@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What Now, indeed. At 11:47 AM 4/27/96 -0400, you wrote: >These ideas, though, are the most basic and simple of the occult >doctrines, and are not being popularized in what I'd consider their >pure and accurate form. They could be considered fourth, fifth, >or sixth generation Theosophy, which much added and taken away. In this connection I'd like to remind you of William of Ockham's maxim, which paraphrased say's ;"The simplest answer is usually the best answer". Perhaps the simplifications, provided they aren't over-simplifications, are better, and more prone to comprehension than the perhaps over-elaborated "originals". > >Why would I care if the ideas change as they take hold in western >society? Because of my belief that they are based upon a Wisdom >Tradition, that they are doctrines that express some of the >knowledge about life carried by the Mahatmas, Bodhisattvas, and >Buddhas, the elect of mankind. The problem, as I see it, is that what you're saying here is, as you put it, "Because of my belief". But Eldon, I submit to you that belief isn't knowledge, and almost never is. The "Mahatmas", Bodhisattva" and "Buddhas" as a putative "spiritual hierarchy" ( a term I believe to be an oxymoron) are only speculations. They are things you "believe in" but do not "know" to be real. They're like "Angels" and "Saints" to the Christians, and I personally think, a reflection of humanity's need for a "Deus ex Machina" to solve their problems. This is where we must agree to disagree. Much real knowledge about the nature of the human condition has been passed down from antiquity, but a "Wisdom Tradition" in a religious application of the term, is only speculation. Now, to me, personally any "tradition" that leads to the use of phrases like "The Elect of Mankind" is deplorable and, obviously, elitist by definition. It is true that evolution itself (and it matters not whether we speak of the evolution of consciousness or the evolution of forms) is clearly "elitist", but philosophies shouldn't be so. > > >Annie Besant and the Adyar T.S. did get involved in Indian >politics, and there was good that resulted from their efforts. >Earlier, Col. Olcott helped reform Buddhism in Sri Lanka, >earning himself the status of national hero; he is still held >in high regard for the work that he did. From an non-Theosophist Indian Point of view, the work of the Theosophical Society was primarily political, and of major importance to the attainment of liberation for the Indian Peoples. Philosophically, most Non-Theosophist Indians (those who have heard of any of this, of course, for with India's population most of this is moot to most Indians) also respect the T.S. for helping Indians to regain their self-respect. As to Colonel Olcott, his work in Sri Lanka was not so much a reform of Buddhism, but a restoration of Buddhism. I am told that in Sri Lanka, he is the only European (intrinsically Caucasian-Americans are Europeans) who is regarded as both a Saint and Saviour to the people of that Island. But oddly enough, either of these phenomena have little to do with the "Wisdom Tradition" to which you refer. The Congress Party was purely a political activity and Olcott became a very powerful advocate of Hinayana Buddhism. > >What we need in the western world is the same efforts to >apply Theosophy in the world. This includes religious reform >as well as social, political, and lifestyle reform (and yes, >even a movement towards the gradual introduction of >vegetarianism). Eldon, as far as I am concerned, that paragraph could have been written by someone like Pat Robertson. If you choose to be a vegetarian, well and good, more power to you. But to feel called upon to (even "gradually") inflict your moral-ethical beliefs (and vegetarianism is only valid IMO as a moral-ethical system) on others, no matter how kindly intended, is simply oppressive. For Theosophy to involve itself in any kind of "reform" whether social, political, "lifestyle", or dietary, would make it as intrusive and as oppressive as Christianity. The theosophical movement in the West was intended to re-introduce long forgotten concepts, and to give interested people new ideas about the nature of the Human Condition and that is all it was meant to do. No "crusades" on behalf of "the elect of mankind". > >What is needed? Brotherhood, including a sense of tolerance >for the differing views and lifestyles of others. Unselfishness >including the willingness to help others, not by politicians >with their hands in your wallet, but by people feeling generous >and willing to share what they have on their own initiative. >And people setting the example and encouraging others to >take self-initiative in their lives, taking personal responsibility >to reform themselves economically, psychologically, socially, >and spiritually. That's all very nice Eldon, and I'm sure Newt Gingrich would agree with you, and optimally that's what SHOULD BE. But, there are far too many people who are not in a position to take personal responsibility to "reform" themselves economically, psychologically, socially, and spirituality. And why is it, I wonder, that you choose to use the term "reform"? That would imply that you see some basic "wrongness" about the less fortunate. The kind of stuff you wrote in that paragraph is all too easy for comfortable, middle class white guys to write. But you know what? It has no relationship with the very unpleasant realities of the real world. You'd feel differently if you got "downsized" and found yourself huddled in a doorway. I'd hate to be a poor Black woman with children waiting for some white guy to "feel generous". It's all too easy for middle and upper-middle class people to talk about "setting examples" but it's hard to accept their "examples" when you're hungry and cold and frightened! And you know what else? Theosophy, as presently formulated, and especially as seen by people like you, has absolutely nothings to say to these people. Speculative philosophy is only for the well-off. > >People are not stupid puppets waiting to be told what to do >and think by their political/religious leaders, but get that way >out of laziness and because they were never taught to be self-sufficient. "Laziness" eh? Eldon, do you know how much that sounds like David Duke? Don't you realize that there are enormous numbers of people all over the world who would give anything to be in a position to even think about self-sufficiency? Society, and politics, hasn't made puppets out of them, it's made them irrelevant and extraneous, and even worse unnecessary and unwanted. > >>But it's been accomplished. > >The ideas are accessible now. It's possible to go into a bookstore >or library and find materials, and one can read in the local >newspaper of programs and classes to go to, held by many different >organizations. It's in the open now -- but I would submit that >the Gnosis is still not available to the common person, because >most people can still go through life and not have enough >exposure to it to feel an attraction. There's a long way to go >before a majority of people find their lives changed by the >theosophical movement. The "Gnosis", if by it you mean absolute knowledge of what is, was, and always will be, and not some putative "ancient wisdom" is not, never was, and never will be available in Bookstores. It's certainly not available in T.S. Books, and if what I see on this list is any example,it hasn't even been defined by most Orthodox Theosophists. As to the "common person" they are far more absorbed in attaining nourishment and shelter than they are in speculative theology, and that Eldon is what the kind of Theosophy you preach is: Speculative Theology. >Lastly Eldon, I'd like to say this, If you truly believe Theosophy to be a "Mystery School" you're going, in time, to be sadly disappointed. It isn't, it wasn't and as things are now, it never will be. Right now it's just an elitist group of people who gather around each other to tell each other how grand they are, and how the "Masters" are with them. They will not be the foundation for new religions because hopefully there will be no new religions. The old one's have done quite enough harm thank you. alexis dolgorukii MTI., FTSA the eclectic theosophist satyat-nasti-paro-dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Priest Member: Gang of Five From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Apr 27 17:41:30 1996 Date: 27 Apr 96 13:41:30 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: anthropology-biology Message-Id: <960427174130_76400.1474_HHL79-1@CompuServe.COM> > Maybe there is a case for adding >"comparative theosophy" to the second object ..... this would get G de P >a hearing, right or wrong. > >Alan Alan, you may be onto something here. Jerry S. Member, TI From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Apr 27 17:56:40 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 12:56:40 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: ARE and two Jerrys In-Reply-To: <960427004359_76400.1474_HHL64-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Jerry: I have read that apple cider vinegar made of whole apples and fermented in wooden vats may help. You can give it a try. The brand I normally buy is Sterling and a 32 oz bottle costs about $3.00. The molasses is high in pottasium and iron and other minerals. It helped reduce the swelling in joints of my mother. ...doss On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, Jerry Schueler wrote: > Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 11:41:56 -0400 > From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: ARE and two Jerrys > > >Have your read about the use of apple cider vinegar for arthritis? > >Blackstrap Molasses which is high in potassium and iron may also help. > > > > ...doss > > Thanks. I have tried blackberry vinegar for several > years. It worked for awhile, and then seemed to quit working. > Actually, I rather like vinegar. But so far, the effects on my > arthritis are minimal. I hate to say it, but so far exercise seems > to work the best (I hate to say it, because I hate to exercise). > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 27 01:27:35 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 02:27:35 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Bringing up Children Today In-Reply-To: <9604262322.AA25756@orchid.tc.pw.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <9604262322.AA25756@orchid.tc.pw.com>, Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com writes >I think Jerry S. deserves a big time round of applause and some well-deserved >recognition for the work he's done with wounded children! I think your >dedication is wonderful. My hats off to you and Chuck's helmet. > >Donna I second the motion! APPLAUSE! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 27 01:20:35 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 02:20:35 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: ARE-thritis In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , M K Ramadoss writes >Jerry: > >Have your read about the use of apple cider vinegar for arthritis? >Blackstrap Molasses which is high in potassium and iron may also help. > > ...doss > >PS: The above has nothing to do with Cayce. Please excuse my jumping in here, but having recently had my arthritis go from bad to awful, I can vouch for the probability that if all the remedies that have been suggested to me in the last few months were of anything other than symptomatic and temporary relief, then I and my mother would be dancing around like five year olds, and no one would know what the word arthritis meant. My Doc gives me pills - they work as well as anything else. Mind you, if I were to dance naked three times round Chuck at 3 am on the eve of the summer solstice - well, that would probably do nothing for anyone. :-) Alan. --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 27 01:31:17 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 02:31:17 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: In the closet In-Reply-To: <960426193910_101253933@emout09.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960426193910_101253933@emout09.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >By the way, do you have any way of getting a master out of the closet. I >don't have any room for my towels. Now we got Gay masters? Or is it the towels? Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 27 01:29:20 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 02:29:20 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Rich, HPB and me In-Reply-To: <960426193754_101253256@emout16.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960426193754_101253256@emout16.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >There is a difference, albeit sometimes hard to find, between being a scholar >and being a nut. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 The voice of experience and self-examination is hard to ignore, I guess. Alan :-0 (Gang of One) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From poulsen@dk-online.dk Sun Apr 28 00:41:01 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 22:41:01 -200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB348A.9FCC05E0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: bodies - a dead horse Encoding: 69 TEXT As my following message was not returned to me, I am reposting it - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------- Jerry HE: >1. All statements on our parts must be at least backed up by a >reference. Short illustrative quotes are even better. Agreed. >2. When discussing HPB's system, the quotes supporting her must >come from HPB. Supports from CWL must come from CWL. Using >other "authorities" such as, for instance, Bailey, Purucker, >Subba Row etc. to either support or to not support HPB or CWL >cannot be acceptable because if raises questions concerning the >understanding of that "authority." Agreed. BUT if an explanation can be made that is reasonable and which reconciles several or all systems it aught to be considered a valid working hypothesis. >3. My own bias is that HPB's system is not borrowed from any >extant Indian system, so I would not find the quoting of this or >that Indian system to support HPB's system to be acceptable >either. If you feel differently, then I would be interested in >hearing your arguments as to why you might believe that HPB's >system is borrowed from an Indian system. This requires a rather long explanation. I believe strongly that there exists such a thing as an ancient "Secret Doctrine", a system common to all doctrines worthy of being called esoteric. I will not need to supply quotes for this idea. My bias is that the closest to the system of HPB are not theosophical writers but the adepts and initiates of history - that these were initiated into this same doctrine. Truth cannot be divided among fundamentally different statements. There are only two possibilities in this case - a) one system is true, and the remainder as differing - false. If this is the case how utterly useless to conceive of a synthetic system as the theosophical with all the historic references. b) there is such a thing as esoterism, a hidden, common truth. As the various systems appear to differ this truth must be hidden. And hidden because of the value of mental investigation in search of - understanding. It is my bias that one adept will explain a thousand times better the ideas of another adept, whatever their apparent system, rather than any follower capable of thought-processes like repeating, enumerating, vaguely analyzing. This was my exact reason for using Shankara to describe the doctrine of the Buddha (the quote was from Dakshinamurti Stotra 6.10 :-) I think I will make a bold statement here. I will say that in my opinion the books of HPB was written in her peculiar style for the very purpose that students should search out additional information in the ancient materials she quotes constantly. And that this material almost constitutes a hidden part of these books. Now the corroboration and comparing, the synthetic treatment of the material and the search for a hidden solution that is my style and modus operandi. A mind trained in an university generally works in the exact opposite way. It will isolate each system, break it up in compounds and search for - building stones. As the very object for my joining the dicussion and writing post is to propose the inner identity of various systems I can now only do it in one fashion - to enumerate the principles, support them by quotes - and point to the analogy and correspondence. The same correspondence the authority of which you have already refuted as an primary mode of investigation - as "only correspondence not identity." Jerry, my friend, you have tied my one hand to the back and.... I accept. Bring forward the artillery and let us commence. In friendship, Kim From RIhle@aol.com Sat Apr 27 21:51:06 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 17:51:06 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960427175104_282202119@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: You Write It If You Dare--To JRC (poss.duplicate) JRC writes> > Say ... have you, anywhere, laid out in relatively comprehensive >form (e.g., a book) this model of "psychogenesis" you speak of? > -JRC Richard Ihle writes> Hi, John. I am tempted to suggest my WISDOM TEACHING (1984); however, this was an ill-advised attempt to combine a book on education with a book on my nascent psychogenesist perspective on theosophy. The result was double-failure. As I mentioned previously, Eldon's housekeeper has the last copy I gave out. I have concluded that I better not give out any more, since if I ever do any more serious writing on Psychogenesis I would have to fight too many of WISDOM TEACHING's immature articulations. At this point I am not sure I will be writing PSYCHOGENESIS or not. I have had the project in the back of my mind for a long time, of course, but that was when I was thinking that there would be at least the outside possiblity that TPH might be interested in publishing it. Now, I am sort of disabused. If John Algeo and/or other "doctrinal filters" at TPH could reject Paul's book more on the basis, I believe, of their disagreement with its "thesis," (rather than on the basis, for example, of its having substandard interest/literary quality compared with other TPH books), they would certainly have no trouble frowning on something which would have the bald purpose of launching the TS into the Twenty-First Century by starting to look at doctrinal "T"heosophy from "Inside out." THE MASTERS REVEALED just wanted to judiciously explore the possibility that the Masters may have been more corporeal than many believe; by contrast, PSYCHOGENESIS would just flat-out say that many of the awe-inspiring components of "Cosmogenesis" and "Anthropogenesis" are *metaphorical/analogical* creations resulting from adept theosophical observations of sequential internal states of conscious etc. The big stumbling block for any prospective PSYCHOGENESIS would be the hasty assumption by many that Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis would therefore not be valid if it could be shown that these ideas are "merely" derivable by metaphorical method. My own point of view is quite the contrary: indeed, it is the way that teachings like karma and reincarnation can be returned to their proper mystical context--i.e., that while it is probably not possible to ever have solid "proof" for these constructs, it is certainly possible to have a "growing certainty" about them. Theosophy *is* religion, after all, I guess. . . . What new hellish chaos the psychogenesist perspective might bring to some of the subjects discussed on Theos-l is hard to imagine. Take a current topic, for example: whether or not the statement "the animals came after humans" is true as an "anthropological theosophical analog," it is certainly easily convincing as an simple insight of Psychogenesis: When a person has "psychomatured" to the point where he or she can egoically indulge every animating, physical, desire-feeling, desire-mental, and mental possibility--and then proceeds to wantonly do so--there is every likelihood that the "Once-removed Vantage" can gradually be lost. The "licentious branch" of the old Gnostics *purposefully* set about doing just this so that they "wouldn't have to return." In any case, it is thus easy to see how an individual can indeed be regarded as having lost his or her "human" status and be living the remaining portion of his or her life as a completely unSelf-aware "animal." --So anyway, John, there is no book, and perhaps with lovely notions like the foregoing in the waiting room, perhaps it is a good thing. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 27 19:41:27 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 20:41:27 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: comments on anthropology-biology In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960427014640.00687e94@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960427014640.00687e94@mail.deltanet.com>, "Eldon B. Tucker" writes >1. The "survival of the fittest" explanation of evolution > seems philosophically flawed. That is, it does not describe > what happens very well. It should be "survival of the > cooperators". Life is a cooperative endeavor, and as > changes happen, those species that don't adapt to the > changes and carve out new ecological niches to exist in > -- they die off. The important point here is cooperation > with others being important, not competitive individualism. As Kropotkin ("Mutual Aid") pointed out in 1902, *with* examples gathered from nature and scientific observation. The text of this work is available on the Web, if you have a suitable browser. Try and Alta Vista search on Kroptkin - and although this book is part of an anarchist archive K was a qualified researcher who *became* an anarchist. It may be that Nick Porreco still has a hardback copy for sale - he kindly sent me a pb copy as a gesture of TI goodwill - now tha'ts what I call theosophical "brotherhood"! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 27 19:25:38 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 20:25:38 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <6W2C2FAySngxEwLx@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: How do we broadcast theosophy nowadays In-Reply-To: <199604270254.WAA15200@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604270254.WAA15200@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. deutsch" writes >Dear Doss, > >I joined TI, in the hope that we would accomplish something in that >direction. I can't see that we're going to attract any new members by >debating among ourselves on theos-l or anywhere else, whether the Mahatmas >had green hair or blue hair; nor whether the SD is right or wrong or whether >Isis is any better. It is still early days for TI, but there is now a Web page up, and I for one hope there will be links on it to *source* (not *core*) documents, which would include both the SD and ISIS, as well as many other writings. There would (will?) also be contributions by latter-day theosophists from all around, whether TSA, TSP, ULT, or wherever. Judge's ~Ocean of Theosophy~ is already archived in full ASCII text in the theos archives, and I have the whole thing on disk ready to upload to a Web page once someone will tell me how to do it, and who can afford the Web space to house it, etc., etc. As such a work progresses, students can decide the color of the Mahatmas' hair for themselves :-). (Mon Livre goes snail mail on Monday) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 27 07:09:22 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 00:09:22 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960427070922.0067affc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: The Gang of Five!!!! At 06:42 PM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Someone turned Rich T. into a toad? How could you tell? :-) It wasn't me. > I'm too busy killing catholic charismatics. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: This morning, after reading RichTay's latest little "explosion" of hate and anger to me (what a good theosophist he is), and then reading an equally vicious reply to Paul's very reasonable suggestions, and seeing in another of his postings his contemptuous treatment of poor Old Colonel Olcott, who a goodly portion of the Buddhist world consider to be a major "Saint"...I placed him in my filter system. No longer will I be offended by his existence! Alexis the terrible, MTI., FTSA. the eclectic theosophist Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Priest Member: Gang of Five! From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 27 07:04:10 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 00:04:10 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960427070410.006ae094@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: death At 06:37 PM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >The problem with Alexander was that he ended up believing his own press >releases and ultimately got his own troops mad at him, forcing him to do >stupid things like try to single-handedly take a city and take an arrow >instead (the wound that ultimately killed him). >Just think of what the world might have been like if he had a little more >humility and a lot longer life. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA MGof5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: Where did you get that? What killed Alexander was the death of Hephaistion, his lover, who was poisoned by Alexander's Circassian Wife,Roxanne. Alexander went on a binge, caught pneumonia, went swimming in the Euphrates, drank the water and died of the pneumonia and typhus. With Hephaistion gone he just didn't want to live. Remember Alexander was a "bottom". He refused to name a successor because he blamed everyone around him for Hephaistion's death. Also, by the time Alexander died, there weren't any cities left for him to take. alexis MTI., FTSA.the eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti - paro - dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Priest Member: Gang of Five! From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 27 07:16:40 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 00:16:40 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960427071640.00696ef0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Shasta At 06:44 PM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >You and John did a ritual on Mt. Shasta? Didn't the space people get >terribly upset with you for drumming on their roof? >Seriously again, I have a hard time seeing my chaos magicians coming to the >TS, but I would love to see it happen, if only to watch the utter >consternation of the old duddy-fuddies who inhabit the society. >I think a Vortex ritual in the Olcott Parking Lot would be great fun. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker >Apostle to the Magicians > >Chuck: I was far too busy being Hierophant and officiating to notice, but most of the psychics present (some 200 of them) saw them, "The Space People" that is, as both attending the ritual, and enjoying it! Along with an immense congregation of discarnates and excarnates. We did the ritual during a full eclipse of the moon on the second full moon in Gemini. We even had about 50 little old ladies from the "I AM Movement" along with Hippies, New Agers, Iassos the musician and a whole bunch of others. The whole "Rainbow Family" was there too, they provided my "back up" music during the ritual. It was wonderful and it worked. alexis the Hierophant, MTI., FTSA. the eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti - paro - dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Priest From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 27 07:35:08 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 00:35:08 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960427073508.006a3584@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: wrong At 06:44 PM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >You keep forgetting that I define an adept somewhat differently than you do >and except for Socrates, the folks on your list did not make serious >historical contributions. Let's be honest, if weren't for the TS, who would >ever hear of Hypatia and Giordano Bruno was nothing compared to his mentor >Bacon. >As far as Socrates, that old fraud was no more an adept than Rich T. and >probably similar in personality without the excuse of youth. >About the ones who died in Hitler's camps, well that's what happens when >adepts collide because only an adept can kill an adept. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: Almost every well-educated student of either Mathematics or Philosophy has heard of Hypatia and most of them haven't heard of the T.S. As to Giordano Bruno he was one of the most important cosmological philosophers of his age. In some ways, Bacon, whom you know is my absolutely favorite person, was a kind of a dilettante next to his pupil. All of the people on my list, which you haven't seen as yet, made tremendously important contributions to human betterment. Bacon was an Adept, as was Voltaire, as was Frederick the 2nd, as was Ghandi. What do you consider to be an important historical contribution? As to Socrates, he was hardly an "old fraud", a teacher is known by his pupils, and his were so great that, if they came out of his teaching, he was pretty good. He was also a student of Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, who was himself an adept and all of whose primary students "Pericles and Euripides for example) were also Adepts. As to killing an Adept, almost anyone can kill an Adept, if he's not paying attention at the moment, and sometimes even if he is. I am not altogether certain at this point what you imagine an adept to be, but I am beginning to worry about it! Adepts are people who effect human society positively even if it doesn't seem that way at first (Cardinal Richelieu for example). I hope you aren't idolizing some imaginary "Black Magicians"...they ain't no such animals. Adepts may be social revolutionaries, they are clearly social catalysts, but the only goal they serve is the liberation of the human spirit and the intensification of the sense of independence and uniqueness of each and every human being. alexis MTI., FTSA. the eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti - paro - dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Priest From eldon@theosophy.com Sat Apr 27 23:41:04 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 16:41:04 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960427234104.006aada0@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Is this a Theosophical List? Since it's been a day and a copy hasn't come back to me yet, I'm reposting this message. ---- Rich: [writing to Paul] >But this is a THEOSOPHICAL list. Most participants are THEOSOPHISTS. >This doesn't mean slavish adherence to one or another school of >Theosophy, but an A PRIORI attitude that Theosophy is generally true, >and worth investigating. There are several stands that I see people taking. They include: 1. I know that Theosophy is not true because of my occult experiences, or own scientific studies, etc. 2. We can never know if Theosophy is true since it deals with the transcendent and unknowable, but can only have a growing certitude of certain of its fundamental concepts. 3. I believe that Theosophy is literally true, in every statement of my favorite authors, regardless of their agreement with HPB. 4. I believe that Theosophy is a body of Mystery Teachings, partially expressed in open language, and partly veiled, behind the words of our theosophical texts. I'm sure that there are many other positions on Theosophy as well. Without requiring anyone to commit to a stand -- pro or con -- on Theosophy, I'd suggest that we need to agree that it consists of a definite body of doctrines and occult truths. That is, it is possible to study Theosophy, recognize what it is, and distinguish it from different ideas. If we were a list dedicated to the study of those doctrines, then it would be possible to say that this idea is someone's personal opinion, that idea is in accord with the Teachings, and the third idea is plausible, but not supported in the literature, so we'd need to reserve judgment on it. Each idea could be considered as being in accord with (or not in accord with) the doctrines. For those that don't accept the premise that there is such a body of doctrines, we cannot convince them that such an approach has merit. But we are then faced with a problem. How can we study and teach Theosophy (the body of Mystery doctrines) amidst many that deny there is such a thing? It seems that a list dedicated to the study of Theosophy needs to set the ground rules for discussion, regarding what is this "Theosophy" that is to be talked about. That would be different than theos-l currently does, since here anything goes, from Theosophy being considered infallible divine Truth in even its dead-letter writings, to Theosophy being the work of the "devil" and evil anti-Christian propaganda. >So yes, let me "come out of the closet" as a Theosophist >who is inclined to accept HPB's teachings unless there is >GOOD evidence that she was wrong about something or other. For a serious study of Theosophy to occur, we don't need to take that strong a position. We don't have to accept Theosophy a priori as true, just agree that it is a definite subject of study. We can study the philosophy and learn it, even if we don't believe in it. I'd agree with you and state I'm also inclined to accept HPB unless there's strong evidence to the contrary. And I'd expect that a strong belief is necessary if someone is to make of Theosophy a spiritual practice. >But people need not take my view of things. There is no >enforcement of Theosophical orthodoxy (or even orthopraxy) >here. In fact, a good number of people on the list seem to >revel in iconoclasm. Good for them. True. They're also on spiritual quests of their own, and may not find a vein of gold in Theosophy the way that we might. The question would be: How can we study Theosophy and peacefully coexist with others that don't accept it as having materials worthy of study. >But I don't apologize for putting the burden of proof on >those who hold positions disagreeing with HPB. That burden is upon them if they want to make a case that certain of the theosophical doctrines are ill-formed or based upon inaccurate information. Whenever that can be shown to be true, I'd be glad to improve my knowledge of the world. But in the absence of someone making a strong case for contrary ideas, I see no reason to change my views. >This doesn't mean that I am foolish enough to believe that >scientists in the mass will tomorrow -- or ever !! -- come >around to HPB's position. And now we come to the question of authority. I'd accord HPB's writings with the authority of the Mysteries, although I certainly recognize the possibility of human error in her writings and the fact that much is lost in getting put into words. Based upon that authority that I confer on her, when someone indicates that modern science is in disagreement with her on a certain point, I'd need a strong argument for the scientific viewpoint before I'd consider it as right. Modern science is subject to change, and the conflict could be because science hasn't gotten to the truth yet, or because there's a veil or blind in the theosophical doctrine that I'll see beyond, with further study on the subject. >Nevertheless, to dismiss the anthropogenesis of HPB (and lest >we forget, her Teachers) as "nonsense" out of hand with no >SPECIFIC references, and ignoring current paradigm shifts in >progress, seems shallow and near-sighted. The dismissal would seem extreme, for someone according HPB with occult standing. But for someone that views HPB in a lessor light, they might not feel it worth the bother to answer and disprove various statements of hers. They might dismiss her and everything she wrote, not giving her a serious consideration, because they look upon her personally and upon the theosophical philosophy with far less admiration and appreciation than we do. -- Eldon From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 27 08:15:48 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 01:15:48 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960427081548.00680d38@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: feed me At 07:52 PM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960426062043.006adf48@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>I am very much your elder, and frankly, I am very uncomfortable with >>impertinent puppies. >> >>alexis dolgorukii > >Woof Woof! Eat your heart out :-) > >Alan (member, gang of 5 thousand - please feed me) >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >But I only have a couple of fishes and a bagel. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 27 08:09:47 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 01:09:47 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960427080947.00680684@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Towels? At 07:45 PM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Knowing the sense of humor and wicked tongue our beloved Madame Blavatskaya >had, she probably gave as good as she got. In fact, she still does. >I really must get a copy made of the tape of me channeling her and send it to >you. >By the way, do you have any way of getting a master out of the closet. I >don't have any room for my towels. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >All things considered I think we both would like to hear the tape. We can get the spook out of the closet..are you sure it's still there? Are you sure you want us to? alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 27 08:13:43 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 01:13:43 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960427081343.00680434@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: The RUSSIAN River! At 07:46 PM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Your new house is on the Russian River? Too much! > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > Chuck: Too much it indeed is. But that's what its name is. It empties into the Pacific just south of a town called Jenner which is itself just short of Fort Ross (actually Rossiya) the old russian fur trading post. It's an intersting place...when you visit you'll see why. We're on a hill fairly high up above the River which is good becuase it's an unruly River, all Russians are unruly, and floods a lot. This way we can watch the folks rowing down Main Street (and that is exactly what it's called) alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 27 07:55:38 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 00:55:38 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960427075538.006950e4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Rich, HPB and me At 07:39 PM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >Paul, >Greg Tillet, Bruce Campbell and Peter Washington would be terribly offended >if they knew you put them in the same category with Elzabeth Clare Prophet >and Benjamin Creme. >There is a difference, albeit sometimes hard to find, between being a scholar >and being a nut. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: I don't know about "nut", Benjamin Creme maybe, if he really thinks he's who he claims to be. But I rather think he's a snake oil salesman! As to Elisabeth Clear Profit, I've been following her career for years and she is simply an adroit con artist and sexual predator. as a psychic I've watched her pretending to be channeling and she isn't doing any such thing. When a person is really "channeling" there's a visible connection with the "source"..with her there's absolutely nothing. To lump her and Greg Tillett is a case of total lack of discrimination.As to what she teaches..."The Master Cosmic Secret Agent K-17" indeed!.."The Master The God Meru" indeed..Meru is a mountain! Not only is she a fraud she's an ignorant fraud! alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 27 08:24:38 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 01:24:38 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960427082438.0068a12c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "My friend" At 07:54 PM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >A small niggle, Rich, but I invariably feel uneasy when I see someone >addressed as "my friend" as in your post quoted above. It comes across >as strangely "un"friendly - does anyone else feel this, or am I over- >sensitive? > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >No Alan, you're not being over-sensitive. Alexander IV always said "my friend" in just that tone when he was about to feed someone a particularly virulent poison> I find it interesting that Rich apparently feels that an Ad pet can be wrong, but Mme. B. Whom he seems to think was "only" a Chela couldn't be. He posted what I found to be an unacceptable message to me this morning, and then another even more vicious to Paul Johnson, and then made some contemptuous remarks about poor Old Colonel Olcott so I added him to my "filter program". I don't need him in my world. The other day I said I found his ideas and his presentation of them repugnant. Actually I find the entire U.L.T. repugnant and have since my first contact with them some 23 years ago. I just don't cotton to fanaticism and misplaced arrogance. alexis, MTI., FTSA. the eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti- paro- dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Priest Member: Gang of Five! From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 27 08:33:47 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 01:33:47 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960427083347.006874a0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Religion At 07:55 PM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >Where do I say that religion requires an object of worship? Did I not >draw the definition of religion from "religio" - "to bond" or bring >together? You don't Alan, and I have absolutely no problem with your definition of Religion as "bonding" at all. Its the great majority of the public's definition of religion and worse yet, their practice of religion, that I find so repugnant (there's that word again). The trouble has always been that rather than BRING TOGETHER, religion tends to BIND together. Synergy, or bringing together is benign, binding or forcing together is malignant. The whole conception of either Deity or Hierarchy is dangerous as it lends itself so easily to abusive uses. Spiritual Hierarchy is an oxymoron. Is it not? >>But given that context, I am in fact a Priest of Shaman ism, in fact due to >>the spirits with which I cooperate, I am more of a Shamanic High Priest. And >>that's what makes Shaman ism so different from Religion the spirits are >>colleagues and not deities. > >Good! That's how I find it too, but from a very different direction >(maybe). > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Fondly alexis, MTI., FTSA, the eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti-paro-dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Priest Member: The Gang of Five From JPROLSTON@aol.com Sat Apr 27 08:34:52 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 04:34:52 -0400 From: JPROLSTON@aol.com Message-Id: <960427043448_384090642@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: OCCULTISM From Mr. Judge's letters: "A student of occultism after a while gets into what we may call a psychic whirl, or a vortex of occultism. At first he is affected by the feelings and influences of those about him. That begins to be pushed off and he pases into the whirl caused by the mighty effort of his Higher Self to make him remember his past lives. Then those past lives affect him. They become like clouds throwing shadows on his path. Now they seem tangible and then fade away, only a cloud. Then they begin to affect his impulse to action in many various ways. To-day he has vague calling longings to do something, and critically regarding himself, he cannot see in this life any cause. It is the bugle note of a past life blown almost in his face. It startles him; it may throw him down. Then it [stands] before him, a phantom, or, like a person behind you as you look at a mirror, it looks over his shoulder. Although dead and past they yet have a power. He gets, too, a power and a choice. If all his previous lifes were full of good, then irresistible is the force for his benefit. But all alike marshal up in front, and he hastens their coming by his effort. Into this vortex about him others are drawn, and their germs for good or ill ripen with activity. This is a phase of the operation of Karmic stamina. The choice is this: these events arrrive one after the other and, as it were, offer themselves. If he chooses wrong, then hard is the fight. The one chosen attracts old ones like itself perhaps, for all have a life of their own. Do you wonder that in the case of those who rush unprepared into the "circle of ascetics" and before the ripe moment, insanity sometimes results? But then that insanity is their safety for the next life, or for their return to sanity." Posted by John Paul Rolston From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 27 07:47:56 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 00:47:56 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960427074756.0068b500@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Independent Bodies At 06:47 PM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote: > > I think we have a semantics problem. I am >not referring to "independent" as in "external" but >rather as in not needing anything else to survive. As >far as I am concerned, all "bodies" on all planes, can >only exist if they are infilled with a consciousness. In >other words, an objective body has to have a subjective >self within it. JHE was implying that after we die, we >will receive a body (kama-rupa) that was either standing >around waiting for us, or made by someone at that instant >in time just for us to inhabit, and until we enter it, it is >entirely independent of us. I don't buy that. Besides, >technically no living thing can ever be "independent" >as all living things must depend on something (food, >energy, communication, whatever). > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Jerry: We certainly did! We do no longer. I agree with what you say completely. Now, you know that as a Shaman, I don't think in term of "bodies" but only in terms of consciousness and awareness. But the consciousness is independent. As Shaman, I see no "bodies" at all post mortem, only intelligences or sentiencies. I think all that Mahayana Buddhist terminology that theosophists love so much as just plain extraneous and irrelevant. Nothing, after all, really "dies", it simply changes its venue. Now as to physical "dependence" i.e. food etc., sure all physical things depend on things of that sort; that's not what I mean when I say "independent", what I mean by independence refers to intellectual and spiritual independence, it refers to an absolutely unique and totally individual-independent intelligence that is subject to nothing but itself. I guess that makes me a "spiritual anarchist" might as well I have recently been charged with being the other kind. Now HPB was a Shaman too, and so I imagine she was tailoring her words to her intended audience. I doubt if there's anyone on this list who doesn't know I think CWL was a total phony so I won't go into it. alexis dolgorukii, MTI., FTSA. the eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti - paro - dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Priest Member: Gang of Five! From alexei@slip.net Sat Apr 27 08:07:37 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 01:07:37 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960427080737.00681be8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: ambivalence At 07:44 PM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I'm ambivalent about the masters. On one had, I like Paul's work but on the >other it is somewhat embarrassing to have one appear in the bedroom with me >and my girlfriend. (I didn't know they were voyeurs.) Perhaps we have two >groups, the very human figures that Paul writes of and at the same time a >group of not quite competant demigods who keep falling off their carpets >(hopefully at very low altitude), watch theosophists making whoopee, and >trying to decide which to play, the piano keyboard in the living room or the >organ keyboard in the drawing room, while trying vainly to keep mankind on >track, the TS from becoming totally silly and the Disinherited from setting >fire to the Ashram in revenge for being buggered by the Bishop. And doing >all this while hiding from the Chinese army! >No wonder Morya kept falling off his horse! And what is it that he really >puts in that pipe? >The reason our merry gang has not done a serious study of the Masters is that >it is really very difficult to take them seriously as they have been >presented. > >Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker >HOO HAH! Am I in trouble now! > >Now all I have to do is figure out a way to get the Master DK to come out of >the closet--my linen closet! > Listen Chuck: Anyone who isn't ambivalent about "The Masters" as theosophy presents them, isn't very bright. You'll notice I never use the term, I find it misleading and juvenile. We don't have two groups because an Adept is always quite competent, especially in his or her own field of work. You know, and I know that what you saw in your bedroom was just an ordinary "spook"...the so-called "Masters" depicted by CWL and "David Anrias" are sheer sake oil, and one is far more likely to meet one of the Adepts on the street, or even through E-Mail, than have them wander through the bedroom wall.. The T.S. claims loudly to be entirely opposed to the spiritualists but the conception of "The Masters" is dreadfully spiritualist in character. I very much doubt that the T.S. would even dream of wanting a serious study of "The masters", so I'm in the process of so doing. That's what "Connections, connections is becoming. Alexis, MTI., FTSA. the eclectic theosophist satyat - nasti - paro -dharma Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Priest Member: Gang of five! (what no sixth yet!) From poulsen@dk-online.dk Sat Apr 27 12:31:18 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:31:18 -200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3424.CB86D9A0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: bodies - a dead horse Encoding: 65 TEXT Jerry HE >1. All statements on our parts must be at least backed up by a >reference. Short illustrative quotes are even better. Agreed. >2. When discussing HPB's system, the quotes supporting her must >come from HPB. Supports from CWL must come from CWL. Using >other "authorities" such as, for instance, Bailey, Purucker, >Subba Row etc. to either support or to not support HPB or CWL >cannot be acceptable because if raises questions concerning the >understanding of that "authority." Agreed. BUT if an explanation can be made that is reasonable and which reconciles several or all systems it aught to be considered a valid working hypothesis. >3. My own bias is that HPB's system is not borrowed from any >extant Indian system, so I would not find the quoting of this or >that Indian system to support HPB's system to be acceptable >either. If you feel differently, then I would be interested in >hearing your arguments as to why you might believe that HPB's >system is borrowed from an Indian system. This requires a rather long explanation. I believe strongly that there exists such a thing as an ancient "Secret Doctrine", a system common to all doctrines worthy of being called esoteric. I will not need to supply quotes for this idea. My bias is that the closest to the system of HPB are not theosophical writers but the adepts and initiates of history - that these were initiated into this same doctrine. Truth cannot be divided among fundamentally different statements. There are only two possibilities in this case - a) one system is true, and the remainder as differing - false. If this is the case how utterly useless to conceive of a synthetic system as the theosophical with all the historic references. b) there is such a thing as esoterism, a hidden, common truth. As the various systems appear to differ this truth must be hidden. And hidden because of the value of mental investigation in search of - understanding. It is my bias that one adept will explain a thousand times better the ideas of another adept, whatever their apparent system, rather than any follower capable of thought-processes like repeating, enumerating, vaguely analyzing. This was my exact reason for using Shankara to describe the doctrine of the Buddha (the quote was from Dakshinamurti Stotra 6.10 :-) I think I will make a bold statement here. I will say that in my opinion the books of HPB was written in her peculiar style for the very purpose that students should search out additional information in the ancient materials she quotes constantly. And that this material almost constitutes a hidden part of these books. Now the corroboration and comparing, the synthetic treatment of the material and the search for a hidden solution that is my style and modus operandi. A mind trained in an university generally works in the exact opposite way. It will isolate each system, break it up in compounds and search for - building stones. As the very object for my joining the dicussion and writing post is to propose the inner identity of various systems I can now only do it in one fashion - to enumerate the principles, support them by quotes - and point to the analogy and correspondence. The same correspondence the authority of which you have already refuted as an primary mode of investigation - as "only correspondence not identity." Jerry, my friend, you have tied my one hand to the back and.... I accept. Bring forward the artillery and let us commence. In friendship, Kim From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Sun Apr 28 00:03:44 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 17:03:44 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9604280003.AA28877@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: HPB/CWL (Kim Poulsen) Kim Poulsen: >As my following message was not returned to me, I am reposting >it Thanks. I never saw the original message. >Jerry HE: >>1. All statements on our parts must be at least backed up by a >>reference. Short illustrative quotes are even better. KP >Agreed. JHE >>2. When discussing HPB's system, the quotes supporting her must >>come from HPB. Supports from CWL must come from CWL. Using >>other "authorities" such as, for instance, Bailey, Purucker, >>Subba Row etc. to either support or to not support HPB or CWL >>cannot be acceptable because if raises questions concerning the >>understanding of that "authority." KP >Agreed. BUT if an explanation can be made that is reasonable and >which reconciles several or all systems it aught to be >considered a valid working hypothesis. JHE A "reasonable" explanation may be a reconciliation of seeming contradictions between different writers, or it could be an attempt to syncretise two different systems into a comprehensive whole. A classic example of syncretism was the combining of Roman Catholicism with the religion of the Yoruba tribesmen who were imported as slaves in this country up to 150 years ago. The resulting religion is called Voodoo, and is quite different from each of its parents. Yet voodoo is a reasonable and comprehensive religious system within itself. Personally, I don't see a rational way to tell a reconciliation from a syncretism, and I suspect that our intuitions might differ here. Further, I would be inclined to think that the bringing in of outside authorities would just complicate things and run the discussion into tangents. JHE >>3. My own bias is that HPB's system is not borrowed from any >>extant Indian system, so I would not find the quoting of this >>or that Indian system to support HPB's system to be acceptable >>either. If you feel differently, then I would be interested in >>hearing your arguments as to why you might believe that HPB's >>system is borrowed from an Indian system. KP > This requires a rather long explanation. I believe strongly >that there exists such a thing as an ancient "Secret Doctrine", >a system common to all doctrines worthy of being called >esoteric. I will not need to supply quotes for this idea. My >bias is that the closest to the system of HPB are not >theosophical writers but the adepts and initiates of history - JHE I think were have the same thought here, but I made a poor choice of words. My dictionary defines "extant" as still existing, which is not what I had in mind. A better choice of words for me would have been "exoteric" or "popular" Indian system. Though truth can be found in every great religion, the Maha Chohan also pointed out that all religions are also 3/4 superstition. KP >It is my bias that one adept will explain a thousand times >better the ideas of another adept, whatever their apparent >system, rather than any follower capable of thought-processes >like repeating, enumerating, vaguely analyzing. This was my >exact reason for using Shankara to describe the doctrine of the >Buddha (the quote was from Dakshinamurti Stotra 6.10 :-) JHE I tend to agree with you here--I think your use of Shankara was appropriate in the context you had used it. However, in the context of this discussion, the question at hand is whether CWL's system is representative of HPB's, and whether they are compatible (without syncretism). If we use CWL's writings to explain HPB, then the whole inquiry becomes meaningless. KP >I think I will make a bold statement here. I will say that in >my opinion the books of HPB was written in her peculiar style >for the very purpose that students should search out additional >information in the ancient materials she quotes constantly. And >that this material almost constitutes a hidden part of these >books. JHE Once again I agree with you. I think the works that she endlessly cited in her writings were put there for people to make their own investigations of her points. However, I'm sure that you have looked into some of these books, and noticed as I had, that among the gold often lies a lot of nonsense. For instance, O'Brian's ~Round Towers of Ireland~ contains some genuine intuitions mixed with rabidly racist attitudes that I think HPB would have shuttered to have introduced into her Theosophical doctrines. KP >Now the corroboration and comparing, the synthetic treatment of >the material and the search for a hidden solution that is my >style and modus operandi. A mind trained in an university >generally works in the exact opposite way. It will isolate each >system, break it up in compounds and search for - building >stones. JHE Again, I agree. However, I think one must begin with gaining a firm grasp on the concepts that HPB does introduce, so that when a further search is done, the seeker has a firm background for comparison and contrast. KP >As the very object for my joining the dicussion and writing post >is to propose the inner identity of various systems I can now >only do it in one fashion - to enumerate the principles, support >them by quotes - and point to the analogy and correspondence. >The same correspondence the authority of which you have already >refuted as an primary mode of investigation - as "only >correspondence not identity." Jerry, my friend, you have tied >my one hand to the back and.... I accept. JHE I also have to operate by the same restrictions, so if one hand has been tied to your back, then it is also so with me. As for the "correspondence," I was using HPB's word. By a dictionary definition, a correspondence is not an identity. The British Parliament does correspond to the American Congress, but they are not the same thing. After watching televised sessions of Congress and of Parliament, the differences were even more than I had suspected :-) Analogies are even more tricky, and HPB warns in the SD against the making of false analogies. Analogies are helpful in understanding how things work: A heart to a pump; an eye to a lens. But a heart does not have a piston inside of it, nor does a pump operate by muscular contractions of its walls. KP >Bring forward the artillery and let us commence. > >In friendship, > >Kim JHE OK. But I have made it difficult for both of us. It takes time to look up and confirm quotes. Since I'm also working on my thesis and several other projects, I my not get back to you very quickly in all cases. Whether or not anything is resolved, I'm sure the discussion will be a learning experience for both of us--and process will probably be tough but satisfying because of its skill building potential. Best Jerry ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Apr 28 00:07:27 1996 Date: 27 Apr 96 20:07:27 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: How do we broadcast theosophy nowadays Message-Id: <960428000727_76400.1474_HHL65-1@CompuServe.COM> Liesel: > I can't see that we're going to attract any new members by >debating among ourselves on theos-l or anywhere else, whether the Mahatmas >had green hair or blue hair; nor whether the SD is right or wrong or whether >Isis is any better. I also don't really give a hoot whether HPB was or >wasn't Lesbian, or whether she had a child. Liesel, but it is doing some good. In fact, it is doing a lot of good. I applaud Alexis for what he is doing. As you know, HPB taught that we humans think in terms of "grooves" or "molds" of the mind. We become fixated or stagnant in our views. However, spirit is like mercury, always moving around. Alexis is making us all think about our worldview and our belief systems. He is making us question everything HPB and the Masters taught. This can only be helpful to us in the long run. As theosophists, we must listen to what he has to say, and slowly draw our own conclusions. He has already caused to me change my mind about a few things. Hopefully others will change a bit too. Or, on the other hand, perhaps they will become even more confirmed with where they currently are. Either way it is healthy. If you really don't care about HPB's sex life, then you are already over that particular mental hurtle. I don't care either. I also don't care about CWL's sex life or that of anyone else. But others on theos-l are taking gas at the thought of this, and it is to them that Alexis is directing his message. Hopefully they too will be able to get over this mental hurtle. Whether we agree with Alexis or not, or with Chuck or not, or with anyone else, we can still read their posts and think about they they have to say, and weigh it in the backs of our minds for awhile. Its a healthy process, and it keeps us on our mental toes, and helps keep us from falling into mental grooves, howsoever golden they may seem. It also keeps us from falling into fundamentalism--that false belief that we know it all. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Apr 28 00:07:29 1996 Date: 27 Apr 96 20:07:29 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: To Dan on Statistical Significance Message-Id: <960428000728_76400.1474_HHL65-2@CompuServe.COM> Dan to Alexis: >For example, in an 1988 report prepared under the auspices of the National >Academy of Sciences, the following conclusions were drawn: > >"...the best scientific evidence does not justify the conclusion that >ESP...exists." >"...Nor does scientific evidence offer support for the existence of >psychokinesis...." >"The Commitee finds no scientific justification from reserach conducted over >a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena." Dan, as you well know, all of these scientific tests use statistics, and the results do not show that *no* ESP etc. exists, but rather that there is no statisitical significance to the results. Science has found no statistical significance for at least 60 years now of any occult phenomena including astrology. This does not mean it doesn't exist, only that it is not prevelant enough to measure statisically. What I am saying here is that your quotes don't prove anything. Science is right. Occultism is also right. Jerry S. Member, TI From eldon@theosophy.com Sun Apr 28 01:30:53 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 18:30:53 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428013053.0069fdf8@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Reply to Alexei Alexis: >>These ideas, though, are the most basic and simple of the occult >>doctrines, and are not being popularized in what I'd consider their >>pure and accurate form. They could be considered fourth, fifth, >>or sixth generation Theosophy, which much added and taken away. >In this connection I'd like to remind you of William of Ockham's >maxim, which paraphrased say's ;"The simplest answer is usually >the best answer". I agree with his maxim, which is reductionism at its best. Don Degracia made an important point last summer in this regard. While reductionism carried too far is objectionable, reductionism carried to its proper limits is really the process of bringing clarity to a situation. When I speak of fourth, fifth, or sixth generation Theosophy, though, I'm not referring to reductionism properly applied to its doctrines. Consider a group of people sitting in a circle. One whispers to the next. Each passes on the message, one after the other, around the circle. By the time the message gets around the circle, it bears little resemblance to what it started as. This is what I'm concerned about happening to the theosophical philosophy. >Perhaps the simplifications, provided they aren't >over-simplifications, are better, and more prone to comprehension >than the perhaps over-elaborated "originals". It's always possible for someone to come up with a further idea on a subject, or a better way of explaining the idea than before. Especially when the doctrines where being expressed for the first time, in a newly-minted terminology, there's plenty of room for making it easier for the student to understand the materials. >>Why would I care if the ideas change as they take hold in western >>society? Because of my belief that they are based upon a Wisdom >>Tradition, that they are doctrines that express some of the >>knowledge about life carried by the Mahatmas, Bodhisattvas, and >>Buddhas, the elect of mankind. >The problem, as I see it, is that what you're saying here is, as >you put it, "Because of my belief". But Eldon, I submit to you >that belief isn't knowledge, and almost never is. I use the words "my belief" a lot, because I'm discussing my personal understanding, in my own words, rather than citing figures that I would consider authoritative. As to the difference between belief and knowledge, that's an entirely different topic of discussion, where much can and has been said. We're both on an equal basis on theos-l in this regard. You are stating your beliefs with the assertion that they are based upon personal experience and knowledge. I'm also stating my beliefs, although I'm not making a similar assertion. You make be convinced that your beliefs are correct, and based upon the real way that life works. I have a similar conviction. Without either of us resorting to citations from the literature of the world to back up our statements, how are other readers to evaluate our ideas? >The "Mahatmas", Bodhisattva" and "Buddhas" as a putative >"spiritual hierarchy" ( a term I believe to be an oxymoron) are >only speculations. They are speculations in the same sense that the fact the Moon orbits the Earth, and is an astronomical body in space, is a speculation. I've had no personal experience of circling it in a space ship, so I'll have to take science's word for it. The same holds true to theosophical doctrines that deal with aspects of my life that are outside my ordinary experience. It comes down to a matter of authority. What sources do you consider authorities? The great sages and seers of the past, occult teachings and spiritual gurus, scientists, spirit guides, etc. -- all these could be considered as sources of information. You draw upon your sources and I draw upon my sources, and because the sources are different we end up with different conclusions. >They are things you "believe in" but do not "know" to be real. >They're like "Angels" and "Saints" to the Christians, and I >personally think, a reflection of humanity's need for a "Deus ex >Machina" to solve their problems. This is where we must agree to >disagree. There is certainly a lot of myth and fairy tales circulating. You apparently put most or all of the theosophical doctrines in this category. I'd disagree. I'd tend to put spirit guides and entities contacted in psychic realms in the unreliable category. I'd expect you to disagree. So we see things differently ... >Much real knowledge about the nature of the human condition has >been passed down from antiquity, but a "Wisdom Tradition" in a >religious application of the term, is only speculation. From my standpoint, the words "religious application" carries positive, not negative connotations. As to speculations, I do some, but try to distinguish when I'm giving my own ideas, rather than repeating accurately what I've heard from Theosophy. >Now, to me, personally any "tradition" that leads to the use of >phrases like "The Elect of Mankind" is deplorable and, obviously, >elitist by definition. I fail to see it as deplorable, and perhaps fail to see why it should be such a bad thing. Anything that requires special knowledge or training could be elitist, in the positive sense of the word, since it would be only intended for the few, for the people that train and prepare themselves. In this regard, Theosophy is no more elitist than astrophysics or economics. Someone needs a background of study, preparation, and living the life to appreciate it, otherwise it's useless metaphysical jargon. >It is true that evolution itself (and it matters not whether we >speak of the evolution of consciousness or the evolution of >forms) is clearly "elitist", but philosophies shouldn't be so. But elitism is a fact of nature in every discipline. Even in the computer field. I was just rereading an ACM document on publications and copyrights, where it talks about technical journals not being appealing to the broad membership, and where therefore a second category of publications would be needed. This second category would be directed to people that are interested in the results but don't have the time and background to understand the specialized language. >>Annie Besant and the Adyar T.S. did get involved in Indian >>politics, and there was good that resulted from their efforts. >>Earlier, Col. Olcott helped reform Buddhism in Sri Lanka, >>earning himself the status of national hero; he is still held >>in high regard for the work that he did. >From an non-Theosophist Indian Point of view, the work of the >Theosophical Society was primarily political ... But oddly >enough, either of these phenomena have little to do with the >"Wisdom Tradition" to which you refer. One intent of spreading Theosophy is to awaken people to the path. Once they're awakened, and their inner life has been set aflame, the work that they do in the world can vary, depending upon their karmic circumstances. One form of work is political reform, another is religious reform. Not everyone is going to themselves become teachers of the Philosophy. >>What we need in the western world is the same efforts to >>apply Theosophy in the world. This includes religious reform >>as well as social, political, and lifestyle reform (and yes, >>even a movement towards the gradual introduction of >>vegetarianism). >If you choose to be a vegetarian, well and good, more power to >you. But to feel called upon to (even "gradually") inflict your >moral-ethical beliefs (and vegetarianism is only valid IMO as a >moral-ethical system) on others, no matter how kindly intended, >is simply oppressive. But you're not against social reform? Anti-smoking laws, for instance, protect the health of non-smokers, but the smokers feel that their rights are being infringed upon. Some people, in their efforts to reform, don't just offer ideas and moral examples, but seek to impose their style of conduct upon others. I wouldn't go this far, not even to change their language to adhere to the politically correct guidelines. We agree that it's oppressive to impose moral standards upon others. People should feel inspired to follow someone's moral example, not commanded to do what they're told. For the gradual introduction of vegetarianism, for instance, I'd be for information and moral example, not for anything that would be oppressive to non-vegetarians. >For Theosophy to involve itself in any kind of "reform" whether >social, political, "lifestyle", or dietary, would make it as >intrusive and as oppressive as Christianity. The theosophical >movement in the West was intended to re-introduce long forgotten >concepts, and to give interested people new ideas about the >nature of the Human Condition and that is all it was meant to do. >No "crusades" on behalf of "the elect of mankind". I agree that "long forgotten concepts" and "new ideas about the nature of the human condition" are important gifts to western society, and the theosophical movement should stress giving them. But that's the movement in general. Each of us, as individuals, is free to follow one's individual path to making the world a better place, and may sometimes be active reformers, rather than being pundits and conveyers of ideas. >>What is needed? Brotherhood, including a sense of tolerance >>for the differing views and lifestyles of others. Unselfishness >>including the willingness to help others, not by politicians >>with their hands in your wallet, but by people feeling generous >>and willing to share what they have on their own initiative. >>And people setting the example and encouraging others to >>take self-initiative in their lives, taking personal >>responsibility to reform themselves economically, >>psychologically, socially, and spiritually. >... optimally that's what SHOULD BE. But, there are far too >many people who are not in a position to take personal >responsibility to "reform" themselves economically, >psychologically, socially, and spirituality. True. We must work with our individual circumstances in life, and sometimes the most basic needs like food and shelter take most of our times and energies. >And why is it, I wonder, that you choose to use the term >"reform"? That would imply that you see some basic "wrongness" >about the less fortunate. Nothing wrong. And I don't think we can measure how fortunate a person is by their external circumstances. We don't necessarily see into their minds and hearts and realize what kind of life they really are having. >You'd feel differently if you got "downsized" and found yourself >huddled in a doorway. I'd hate to be a poor Black woman with >children waiting for some white guy to "feel generous". So would I. But this is not what I was talking about. There are two forms of responsibility that I've been referring to. One is for those with a spark of the spiritual to "pass on the fire" to those in whom it can be lit. And the other is to do in a quite individual way one's best efforts to brighten the world and help give expression to the inexpressible. >Theosophy, as presently formulated, and especially as seen by >people like you, has absolutely nothings to say to [poor] ... >people. Speculative philosophy is only for the well-off. If someone has the time, they can read books, watch sunsets, read poetry, listen to uplifting music, and many other things that don't take much money. True, some don't have the time, or live in third-world countries where access to such influences is difficult. I'm not sure I get your point. No mater what we do to add value to the world, there will be some people in a position to benefit by it, and other people that won't. Are you saying that some means of benefiting others is correct, and approved, and others are objectionable? Also, I would not consider the Wisdom Tradition as speculative philosophy, but rather a more direct approach to the Mysteries than approaches involving paranormal powers, out-of-the-body experiences, seeing auras, etc. >>People are not stupid puppets waiting to be told what to do >>and think by their political/religious leaders, but get that way >>out of laziness and because they were never taught to be >>self-sufficient. >Don't you realize that there are enormous numbers of people all >over the world who would give anything to be in a position to >even think about self-sufficiency? Society, and politics, hasn't >made puppets out of them, it's made them irrelevant and >extraneous, and even worse unnecessary and unwanted. I realize it. As to who is to blame for their (and for our) conditions, I'll leave it to the sociologists. I'll concentrate on my self-improvement and my efforts to make some contribution to the world. I have to content myself to the fact that I cannot fix everyone's problems, and let the people desiring to work in politics and economics to concentrate on problems dealing with politics and economics. >>But it's been accomplished. The ideas are accessible now. It's >>possible to go into a bookstore or library and find materials, >>and one can read in the local newspaper of programs and classes >>to go to, held by many different organizations. It's in the open >>now -- but I would submit that the Gnosis is still not available >>to the common person, because most people can still go through >>life and not have enough exposure to it to feel an attraction. >>There's a long way to go before a majority of people find their >>lives changed by the theosophical movement. >The "Gnosis", if by it you mean absolute knowledge of what is, >was, and always will be, and not some putative "ancient wisdom" >is not, never was, and never will be available in Bookstores. Not the actual, literal living connection to it. But in terms of basic introductory ideas pointing people's minds in the right direction, it's there. >It's certainly not available in T.S. Books, and if what I see on >this list is any example, it hasn't even been defined by most >Orthodox Theosophists. I cannot speak for what the average orthodox Theosophist would know, without getting to know them personally. I suspect that a certain percentage of them are followers, like we find in any group. Another percentage, though, I'd suspect are people with a real spiritual awakening, a spirituality that you seem to discount because you don't happen to like their beliefs. >As to the "common person" they are far more absorbed in attaining >nourishment and shelter than they are in speculative theology, >and that Eldon is what the kind of Theosophy you preach is: >Speculative Theology. But it's only speculative as long as one merely reads and talks about the words, and doesn't take steps to start a spiritual practice in their lives. When those steps are taken, it becomes both a useful tool and actual wisdom about life. The original literal interpretation of some of the ideas may be left behind, but the ideas are discovered to be founded upon the reality of life. You may be rejecting the wine, which I say is quite fine, because you dislike the color of the bottle! >Lastly Eldon, I'd like to say this, If you truly believe >Theosophy to be a "Mystery School" you're going, in time, to be >sadly disappointed. I'm not sure that theosophical groups will become such schools, but I haven't yet given up all hope in this regard. As to Theosophy itself representing the Mysteries, or the Mystery Teachings, that is my personal conviction, and since I cannot prove it to you, you'll have to settle for it being stated as "Eldon's speculation". >It isn't, it wasn't and as things are now, it never will be. >Right now it's just an elitist group of people who gather around >each other to tell each other how grand they are, and how the >"Masters" are with them. They will not be the foundation for new >religions because hopefully there will be no new religions. The >old one's have done quite enough harm thank you. This may be true of many theosophical branches, but is not, I think, universally true. And you'd be surprised at how many genuinely spiritual and awakened individuals you might find begin content to read books and live a compassionate, thoughtful life, without once having to talk to spirits nor see auras. -- Eldon Member: Gang of Zero From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Apr 28 00:36:14 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 19:36:14 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: ARE-thritis In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Alan: Like any chronic disease or condition, some work for some people. One thing that seems to help, this is from what I have seen, is change of climate. There are a large number of older people with arthritis who live in North West USA who move down to Florida or South Texas during winter to get away from the cold climate during the winter. Since I am told the English weather is cold and damp, have you tried any change of climate? In lots of cases, various personal situations prevent such change in climate. ....doss On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 14:54:20 -0400 > From: Dr. A.M.Bain > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: ARE-thritis > > In message , M > K Ramadoss writes > >Jerry: > > > >Have your read about the use of apple cider vinegar for arthritis? > >Blackstrap Molasses which is high in potassium and iron may also help. > > > > ...doss > > > >PS: The above has nothing to do with Cayce. > > Please excuse my jumping in here, but having recently had my arthritis > go from bad to awful, I can vouch for the probability that if all the > remedies that have been suggested to me in the last few months were of > anything other than symptomatic and temporary relief, then I and my > mother would be dancing around like five year olds, and no one would > know what the word arthritis meant. My Doc gives me pills - they work > as well as anything else. Mind you, if I were to dance naked three > times round Chuck at 3 am on the eve of the summer solstice - well, that > would probably do nothing for anyone. :-) > > Alan. > --------- > THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: > Ancient Wisdom for a New Age > TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sun Apr 28 01:40:45 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 19:40:45 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960427234104.006aada0@mail.deltanet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > Rich: > > [writing to Paul] > > >But this is a THEOSOPHICAL list. Most participants are THEOSOPHISTS. > >This doesn't mean slavish adherence to one or another school of > >Theosophy, but an A PRIORI attitude that Theosophy is generally true, > >and worth investigating. > > There are several stands that I see people taking. They include: > > 1. I know that Theosophy is not true because of my occult experiences, > or own scientific studies, etc. > > 2. We can never know if Theosophy is true since it deals with > the transcendent and unknowable, but can only have a growing > certitude of certain of its fundamental concepts. > > 3. I believe that Theosophy is literally true, in every statement > of my favorite authors, regardless of their agreement with HPB. > > 4. I believe that Theosophy is a body of Mystery Teachings, > partially expressed in open language, and partly veiled, > behind the words of our theosophical texts. > > I'm sure that there are many other positions on Theosophy as well. > Without requiring anyone to commit to a stand -- pro or con -- on > Theosophy, I'd suggest that we need to agree that it consists of > a definite body of doctrines and occult truths. That is, it is > possible to study Theosophy, recognize what it is, and distinguish > it from different ideas. Why should we need to agree on this particular point? Or rather, why is this point not simply a number "5" on your list: "I believe Theosophy consists of a definate body of doctrines and occult truths that can be distinguished from other doctrines". It appears as though you are taking the positions of others and framing them into a list ... but then taking your particular perspective and saying it is more than just another entry on that list, but needs to be *the* agreed upon perspective for any meaningful discussions to ensue. I fear, however, that many on the list would not see it as anything other than another perspective - with no more or less credibility or claim than the others - and that *were* it to need to be "agreed upon", the list would likely be very much smaller than it is now. It sounds as though you & three others are starting a list layed out along just such lines - which is certainly wonderful - but I certainly would not want theos-l to become such a list. > If we were a list dedicated to the study of those doctrines, > then it would be possible to say that this idea is someone's > personal opinion, that idea is in accord with the Teachings, > and the third idea is plausible, but not supported in the > literature, so we'd need to reserve judgment on it. Each idea > could be considered as being in accord with (or not in > accord with) the doctrines. It would certainly be more convenient, and perhaps look more like a calm study group if there was a clearly articulated set of "doctrines" that everyone agreed were the "Theosophical" doctrines, but it would also simply become the Internet expression of the Adyar/Wheaton ideology - both of whom also believe that specific lines can be drawn, on one side of which are things called "Theosophical doctrines" and on the other side "not-Theosophical doctrines". > For those that don't accept the premise that there is such a > body of doctrines, we cannot convince them that such an > approach has merit. But we are then faced with a problem. > How can we study and teach Theosophy (the body of Mystery > doctrines) amidst many that deny there is such a thing? Ah, but this is only a "problem" if one believes that the "body of doctrines" perspective is the *true* perspective - that it is priviledged above all others. It seems to me that to *accept* such a notion produces a far worse "problem" ... *who* is going to define what that "body of doctrines" is? I cannot accept that this approach is anything other than simply one of many ... and would never priviledge it above the others I've seen here as being "more Theosophical" ... for the simple reason that if *HPB and the Adepts had intended "Theosophy" to be the study of a specific set of doctrines ... they could have easily *SAID SO* - and the First Object of the Society would have read "To form a nucleus of humans devoted to the study of Theosophical Doctrines, that might in the future form the foundation of a western Mystery School". But they did not do so. And if they had it would have signalled an intention far different than that in the Objects they *did* articulate. It was the Adepts and HPB that *generated* the Theosophical impulse ... they were the *creators*. Theosophists may read and appreciate Judge, or CWL, or G de P, but they were *derivatives*, "down stream" as it were from the initiating impulse - that is to say, it was *through* HPB and her link to the Adepts that whatever work they did became possible. It was *through* her that they came into contact with the generating current. The Adepts had complete freedom and autonomy, and HPB, during her life, had complete authority - in that they could have generated any current they wished, and she could have defined it according to her predilections and choices. If WQJ, or G de P, had evolved Theosophy out of their own thought, they very well may have defined the First Object as I stated it above, the Second as the specific study not of comparative philosophies, religions and sciences, but of the "correlations" between those things and the "body of doctrines", and would certainly have not written a Third Object that even vaguely resembled the current one. But the Adepts *first* found HPB, and brought in others to help *her*, they did not choose others to take to Tibet and find HPB to assist *them*. Her energy-system evidently had an expansiveness capable of giving expression to their intentions. And neither the Adepts nor HPB mentioned "doctrines" in the formulation of the Objects - which contain a far more inclusive view of Theosophy than (IMO) the derivatives. Those who wish to *define* a specific set of "doctrines" have for years had to face the uncomfortable fact of the Objects - of the fact that the *originators* of the Theosophical current did *not* define the study of a specific set of doctrines as what "Theosophy" is, nor required any such thing as a condition of membership. In fact, those who wish to do so will usually either try to dismiss the Objects as not relevant to the discussion of what "real" Theosophy is, or will claim there are things hidden in the Objects that permit them to find a basis for their doctrinal claims - witness the "Theosophical World View" now published next to the Objects in every AT, or the "inner intentions" now being "discovered" in the Objects by the Wheaton Masters. *I* call myself a "Theosophist" because of full agreement with the motto "There is no religion higher than truth", and because I not only accept, but pursue, in my own little way, the expression of the Three Objects in my day to day life. And according to the *Adepts and HPB*, accepting those Objects is *all* that is required to call myself a Theosophist, and *expressing them*, according to my own ethical understanding and predilections, is *called* "Theosophy". I practice what I consider to be *severely* "traditional Theosophy" - in fact *so* traditional that to what *now* calls itself "traditional Theosophy" I often appear radical, to those who wish to define a specified set of doctrines that are official "Theosophical" doctrines I am an anarchist, and to those who wish to impose the study of specific doctrines as conditions for institutional recognition - hence requiring what the Adepts and HPB *never* required - I am at best a gadfly and at worst a nightmare. And this has reached the point that it is now claimed that I do not even *accept* "traditional" Theosophy. But, BUT! - *HPB CREATED THE OBJECTS OF HER SOCIETY, AND *SPECIFICALLY* SAID THAT THEIR ACCEPTANCE WAS THE *SOLE* REQUIREMENT OF MEMBERSHIP* And those Objects were not simply her whim, rather, they were powerfully supported by the Adepts - especially the First Object ... perhaps one of the most unprecedented and remarkable formulations I've seen in any organization ... and the recent posting of the Chohan's letter is a good example - no mention of the study of races and rounds, but an awful lot of talk about "brotherhood". While the study of particular "doctrines", or the followers of specific writers *other* than the Adepts and HPB are certainly activities that might be pursued *within* the larger Theosophical current, I cannot see that there is the grounds to make the claim that these activities are *all* that HPB and the Adepts intended "Theosophy" to be, nor that these perspectives can somehow be priviledged above others. Those that *do* believe this must necessarily continually be faced with "problems", as the actual Theosophical current seems to attract quite independent minds, and large parts of the membership will inevitably either not accept there *is* a specific "body of doctrines", or will not accept any one person's or faction's definition of what, precisely, those doctrines *are*. But such problems are not shared by those who hold views other than the "doctrinal" approach. And neither I, nor (I suspect) a number of others who hold different views, have any responsibility to help the "doctrine" perspective out of the problems necessarily generated by their point of view, nor to define their beliefs or thoughts as "Theosophical" or "non-Theosophical" according to the standards set by the "doctrine" view. -JRC From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun Apr 28 01:04:19 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 21:04:19 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604280208.WAA22996@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Murray Re: rigidity/flexibility Dear Murray, Thank you for sharing this image of your advancing along the Path. Mine has more to do with getting older, slowing down, & depending more on other people's strengths & abillities. It's not easy when you're used to fending for yourself for all your previous life. Like, I don't have a car anymore, because it's too expensive to maintain. I rent one for 1 week-end a month to do my errands. Today, I wanted to hit a sale at Dunk & Bright, because I need a new mattress. Makes no sense to hire a car for $40.- a day, to save $100.- on a mattress. Well, I asked a young friend to drive me. She didn't mind at all, but I'm used to doing everything for myself & I minded imposing on her. It's a general problem with older people, I understand. No one enjoys gettting to be so old that they have to depend on other people for their upkeep. But I'm facing it in my own situation. Thanks goodness the place where I live has lots of friendly staff. So while your change is that you're growing spiritually, mine is that I'm declining physically. I hope Jerry S. sends you a response. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun Apr 28 01:23:38 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 21:23:38 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604280228.WAA03726@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Paul writes: >When you advise me, JHE, to enjoy the board that "better meets >my needs" and "Godspeed," what are you saying about my presence >on theos-l? Can't quite tell; it seems like an invitation to >go away. Dear Paul, I just want to remind you that John Mead is the manager of theos-l, not Jerry HE. and who does he think he is? Liesel From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Apr 28 02:35:17 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 21:35:17 -0500 (CDT) From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII JRC has brought up some issue that require some very serious consideration. Some of them of particular interest to me are: 1. Theosophy - Theos-Sophia has not been defined in the Objects. I do not think it is an oversight. I think it is very deliberate considering the fact Divine Wisdom or Truth is not something fixed. So Theosophists who are are all co-students in search of Truth which is not static and fixed are in search of something that is dynamic. However much anything can be described in words, it is not the real thing. In addition, due to tradition and other reasons various words mean different things to different people. But in the absence of a better medium of communication and recording, we have the writings of HPB and others. 2. Three Objects of TS: The objects were not put together in great haste. It evolved over a period of time. From what I have read, one need not agree with the second and third objects. Just if one is in *sympathy* with the First Object - Universal Brotherhood is all that is required of any one who wants to join the Society. This is in total agreement with what was stated to AP Sinnett in the letter from the Great Master wherein it was Their intention not to form a school of psychology but to get men and women who will help in the great idea of Universal Brotherhood. From a personal point of view, I have been around TS and Theosophy for several decades. It is typical to find lodges having lectures on various Theosophical "Theories" - they are facts for those Brahma Gnanis - but should be theories until each one of us internally able to verify and corroborate them. It was decades before I could connect between all these lectures and the important task at hand. How can one help our fellow humans in a practical way of implementing the concept of Universal Brotherhood - each one of in our own way to be best of our understanding? Again it appears that the fact that more people not being exposed to and taking interest in Theosophy especially at a time all New Age interest was increasing may be directly related to all of us including me losing sight of the First Object and what it stands for. Many of us are doing our best to best of our knowledge and understanding. But a more concerted effort is needed to emphasize this important factor and bring it to the attention of newer members. Those newer members who join the TS for their selfish purposes, when such key informationis provided, may make them decide that TS is not their cup of tea and go elsewhere, which is ok. Why am I on this soap box? As I see the background of individuals who are likely to succeed Nationally and Internationally, a miracle would be needed to get kind of leaders who are likely to turn things around soon. If the current trend continues, I am sorry to say, in our life time we may see the TS to become just a publishing company with lots of assets in the control of a few (after all litigations are completed and lawyers plundering much of the assetsF). Even the Great Roman Empire had its days. Where is it today? It decined and fell into oblivion. The house is on fire. Let us awake and do something soon. ....doss On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, JRC wrote: > Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 21:41:37 -0400 > From: JRC > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? > > On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > > Rich: > > > > [writing to Paul] > > > > >But this is a THEOSOPHICAL list. Most participants are THEOSOPHISTS. > > >This doesn't mean slavish adherence to one or another school of > > >Theosophy, but an A PRIORI attitude that Theosophy is generally true, > > >and worth investigating. > > > > There are several stands that I see people taking. They include: > > > > 1. I know that Theosophy is not true because of my occult experiences, > > or own scientific studies, etc. > > > > 2. We can never know if Theosophy is true since it deals with > > the transcendent and unknowable, but can only have a growing > > certitude of certain of its fundamental concepts. > > > > 3. I believe that Theosophy is literally true, in every statement > > of my favorite authors, regardless of their agreement with HPB. > > > > 4. I believe that Theosophy is a body of Mystery Teachings, > > partially expressed in open language, and partly veiled, > > behind the words of our theosophical texts. > > > > I'm sure that there are many other positions on Theosophy as well. > > Without requiring anyone to commit to a stand -- pro or con -- on > > Theosophy, I'd suggest that we need to agree that it consists of > > a definite body of doctrines and occult truths. That is, it is > > possible to study Theosophy, recognize what it is, and distinguish > > it from different ideas. > Why should we need to agree on this particular point? Or rather, > why is this point not simply a number "5" on your list: > "I believe Theosophy consists of a definate body of doctrines and > occult truths that can be distinguished from other doctrines". > It appears as though you are taking the positions of others and > framing them into a list ... but then taking your particular perspective > and saying it is more than just another entry on that list, but needs to > be *the* agreed upon perspective for any meaningful discussions to ensue. > I fear, however, that many on the list would not see it as anything other > than another perspective - with no more or less credibility or claim than > the others - and that *were* it to need to be "agreed upon", the list > would likely be very much smaller than it is now. It sounds as though you > & three others are starting a list layed out along just such lines - > which is certainly wonderful - but I certainly would not want theos-l to > become such a list. > > > If we were a list dedicated to the study of those doctrines, > > then it would be possible to say that this idea is someone's > > personal opinion, that idea is in accord with the Teachings, > > and the third idea is plausible, but not supported in the > > literature, so we'd need to reserve judgment on it. Each idea > > could be considered as being in accord with (or not in > > accord with) the doctrines. > It would certainly be more convenient, and perhaps look more like > a calm study group if there was a clearly articulated set of "doctrines" > that everyone agreed were the "Theosophical" doctrines, but it would also > simply become the Internet expression of the Adyar/Wheaton ideology - > both of whom also believe that specific lines can be drawn, on one side > of which are things called "Theosophical doctrines" and on the other side > "not-Theosophical doctrines". > > > For those that don't accept the premise that there is such a > > body of doctrines, we cannot convince them that such an > > approach has merit. But we are then faced with a problem. > > How can we study and teach Theosophy (the body of Mystery > > doctrines) amidst many that deny there is such a thing? > Ah, but this is only a "problem" if one believes that the "body > of doctrines" perspective is the *true* perspective - that it is > priviledged above all others. > It seems to me that to *accept* such a notion produces a far > worse "problem" ... *who* is going to define what that "body of > doctrines" is? I cannot accept that this approach is anything other than > simply one of many ... and would never priviledge it above the others > I've seen here as being "more Theosophical" ... for the simple reason > that if *HPB and the Adepts had intended "Theosophy" to be the study of a > specific set of doctrines ... they could have easily *SAID SO* - and the > First Object of the Society would have read "To form a nucleus of humans > devoted to the study of Theosophical Doctrines, that might in the future > form the foundation of a western Mystery School". But they did not do so. > And if they had it would have signalled an intention far different than > that in the Objects they *did* articulate. > It was the Adepts and HPB that *generated* the Theosophical > impulse ... they were the *creators*. Theosophists may read and > appreciate Judge, or CWL, or G de P, but they were *derivatives*, "down > stream" as it were from the initiating impulse - that is to say, it was > *through* HPB and her link to the Adepts that whatever work they did > became possible. It was *through* her that they came into contact with > the generating current. > The Adepts had complete freedom and autonomy, and HPB, during her > life, had complete authority - in that they could have generated any > current they wished, and she could have defined it according to her > predilections and choices. If WQJ, or G de P, had evolved Theosophy out > of their own thought, they very well may have defined the First Object as > I stated it above, the Second as the specific study not of comparative > philosophies, religions and sciences, but of the "correlations" between > those things and the "body of doctrines", and would certainly have not > written a Third Object that even vaguely resembled the current one. > But the Adepts *first* found HPB, and brought in others to help > *her*, they did not choose others to take to Tibet and find HPB to assist > *them*. Her energy-system evidently had an expansiveness capable of > giving expression to their intentions. > And neither the Adepts nor HPB mentioned "doctrines" in the > formulation of the Objects - which contain a far more inclusive view of > Theosophy than (IMO) the derivatives. Those who wish > to *define* a specific set of "doctrines" have for years had to face > the uncomfortable fact of the Objects - of the fact that the > *originators* of the Theosophical current did *not* define the study of > a specific set of doctrines as what "Theosophy" is, nor required any > such thing as a condition of membership. In fact, those who wish to do > so will usually either try to dismiss the Objects as not relevant to > the discussion of what "real" Theosophy is, or will claim there are > things hidden in the Objects that permit them to find a basis for > their doctrinal claims - witness the "Theosophical World View" now > published next to the Objects in every AT, or the "inner intentions" now > being "discovered" in the Objects by the Wheaton Masters. > *I* call myself a "Theosophist" because of full agreement with > the motto "There is no religion higher than truth", and because I not > only accept, but pursue, in my own little way, the expression of the > Three Objects in my day to day life. And according to the *Adepts > and HPB*, accepting those Objects is *all* that is required to call > myself a Theosophist, and *expressing them*, according to my own > ethical understanding and predilections, is *called* "Theosophy". I > practice what I consider to be *severely* "traditional Theosophy" - > in fact *so* traditional that to what *now* calls itself > "traditional Theosophy" I often appear radical, to those who wish > to define a specified set of doctrines that are official > "Theosophical" doctrines I am an anarchist, and to those who wish > to impose the study of specific doctrines as conditions for institutional > recognition - hence requiring what the Adepts and HPB *never* required - I > am at best a gadfly and at worst a nightmare. > And this has reached the point that it is now claimed that I do > not even *accept* "traditional" Theosophy. But, BUT! - *HPB CREATED THE > OBJECTS OF HER SOCIETY, AND *SPECIFICALLY* SAID THAT THEIR ACCEPTANCE WAS > THE *SOLE* REQUIREMENT OF MEMBERSHIP* And those Objects were not simply > her whim, rather, they were powerfully supported by the Adepts - > especially the First Object ... perhaps one of the most unprecedented and > remarkable formulations I've seen in any organization ... and the recent > posting of the Chohan's letter is a good example - no mention of the > study of races and rounds, but an awful lot of talk about "brotherhood". > While the study of particular "doctrines", or the followers of > specific writers *other* than the Adepts and HPB are certainly activities > that might be pursued *within* the larger Theosophical current, I cannot > see that there is the grounds to make the claim that these activities are > *all* that HPB and the Adepts intended "Theosophy" to be, nor that these > perspectives can somehow be priviledged above others. > Those that *do* believe this must necessarily continually be > faced with "problems", as the actual Theosophical current seems to > attract quite independent minds, and large parts of the membership will > inevitably either not accept there *is* a specific "body of doctrines", > or will not accept any one person's or faction's definition of > what, precisely, those doctrines *are*. But such problems are not shared > by those who hold views other than the "doctrinal" approach. And neither > I, nor (I suspect) a number of others who hold different views, have any > responsibility to help the "doctrine" perspective out of the problems > necessarily generated by their point of view, nor to define their beliefs > or thoughts as "Theosophical" or "non-Theosophical" according to the > standards set by the "doctrine" view. > -JRC > From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 28 02:26:35 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 03:26:35 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <21$hQLAbdtgxEwIF@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Religion In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960427083347.006874a0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960427083347.006874a0@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >Spiritual Hierarchy is an oxymoron. Is it not? It is. In my experience, the people who actually get something worthwhile out of religion(s) ignore the spiritual hierarchy for practical purposes, and so it works for them. Maybe one could see it as a "crutch" - but is it kind to try to pull someone's crutches from under them if we are not in a position to replace them with something better? And I don't mean a book from the library! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 28 02:08:32 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 03:08:32 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: feed me In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960427081548.00680d38@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960427081548.00680d38@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >>Alan (member, gang of 5 thousand - please feed me) >>--------- >>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html >> >>But I only have a couple of fishes and a bagel. > >alexis Should be enough for an adept to work with (no fish please). If I get overcome, I'll call bagels anonymous. :-) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun Apr 28 01:45:32 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 21:45:32 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604280250.WAA14707@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: raising children >I found myself asking the same simple question again and again: Why is it >that for thousands if not millions of years parents in every type of culture >have been at least able to successfully raise their own children . . . but >that it seems like such a major problem for us? Richard, What makes you think parents have successfully raised their children in the past? I'm thinking of the 1800ds, when much city folks were so poor that the parents went to work, & the kids stayed in the streets by themselves. Some of them were taught to scavenge, and/or to steal, to add to the meager family income. What Dickens depicts, actually happened. There was a time in the US when the city people gave their children to some oganization who put them on trains going West & gave them to farmers to be laborers, more like little slaves. I wonder how mentally crippled medieval children were, when their childhood was spent thinking their mothers were evil witches, & sometimes they had to stand by & watch them being burned. I wonder what kind of an upbringing little fatherless children had, when their mothers were hardly able to feed them, because women couldn't earn more than a pittance. Seems to me our kids are a bit better off today. Or let's say, at least we know something about how to raise children, if we'd only teach it to those who are too illiterate & unsophisticated to read up on it themselves. Liesel From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 28 02:33:21 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 03:33:21 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: ARE-thritis In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , M K Ramadoss writes >Since I am told the English weather is cold and damp, have you tried any >change of climate? In lots of cases, various personal situations prevent >such change in climate. Better by the sea, especially if there is a breeze from that direction. Britain is not always cold - we get heatwaves. Dampness is with us more of the time though! I was in Pittsburgh one time, and they said it was very humid at 84 degrees. I found it relatively dry heat compared to 84 degrees in England! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Apr 27 02:02:46 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 03:02:46 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: Question about "Facts Underlying Adept Biographies" In-Reply-To: <3180FD9A@mortar.bpa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <3180FD9A@mortar.bpa.gov>, "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" writes >The last words, as given from the cross, are found in the first two >Gospels, in Matthew, chapter xxvii, verse 46, and in Mark, chapter xv, verse >34: 'Eli, 'Eli, lamah shavahhtani. These words, called "the cry on the >cross," have been translated into Greek in the Christian New Testament as >follows, and this is the English rendering of the Greek translation: 'My >God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?" This is a false translation into >Greek Actually, it is a transliteration, not a translation. The Greek has "sabachthani" (as rendered into English) as Greek has no equivalent of the Hebrew/Aramaic "Shin" - so is the transliteration a Shin or a Samech? The Aramaic Peshitta text has "Eil, Eil; lmana Shwaqthan" - "My God, My God, for this I was kept." [Mar Aprem, ~Teach Yourself Aramaic~; Mar Narsai Press, Trichur, Kerala, India, 1981]. Where G de P got his ideas about initiations from I can only wonder. BTW - I do not think this posting is relevant to theos-roots; theos-buds perhaps, but I am relying to the list you posted to. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 28 05:46:06 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:46:06 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960428014600_282425623@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Another TI Welcome Alan, Yahoo! Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Do what thou wilt shall be the hole in the donut." From SeussInUse@gnn.com Sun Apr 28 12:39:56 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 12:35:56 From: SeussInUse@gnn.com (Virginia Behrens) Message-Id: <199604281639.MAA22895@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: SeussInUse@gnn.com (Steve Spaeth) (from www-50-26.gnn.com. 205.188.50.26) Subject: Re: to follow through Sat, 27 Apr 1996 12:09:09 -0400, liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) wrote: >So I thought maybe if I give a couple of quotes we could start a >discussion going. So I'm trying: >"In the presence of a corpse, the skeptical physiologist stands >dumb when asked by his pupil whence came the former tenant of that >empty box, and whither has it gone." >"Who has been able to penetrate the secret formation of a body...? >who has sounded to the bottom the abyss in a grain of sand" which >"has been studied for thousands of years?" >"Why should there be an attraction between the molecules of >matter, & none between those of spirit?" >"The Hermetic, Orphic, and Pythagorean cosmogonical doctrines, ... >are all based upon one irrefutable formula, viz. that the Aether >& Chaos, or, in the Platonic language, mind and matter, were the 2 >primeval and eternal principles of the universe..." These quotes, from my perspective, relate, in part, to non-physical substance. Out of body experiences have proved to me that humans have non-physical bodies. These bodies stay in a specific form so it folows they consist of a substance that coheres. Is this non-physical substance (aetheric? or astral?) made up of units? If so, this would mean the non-physical body holds form because the units of its substance attract each other? On the physical level, when the tenant leaves the units of physical substance break apart from each other. The physical units diffuse. [This leads to a sure way of knowing if the physical body is empty or not. See if the physical body rots. Of course our modern noses can't stand the thought. We freeze and then embalm or burn bodies before they stink.] The attraction of the units of the physical body depend, then, upon the presence of the tenant. Does the tenant need to be present to keep the units of so-called aetheric or astral substance attracted? If so, how many other bonds must be broken and other bodies dispersed? Dying - what a process! I wonder how the make-up of non-physical substance can be investigated? So far I've found the contributions of people who see non-physical substance not very helpful. From the little I've seen, on my own, of these non-physical substances I can understand why. They change so much! Talk about variability - it's mind boggling. Virginia Behrens TI, TSA From blafoun@azstarnet.com Sun Apr 28 04:58:30 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 21:58:30 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604280458.VAA00405@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List?:JRC's comments: How relevant are these comments? I thought that Rich and Eldon were talking about *this list* in their postings. In other words, they were talking about Theos-l. But then JRC gets off onto the objects of the T.S. I will quote a section or two from JRC's recent posting and then add several random, off-the wall comments of my own. *I* call myself a "Theosophist" because of full agreement with the motto "There is no religion higher than truth", and because I not only accept, but pursue, in my own little way, the expression of the Three Objects in my day to day life. And according to the *Adepts and HPB*, accepting those Objects is *all* that is required to call myself a Theosophist, and *expressing them*, according to my own ethical understanding and predilections, is *called* "Theosophy". I practice what I consider to be *severely* "traditional Theosophy" - in fact *so* traditional that to what *now* calls itself "traditional Theosophy" I often appear radical, to those who wish to define a specified set of doctrines that are official "Theosophical" doctrines I am an anarchist, and to those who wish to impose the study of specific doctrines as conditions for institutional recognition - hence requiring what the Adepts and HPB *never* required - I am at best a gadfly and at worst a nightmare. And this has reached the point that it is now claimed that I do not even *accept* "traditional" Theosophy. But, BUT! - *HPB CREATED THE OBJECTS OF HER SOCIETY, AND *SPECIFICALLY* SAID THAT THEIR ACCEPTANCE WAS THE *SOLE* REQUIREMENT OF MEMBERSHIP* End of JRC's posting. Now my random, aimless, and unedited comments follow: What do the objects of the T.S. have to do with this list---Theos-l? Does Theos-l have the same three objects that the T.S. does? And when JRC talks about the three objects of the T.S., what T.S. is JRC talking about? There are now a number of Theosophical societies and even the United Lodge of Theosophists. And now there is Theosophy International. Now if JRC wants to be a member of the Adyar T.S., or of T.I. or of whatever group, that's fine. But what does all that have to do with THIS LIST? Do you have to be a member of a T.S. to subscribe to this list? I don't think so. And is the new Theosophy International the same as Theos-l? I hope not! If Pat Robertson wanted to subscribe to this list, he could, couldn't he? And could he post e-mail messages telling how Theosophy in any form or description is from Satan? I would hope he could! Now I don't necessarily agree with some ofEldon's or Rich's comments about what this *list* should or should not be. But folks, the world is a large place. If Rich and Eldon want to create another list that would confine itself to "traditional Theosophy* as they might define it, then more power to them. Maybe they should. Or if I wanted to create a list, where the topic and focus of discussion is HPB's life, writings and teachings, then I can also do that. If Eldon and Rich wanted to create a moderated list, then that is their business. Again the world is a biiiiiiiiiiggggggggg place! Hey, Rich and Eldon, did you know there is a theos-tech with only about 4 to 6 subscribers? Why don't we subscribe to that forum and let JRC and Co. continue to do their thing over here on Theos-l? Different strokes for different folks. Turn the channel if you don't like the programming. Personally, I am sick of hearing about liberty of thought, freedom of thought, etc. etc. I have liberty of thought and freedom to believe as I see fit. And I don't need to belong to any existing Thesophical society or group in order to think my own thoughts and come to my own conclusions. Hey, you know, I can even read and study Theosophical books without ever becoming a member of any of these Theosophical groups. That way I don't have to get sucked into all these squabbles about how bad Radha may be, or what sneaky things the Wheaton people may be up to, etc etc. ad infinitum and ad pukum! Without ever being a member of any T. group, I can study Theosophy and try to live it in my personal life and maybe try to share it with new people, people who could care less about Theosophical socieites and groups, but who might find some inspiration and upliftment from reading about Theosophy. Hey, folks, instead of spending so much time on Theos-l, maybe we should all get out in our local communities and let NEW people know there is such a thing as Theosophy. Most people don't know about it. Buy TONS of your favorite Theosophical books and share them with others. The Theosophical publishers will make some money and will reprint the books and NEW people will hear about Theosophy, theosophy, Thesophia or however you want to spell or define the term. And Eldon, JRC, Rich T., Richard I. and all you other aspiring authors, write your views on theosophy. What's keeping you from writing that book or pamphlet? And if no Theosophical publisher will publish it, hey, do what Paul Johnson did, publish it yourself. Yes, it will cost some money, but if you really believe you have a message to give to others, then save your money and in a year or two or three or whatever, you can publish your book if only in a limited edition of 100 copies or 500 copies. Start small and publish a pamphlet. Oh, BTW, JRC, where is your introductory article on Theosophy that I thought you were working on months ago? I would really love to see it. End of random output............. DHC From Richtay@aol.com Sun Apr 28 05:16:15 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:16:15 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960428011612_384697164@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? Responding to JRC, Doss writes, > 1. Theosophy - Theos-Sophia has not been defined in the Objects. I do not > think it is an oversight. I think it is very deliberate considering the > fact Divine Wisdom or Truth is not something fixed. Absolutely. But the objects defined what was required for membership in the Theosophical Society at large. The net was cast wide, and all were welcome to come in who had even a modicum of interest in truth and brotherhood. This does not mean that belonging to the T.S. by merely accepting the three objects brings one particularly close to the minds of the Adepts. > This is in total agreement with > what was stated to AP Sinnett in the letter from the Great Master wherein > it was Their intention not to form a school of psychology but to get men > and women who will help in the great idea of Universal Brotherhood. Again, no disagreement here. But the T.S. was an effort to help mankind at large, and an effort which K.H. wrote in 1884 was almost a "total failure in Europe; partially so in India." What was done to staunch the tide and try and turn it around? The E.S. was formed (over Olcott's objections). HPB had an entirely new set of criteria for who was to be admitted into that body of students. And again a new set of criteria as to who would belong to the Inner Group. This wasn't merely elitism. It was what the Masters required of those who wanted to actually approach the Mysteries and study the truths preserved by Their lodge over the ages. It is fine and well that people should quote the three Objects and defend their rights to be called Theosophists and post on theos-L while totally having their own veiwpoints and even disagreeing with HPB constantly. Fine. But this is no red badge of courage. HPB did not require Theosophists to accept HER PERSONAL DEFINITION of Theosophy, but she did require this of her inner students. Those who wish to pursue truth -- in whatever way -- and seek brotherhood have every right to be called Theosophists. But those wh fancy themselves Theosophical occultists, tulkus, gurus, whatnot, and yet throw out much of what the Masters offered us as BEGINNING practice in the Mysteries, are very much deluded. "Theosophists" they surely are -- but so what? What's in a name? The interesting thing is not what to call people, but how to absorb the truth as far as possible. HPB and her Masters offered the T.S. as a possible gateway, but we live in flatland if we imagine that all that was required for a deep student was to accept a little plank of three Objects and suddently find themselves in the midst of the Temple of Wisdom. From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Mon Apr 29 00:11:44 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 17:11:44 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <31840940.38ED@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Study Group Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thought I might cheer you all up and mention that our study group has begun with 7 people with at least 2 more to join next week. There are only 3 of us that are members of our lodge so I am pleased to think that the interest is there. We are studying a little book that I have mentioned before on Knowing Oneself in the Theosophical manner of the 7 'bodies' etc. We had a lively discussion and in the course of an hour got to page 4 so that indicates more discussion that reading and that is the way I hope it will continue to go. I have quite a few of the discussions from theos-l printed off and I hope to put them in some sort of category and make them available to interested people. Already a new energy is making itself felt in the lodge building and people coming in are affected by it. I look forward to my two afternoons a week in the library because I feel refreshed after spending time there. I found we have 4 volumes of 'Lucifer' and the first one seems to start in 1888 but it not the first one that was issued as we do not seem to have them all. I have begun looking into them and hope to find some interesting stuff in there. Here is to small beginnings. Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From RIhle@aol.com Sun Apr 28 05:38:57 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:38:57 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960428013856_101958766@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: raising children Liesel writes> >What makes you think parents have successfully raised their children in the >past? > >I'm thinking of the 1800ds, when much city folks were so poor that the >parents went to work, & the kids stayed in the streets by themselves. Some >of them were taught to scavenge, and/or to steal, to add to the meager >family income. [. . .] [. . . .] >Seems to me our kids are a bit better off today. Or let's say, at least we >know something about how to raise children, if we'd only teach it to those >who are too illiterate & unsophisticated to read up on it themselves. Richard Ihle writes> Some good observations, Liesel. Jerry S. and I were probably talking more in the context of the "bureaucratic child-rearing formulas" he and his wife have to work within, but it is certainly true that all the children of the past have not been raised successfully. Nevertheless, as someone who has been in education for over three decades, I still must agree whole-heartedly with Jerry that something very UNPRECEDENTED--in terms of the number of children involved and the seriousness of their problems--appears to be going on, now. Therefore, I will probably have to reflect a little more on what you meant by, "Seems to me our kids are a bit better off today. Or let's say, at least we know something about how to raise children. . . ." Most of the children in the U.S. are materialIy better off, of course, but I am not sure who you mean by the *we* in the second sentence. One thing Jerry was saying is that the social-service's cohort of *we-who-think-we-know-something*'s can sometimes a big part of the problem. But thanks for also reminding me about the children of the past who didn't have it so good, either. Godspeed, Richard Ihle From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 28 05:45:46 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:45:46 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960428014545_282425554@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: ARE-thritis Alan, that is very true. Now if my girlfriend dances naked around me at 3 A.M. on any solstice, that's another matter. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 28 05:45:52 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:45:52 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960428014552_282425592@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: In the closet Alan, I don't think it's the towels and I can't get the Master DK to say anything because he keeps burying himself under the folded sheets. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Barbarian "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." (this should get some hair raised giggle, giggle.) From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 28 05:45:58 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:45:58 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960428014557_282425608@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Rich, HPB and me Alan, That's true, but being a nut is more fun and you don't have to use so many footnotes. Chuck the Barbaric nut MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 06:59:09 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 23:59:09 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428065909.0069f808@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: A hearing? At 01:46 PM 4/27/96 -0400, you wrote: >> Maybe there is a case for adding >>"comparative theosophy" to the second object ..... this would get G de P >>a hearing, right or wrong. >> >>Alan > > Alan, you may be onto something here. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > While some of the schisms may refuse to give G de P a hearing, this list is certainly not such a place. Supposedly none of the biases of the various "little theosophies" are cogent on this list. As to THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL, it's freedom of belief is, and has been made, perfectly clear. There are no heretics of blasphemers in the regard of T.I., but certainly adding "comparative theosophy" to the second object isn't the worst Idea I've heard all week! alexis Dolgorukii, MTI., FTSA. From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sun Apr 28 07:02:25 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:02:25 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List?:JRC's comments: How relevant are these comments? In-Reply-To: <199604280458.VAA00405@web.azstarnet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Blavatsky Foundation wrote: > I thought that Rich and Eldon were talking about *this list* in their > postings. In other > words, they were talking about Theos-l. But then JRC gets off onto the > objects of the T.S. > > I will quote a section or two from JRC's recent posting and then add several > random, off-the wall comments of my own. > End of JRC's posting. > > Now my random, aimless, and unedited comments follow: > > What do the objects of the T.S. have to do with this list---Theos-l? > > Does Theos-l have the same three objects that the T.S. does? > > And when JRC talks about the three objects of the T.S., > what T.S. is JRC talking about? There are now a number of Theosophical > societies and even the United Lodge of Theosophists. And now there is Theosophy > International. Now if JRC wants to be a member of the Adyar T.S., or of > T.I. or of whatever group, that's fine. But what does all that have to do > with THIS LIST? I was responding to a post in which Eldon seemed to assert that we needed to agree that "Theosophy" was composed of a "body of doctrines" in order to have meaningful discussions. This body was to serve as a referent, and while agreement *with* that body would not be required, it would be according to that body that asserting a "Theosophical" view as opposed to a "personal" view, or a "disagreement" with the "Theosophical" view, would be evaluated. I responded by saying that *I* see the "body of doctrines" perspective as simply one perspective of many. I then articulated *my* perspective of what constituted being a Theosophist, and what "Theosophy" was composed of ... and made the claim that this perspective is, IMO, just as much "traditional" Theosophy as what is now called by that name, and every bit (if not more) grounded in the intentions of the founders as the "body of doctrines" perspective is. Read my post, however: I did *not* claim that *anyone else* on the list needed to agree with my perspective in order for meaningful discussions to ensue. Nor did I say problems and confusion would result if people did not agree with me. Eldon seemed to assert that we needed to agree that there *is* a "body of doctrines" of which Theosophy is composed, or else problems and confusion would result. I did not say the Objects had anything to do with this list. Only that the Adepts and HPB seemed to say that their acceptance was what was required to *call* oneself a "Theosophist", and that their expression could be *called* "Theosophical activity", and this was *my* foundation - You need not ask what the Three Objects have to do with this list, as I did not assert that anyone needed to agree with my perspective. your question should more properly, I think, be addressed to Eldon ... what does acceptance of a "body of doctrines" have to do with being on this list? It is Rich and Eldon who are trying to define parameters of discussion, not myself. Frankly, I like the list just as it is. Regards, -JRC From eldon@theosophy.com Sun Apr 28 08:24:35 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:24:35 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428082435.0069df6c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Reply to JRC Regarding Theosophy and Doctrines JRC: >> I'd suggest that we need to agree that [Theosophy] ... consists of >> a definite body of doctrines and occult truths. That is, it is >> possible to study Theosophy, recognize what it is, and distinguish >> it from different ideas. >Why should we need to agree on this particular point? Or rather, >why is this point not simply a number "5" on your list: "I >believe Theosophy consists of a definite body of doctrines and >occult truths that can be distinguished from other doctrines". I was probably too generalizing in my statement, when I said "we". I was referring to those that might want to study the theosophical philosophy, as opposed to those that want to talk about their own views and experiences. I did not mean to include those that either deplore the ideas, or couldn't care less about them. >It appears as though you are taking the positions of others and >framing them into a list ... but then taking your particular >perspective and saying it is more than just another entry on that >list, but needs to be *the* agreed upon perspective for any >meaningful discussions to ensue. Perhaps my opening statements give that impression. But I go on to explain that I'd hope to see a serious study of Theosophy peacefully coexist with discussions based upon disinterest or disbelief in it. >I fear, however, that many on the list would not see it as >anything other than another perspective - with no more or less >credibility or claim than the others - and that *were* it to need >to be "agreed upon", the list would likely be very much smaller >than it is now. True. And there's a certain challenge to meeting in this forum, with people offering so many ways to challenge and disagree with one. As long as we don't get bitter, and start calling each other names, we can learn from our interactions. >It sounds as though you & three others are starting a list laid >out along just such lines - which is certainly wonderful - but I >certainly would not want theos-l to become such a list. Thanks. You don't have to worry about theos-l becoming that way. Being completely unmoderated and with so many strong views from every possible metaphysical approach, they'll never let it happen. The only viewpoint not represented on theos-l is the fundamentalist Christian, and the type of scientist that believes in traditional materialism. >> If we were a list dedicated to the study of those doctrines, >> then it would be possible to say that this idea is someone's >> personal opinion, that idea is in accord with the Teachings, >> and the third idea is plausible, but not supported in the >> literature, so we'd need to reserve judgment on it. Each idea >> could be considered as being in accord with (or not in >> accord with) the doctrines. >It would certainly be more convenient, and perhaps look more like >a calm study group if there was a clearly articulated set of >"doctrines" that everyone agreed were the "Theosophical" >doctrines, but it would also simply become the Internet >expression of the Adyar/Wheaton ideology - both of whom also >believe that specific lines can be drawn, on one side of which >are things called "Theosophical doctrines" and on the other side >"not-Theosophical doctrines". I do think that a line can be drawn, but like any attempt at drawing a line, there will be a fuzzy gray area where certain things cannot be known with certainty one way or the other. I'd rather see more discrimination than drawing a simple line, but rather seeing things in a graduated spectrum of shades of gray. This would be the opposite of seeing everything as equally white, good, true, etc. I'm not sure of the Adyar/Wheaton ideology, but in both the Point Loma and ULT approaches there's a definite attempt to acquire an intellectual understanding of the theosophical doctrines, with a strong emphasis on the source literature. >> For those that don't accept the premise that there is such a >> body of doctrines, we cannot convince them that such an >> approach has merit. But we are then faced with a problem. >> How can we study and teach Theosophy (the body of Mystery >> doctrines) amidst many that deny there is such a thing? >Ah, but this is only a "problem" if one believes that the "body >of doctrines" perspective is the *true* perspective - that it is >privileged above all others. Yes. If you don't believe there's a body of doctrines, you would certainly approach the problem differently. It's certain pivotal ideas like this one upon which whole schools of thought and approaches to the spiritual are grown. I can see different branches of the theosophical movement diverging upon differences like this one. >It seems to me that to *accept* such a notion produces a far >worse "problem" ... *who* is going to define what that "body of >doctrines" is? I don't see it as such a big problem. Any system of thought has a definite body of ideas that it teaches. There's a part of Theosophy that can be taught as an intellectual study. And there are deeper layers that cannot be taught in a study class, but must be self-acquired. These require a living tradition, continual generations of students that have learned and pass on what they've understood. This part is something of a paradox, since it must be both self-acquired although it requires contact with others that have learned it. Getting back to your question, I'd say that each generation of students are responsible to learn the philosophy as best as they can, to live the life, and to pass on the philosophy as accurately as they can. If they do it right, it can carry forward many generations into the future before its inner life is lost. >I cannot accept that this approach is anything other than simply >one of many ... and would never privilege it above the others >I've seen here as being "more Theosophical" ... for the simple >reason that if *HPB and the Adepts had intended "Theosophy" to be >the study of a specific set of doctrines ... they could have >easily *SAID SO* - and the First Object of the Society would have >read "To form a nucleus of humans devoted to the study of >Theosophical Doctrines, that might in the future form the >foundation of a western Mystery School". But they did not do so. Yes. They did not do so. They had other objectives. The initial T.S. objective was to introduce eastern ideas into the western world. It was later expanded into the three objects that we know today. The intent to carry on the doctrines, to live the life, to make a spiritual practice of Theosophy is something that must arise out of the theosophical students themselves. It would never work if the Masters were simply to say that they wanted us to do it. For western Mysteries to arise, we need, over many generations, to have the organizations and the participants self-organize and make it happen. The T.S. was to be the cornerstone of future western religions; it's up to us to be the masons to build the rest of the structure. >It was the Adepts and HPB that *generated* the Theosophical >impulse ... they were the *creators*. Theosophists may read and >appreciate Judge, or CWL, or G de P, but they were *derivatives*, >"down stream" as it were from the initiating impulse - that is to >say, it was *through* HPB and her link to the Adepts that >whatever work they did became possible. It was *through* her >that they came into contact with the generating current. This is one interpretation. It is possible to say that HPB and her teachers were real, and everyone that followed, including Judge, were second generation and followers of what HPB initiated. My view, though, is different. I'd find, simply out of logic, that the Masters would be behind any outgrowth or evolution of the theosophical movement that aids the bodhisattva ideal, that carries out the work of compassion that they are dedicated to. And I'd consider the Masters as behind both Judge, G. de Purucker, and anyone sincerely working for the cause, regardless of what groups they happen to belong to. >The Adepts had complete freedom and autonomy, and HPB, during her >life, had complete authority - in that they could have generated >any current they wished, and she could have defined it according >to her predilections and choices. That would be true if they were making it up, like a parent telling a bedtime story to a child. But I don't think they were making it up. I think they were struggling for the proper language and terminology to express a philosophy and view of life that was completely alien to western thought, to express an understanding that westerners were unprepared to comprehend. >If WQJ, or G de P, had evolved Theosophy out of their own >thought, they very well may have defined the First Object as I >stated it above, the Second as the specific study not of >comparative philosophies, religions and sciences, but of the >"correlations" between those things and the "body of doctrines", >and would certainly have not written a Third Object that even >vaguely resembled the current one. They could have. And as heads of the Point Loma T.S., they could have changed the objects as they choose. But apparently it was their best judgment to keep the objects intact. >But the Adepts *first* found HPB, and brought in others to help >*her*, they did not choose others to take to Tibet and find HPB >to assist *them*. Her energy-system evidently had an >expansiveness capable of giving expression to their intentions. Physically going to Tibet is nice, but the Masters are at work throughout the world. I expect that there are people assisting them in every country. What was different between her and many others was that she was authorized to publicly state that she represented them, that she was a messenger. >And neither the Adepts nor HPB mentioned "doctrines" in the >formulation of the Objects - which contain a far more inclusive >view of Theosophy than (IMO) the derivatives. When the T.S. was formed, there were no defined doctrines, since HPB had not made her first attempt at expounding the philosophy. The language for expressing the ideas in English had not yet been formulated. I'd agree, though, that when doctrines are not mentioned, that the objects are far more inclusive. The more that is left out, the more people that can be embraced, until we have a lowest common denominator that "joe sixpack" can feel at home in. Perhaps we should just sponsor football games? >Those who wish to *define* a specific set of "doctrines" have for >years had to face the uncomfortable fact of the Objects - of the >fact that the *originators* of the Theosophical current did *not* >define the study of a specific set of doctrines as what >"Theosophy" is, nor required any such thing as a condition of >membership. But the doctrines are defined for us, it's just that later writers and students, including all of us, voice so many differing views that someone new would have a hard time learning what Theosophy consists of! While it's true that T.S. membership does not require any particular belief, that does not mean that Theosophy itself is anything that we want it to be. >In fact, those who wish to do so will usually either try to >dismiss the Objects as not relevant to the discussion of what >"real" Theosophy is, or will claim there are things hidden in the >Objects that permit them to find a basis for their doctrinal >claims - witness the "Theosophical World View" now published next >to the Objects in every AT, or the "inner intentions" now being >"discovered" in the Objects by the Wheaton Masters. I can only hope that they are good students, and don't end up imposing some misunderstanding upon the general membership! The attempt to get serious about the teachings is the first sign that someone has discovered the vein of gold in them, and is seeking to do something concrete with that knowledge. >*I* call myself a "Theosophist" because of full agreement with >the motto "There is no religion higher than truth", and because I >not only accept, but pursue, in my own little way, the expression >of the Three Objects in my day to day life. That motto, adopted from the Maharajah of Beneres (if I remember it right), is the keynote of a true philosopher, of someone that loves wisdom. I think that you, I, and perhaps most of the people on theos-l follow it in their own way. >And according to the *Adepts and HPB*, accepting those Objects is >*all* that is required to call myself a Theosophist, and >*expressing them*, according to my own ethical understanding and >predilections, is *called* "Theosophy". The objects are all that you have to accept to be a good T.S. member, regardless of your belief. I don't think that they say that anyone's personal views, though, can be called "Theosophy", without some comparison to what was given us by HPB and her teachers. You are a fine Theosophist regardless of your recognition of or belief in its doctrines. This is not changed by the fact that I might find myself opposing certain ideas you express, in what I feel is a defense of Theosophy as I know it. >... to those who wish to define a specified set of doctrines >that are official "Theosophical" doctrines I am an anarchist, Yes, you won't accept the efforts by another student to define Theosophy, you won't recognize their authority to do so. But I think that it is a worthwhile effort to organize and present the philosophy with additional clarity and insight, using modern words and examples. You may not recognize this effort as authoritative, but if it is done right, it will be a reasonable approximation. There is a definite limitation to the written word, of course, and there will always be a need for one generation of students *with a living understanding of the philosophy* to pass it on to the next generation. >and to those who wish to impose the study of specific doctrines >as conditions for institutional recognition - hence requiring >what the Adepts and HPB *never* required - I am at best a gadfly >and at worst a nightmare. You'd have trouble with at least one theosophical group in The Netherlands which requires a year or two of classes and a demonstrated understanding of the philosophy before being *invited* to join. >And this has reached the point that it is now claimed that I do >not even *accept* "traditional" Theosophy. But, BUT! - *HPB >CREATED THE OBJECTS OF HER SOCIETY, AND *SPECIFICALLY* SAID THAT >THEIR ACCEPTANCE WAS THE *SOLE* REQUIREMENT OF MEMBERSHIP* I understand you as saying that you do not accept there being a specific body of doctrines or teachings to Theosophy. I'm not sure about what percentage of the ideas in theosophical books that you accept or reject. When those ideas are defined as traditional Theosophy, do you accept it? Do you believe in Theosophy in the common and ordinary sense of the term "believe". If you regard it as a theory or hypothesis, have you tested it and rejected it in your life? (I'm asking these questions for clarification of your standpoint.) Personally, I don't think that the requirements of membership in the T.S. have much to do with the question of whether the theosophical philosophy is genuine fragments of the Mystery Teachings. >And those Objects were not simply her whim, rather, they were >powerfully supported by the Adepts - especially the First Object >... perhaps one of the most unprecedented and remarkable >formulations I've seen in any organization ... and the recent >posting of the Chohan's letter is a good example - no mention of >the study of races and rounds, but an awful lot of talk about >"brotherhood". I think that the emphasis has been on a broad approach with a general appeal. Much of what was presented in "The Secret Doctrine" and "The Mahatma Letters" goes far beyond what is necessary to meet the needs of the common person. My concern is that the Mahatmas may have concluded that the deeper side of what they have given has fallen on barren soil, and have stopped actively supporting it. I'd hope that there would be sufficient interest in the Mysteries in the west for me to be able to see something come of them in my lifetime, something inspired by the fragments found in Theosophy. Since we have different approaches and goals, I'd hope that we could allow each of us to go after our own "market segments" of humanity, working in our own ways to improve the lives of people that we can reach. >While the study of particular "doctrines", or the followers of >specific writers *other* than the Adepts and HPB are certainly >activities that might be pursued *within* the larger Theosophical >current, I cannot see that there is the grounds to make the claim >that these activities are *all* that HPB and the Adepts intended >"Theosophy" to be, nor that these perspectives can somehow be >privileged above others. I'd agree that there is much work for all of us to do, and the dissemination of the philosophy is but one of the tasks. I don't think that was their exclusive intent in founding the T.S. The intent is much simpler: the carrying out of the bodhisattva vow, the vow to live the life of compassion and to be of benefit to other sentient beings. >Those that *do* believe this must necessarily continually be >faced with "problems", as the actual Theosophical current seems >to attract quite independent minds, and large parts of the >membership will inevitably either not accept there *is* a >specific "body of doctrines", or will not accept any one person's >or faction's definition of what, precisely, those doctrines >*are*. Here I see an eventual necessity of a fission in the theosophical movement, where there are groups following specific approaches that are difficult to coexist side-by-side. I don't see, though, any group controlled by a single person's or faction's definition, but a living understanding of the philosophy being passed down from one generation to the next. There's a degree of interpretation that each generation applies, and periodically, like in major religions, reformers must appear to reestablish the original thought current and inspiration. >But such problems are not shared by those who hold views other >than the "doctrinal" approach. And neither I, nor (I suspect) a >number of others who hold different views, have any >responsibility to help the "doctrine" perspective out of the >problems necessarily generated by their point of view, nor to >define their beliefs or thoughts as "Theosophical" or >"non-Theosophical" according to the standards set by the >"doctrine" view. You certainly avoid a lot of problems by not dealing with the issue of defining or communicating what Theosophy consists of. Any time you make a statement though, you either need to say "this is my personal idea" or "this is what I've learned from Theosophy." If you wish to deal with theosophy (with little "t") as process and approach to life, and ignore Theosophy (with big "T") as Mystery Teachings and spiritual path, that's your choice. I choose the other approach and feel responsible to do something in the world to share what I find of value in it. -- Eldon From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 07:42:41 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:42:41 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428074241.0069b1f4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Basic scholarship At 12:36 PM 4/27/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >Daniel comments as follows: > >In the above remarks you write: " the latest >anthropological/paleontological studies all generally agree...." > >To me this statement means or at least implies that official science or the >scientific community or the majority of anthropologists/paleontologists >agree on "such and such". And you say that this "such and such" knowledge >therefore invalidates HPB's anthopogenesis. Hence throw out Root Races, >Atlantis, Lemuria, etc. HPB's Anthropogenesis, despite Rich's denials, is, to the best of my knowledge almost entirely invalidated by the current "state of the art" in Anthropology, Paleobiology, etc. Atlantis and Lemuria are entirely speculative, there exists no proof either for or against their existence, therefore they must be "shelved" as it were, until some kind of valid proof either way is obtained. They're an interesting hypothesis as are "Flying Saucers", but they are hardly factual, at least not at this point in time. I didn't say "throw the S.>D. Out" it contains some interesting hypotheses, but they cannot be assumed to be factual as they are neither amenable to proof or amenable to disproof. > >But if we go by that kind of thinking, how much of what is left in HPB's >teachings (after throwing out anthopogenesis) would merit our attention? Daniel: I think there's one hell of a lot in HPB's overall writing that deserves our attention, and I have never even hinted otherwise. I just happen to think concerning one's self with things that really are irrelevant to our own lives, when those things are utterly unprovable and must be "taken on faith" is a waste of time. Well, for starters, there are HPB's teachings on >the occult constitution of a human being. ( The kind of stuff Jerry HE and >Jerry S >have been going around and around on.) That's nice, and if the two Jerry's and Kim find it enticing, they are welcome to it. But to me the same objections apply, the whole thing is neither provable or disprovable, it conflicts with my own experiences, and it has to be "taken on faith". My own personal credo is" "Never take anything on Faith". PB's affirms the reality of psychic >phenomena and affirms the reality of other invisible planes of existence. >She affirms >the reality of life after death and even reincarnation. She even performed >psychic feats such >as materializing a cup and saucer at a Simla, India picnic. Obviously, at least as far as I'm concerned the reality of psychic phenomena are amenable to proof and disproof, at least to me. As to the unreality of death, I can accept what she claims by personal experience. As to reincarnation, My view of that is different than hers, and for all you know hers may have changed. As far as the cup and saucer, that was the dumbest trick she ever pulled it's been used to prove she was a fraud ever since it happened. And if you're the theosophical scholar you claim to be you know that's true. It doesn't matter whether she did it or not, most people don't believe it and that's what matters. But what does >official science >and the scientific community as a whole say that is relevant to these >teachings and claims of HPB's? > >For example, in an 1988 report prepared under the auspices of the National >Academy of Sciences, the following conclusions were drawn: > >"...the best scientific evidence does not justify the conclusion that >ESP...exists." Now Daniel: You know I not only believe in ESP but practice it, BUT, what else can responsible scientists say, there is some statistical evidence amassed by The J.B. Rhine Institute, but when it comes to actual recordable empirical evidence, and reliably repeatable phenomena, what else can they say? As far as they know, they're right, and all those of us who are psychics can hope for is that a new methodology of "testing" or "Trying the spirits" will be developed by scientists who count. Those whole actually believe in ESP or paranormal phenomena are considered to be Kooks, at least, and crazy, at worst. And when one views the overall community (Theosophy included) who can blame them. CWL's maundering are hardly a good introduction to a serious philosophical study. >"...Nor does scientific evidence offer support for the existence of >psychokinesis...." See above. > >"The Commitee finds no scientific justification from reserach conducted over >a period >of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena." See above. > >Most members of this committee are well-known psychologists. These people are honestly reporting their opinions on what they have they can legitimately work with, you wouldn't suggest the Secret Doctrine as evidence would you? > >Furthermore, if ESP and PK were accepted in the scientific community, would we >not see parapsychology being taught in universities and colleges? Would we >not see >parapsychology as a valid part of departments of psychology in universities >and colleges? >In reality, very few universities in the WHOLE world even have courses on >parapsychology. And can you name the departments of psychology that have >parapsychological sections? If it were accepted, and acceptable, we would. It is not yet accepted so we don't. I really can't see why this surprises you. By their own best lights they are being reasonable and careful. > >I think we can truthfully say (paraphrasing Alexis and the above mentioned >report on psychic phenomena) the following: Daniel: You don't actually mean "paraphrasing" what you do is "twist" a persons meanings to fit your own thesis and make the other person look if nothing else, unreasonable. It's really not good intellectual practice and it's rude to boot. > >The latest psychological studies all generally agree that there is no >scientific justification for the existence of parapsychological (psychic) >phenomena. This statement is entirely true, it states the majority of the scientific and academic community's position exactly. > >And Dr. Michael Mueckler, a cellular biologist, (who has been posted and >mentioned on this >list before), would agree with the above statement. Mueckler says that his >scientific >colleagues would also concur with such a dismissive summary about psychic >phenomena. > >Therefore, in light of this scientific finding, who would be foolish enough >to believe what >HPB's says about the psychic, about life after death, etc. Following >Alexis' reasoning, we >should therefore throw out everything HPB said on THIS subject, too. Right? Daniel: That line of so-called reasoning is entirely non-sequitous and you surely know that! And I think you've managed to paraphrase this as maliciously as is humanly possible. But it is a terrible distortion of what I've been saying. And I will not permit it to pass unchallenged. There are things in HPB's Secret doctrine, and in her E.S. Material, and in some of her other writings which I believe are just plain wrong and which I therefore have rejected. There are other things she wrote that remain to be either proven or dis proven and those I have set aside, in a wait and see attitude. There are things that HPB wrote that I have either seen proven, or proven myself and those I accept, not on faith, but on the basis of experience. > >Well, remember HPB was >fallible and was (let's face it) simply wrong. And she could have made >"intentional" errors? >Right? Daniel: That's really kind of juvenile sarcasm. She WAS fallible. and sometimes she could easily have been wrong. She never made "intentional errors" but some things she said may have been what she referred to as "blinds" and were intended to serve as "hints' of "clues" to those with the inner independence not to take things at face value. Alexis dolgorukii Nothing, even theosophy, is higher than truth > >Okay, now what is left of HPB's teachings? Let us turn to an examination of >WHATS LEFT...................... > > > From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 08:00:21 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:00:21 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428080021.006ab768@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: more responses from Alexis At 12:31 PM 4/27/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis, >you write: > >> When you combine these, which are >>a very concise version of my objections [to anthropogenesis] , with my >equal objections to the >>Cosmo genesis. I think you can understand why I prefer "Isis Unveiled" to >>the "Secret Doctrine"...... > >As you well know, Morya and Kut Humi : ) in the Mahatma Letters (1880-1882) >wrote on Atlantis, Lemuria and the root races. I guess they were mistaken, too? >Or did they make "intentional" mistakes? Or write using blinds? Well I suppose to folks who take those letters as gospel, that's the final no plea answer. But I don't, those letters, as far as I am concerned are only alleged to be from the signers thereof Not being an "On Faith" theosophist they aren't the Court of Final Appeal to me that they obviously are to you.. >But even in your ISIS UNVEILED, HPB writes of Atlantis, "the great lost >continent" and >mentions various races before our present race. Sounds familiar to her more >detailed >exposition in THE SECRET DOCTRINE? Hopefully, you have razorbladed those >paragraphs >out of your copy of ISIS. : ) And I have found similar paragraphs in ISIS >that echo what >HPB says later in THE SECRET DOCTRINE on that cosmogenesis stuff to which >you object. I have never said I am in agreement with every word only that I am in accord with the over-all flavour. I don't "razor blade" things I'll leave censorship to folks like you. But I have never read a book with which I agree unreservedly and I probably never will. So What? > >Oh BTW, exactly what teaching does HPB present in any of her writings that >you don't >object to? Please list a few of them and I will give them to some of my >scientist friends >to see if these teachings accord with present day scientific findings and >studies. Daniel: I am not Paul Johnson and you will not send me "packing" the way you and your bunch did him. So forget it! Now, let's get this straight, and I'll put it as carefully as possible so as not to confuse you. The things that H.P.B. wrote and said that I agree with strongly have nothing at all to do with either science or cosmogenesis. It is my personal belief that those things are far to risky to base something useful, which I believe theosophy to be, on them. What I agree with are her views on religion, on questioning authority (which is why I bother you so much Daniel), on introducing to Western Intellectuals the fact that intellectuals and philosophers and other thinkers exist somewhere else than in Europe, and that Western Materialism wasn';t the all and end-all. I believe in the kind of open minded attitude she brought to everything (the kind you certainly don't possess). I enjoy the spirit of fun she brought to all the things she did. (Once again unlike you). I strongly agree with her attitude toward Christianity, which mirrors my own. I try very hard to live the motto of the society Satyat-nasti-paro-dharma, and I strongly support the three objects, as far as I'm concerned all the rest could be balderdash and it wouldn't matter at all. I think even you will take my meaning when I sign myself formally: H.S.H. Alexis Alexandreivitch, Prince Dolgorukii of Uriev > > > > From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 08:23:20 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:23:20 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428082320.006d9224@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Religion At 10:43 PM 4/27/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960427083347.006874a0@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>Spiritual Hierarchy is an oxymoron. Is it not? > >It is. In my experience, the people who actually get something >worthwhile out of religion(s) ignore the spiritual hierarchy for >practical purposes, and so it works for them. Maybe one could see it as >a "crutch" - but is it kind to try to pull someone's crutches from under >them if we are not in a position to replace them with something better? >And I don't mean a book from the library! > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Ah Alan, very true. But what happens when it's a "rubber Crutch"? alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 08:24:26 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:24:26 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428082426.006a940c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: feed me At 10:44 PM 4/27/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960427081548.00680d38@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>>Alan (member, gang of 5 thousand - please feed me) >>>--------- >>>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >>>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >>>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >>>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html >>> >>>But I only have a couple of fishes and a bagel. >> >>alexis > >Should be enough for an adept to work with (no fish please). If I get >overcome, I'll call bagels anonymous. :-) > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >What is it with you English and Fish? My houseguest, Michael, won't eat it either. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 08:30:00 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:30:00 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428083000.006c2b18@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Forgot something ??? At 01:48 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alan, >that is very true. Now if my girlfriend dances naked around me at 3 A.M. on >any solstice, that's another matter. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." Forget something???? > >"AN IT HARM NONE, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". alexis From Richtay@aol.com Sun Apr 28 09:01:49 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 05:01:49 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960428050146_384761579@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Study Group Bee writes of her new study group, "Here is to small beginnings." I say, here is to GREAT beginnings. Congratulations, Bee. Sounds like you are really doing some work out there ! From Richtay@aol.com Sun Apr 28 09:01:53 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 05:01:53 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960428050152_384761592@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Basic scholarship Alexis writes, > Daniel: That line of so-called reasoning is entirely non-sequitous and you > surely know that! And I think you've managed to paraphrase this as > maliciously as is humanly possible. But it is a terrible distortion of what > I've been saying. And I will not permit it to pass unchallenged. Why is everything uncomfortable necessarily "malicious"? Is Daniel being malicious, or merely applying logic which is good for the goose, now to the gander? I can think of far more malicious things than showing someone the flaw in their reasoning ... Again, > >Well, remember HPB was > >fallible and was (let's face it) simply wrong. And she could have made > >"intentional" errors? > >Right? > > Daniel: That's really kind of juvenile sarcasm. She WAS fallible. and > sometimes she could easily have been wrong. Oh, how truly bitter is our own sweet medicine. Alexis once wrote that "irritation" was his central goal... I guess it's important to take it if we plan to dish it out. ****************************** What's really at issue in this discussion, sarcasm and personal jibes aside (sorry Alexis, though I know you're not reading this) is, WHAT CONSTITUTES PROOF? For all the scads of psychics/shamans/tulkus/gurus on theos-l, their own personal experience is proof. Great. For those of us who believe in Adepts, and believe HPB to have been working directly with Adepts, their statements, are, until good proof is brought against them, usually regarded as at least possible, if not probable. It really depends upon what one chooses to accept as a valuable source, and what can disrupt how one sees this source. After so many years in the movement, I have come to trust HPB and her writings a very great deal. (This does NOT imply infallibility). I did not come to feel such trust all at once, but over the years, as more and more of the teachings made sense to me, and I saw their value in practical application. Now I tend to accept what she says on face value, unless I come across compelling reasons to doubt it. The same goes in almost any field of human endeavor. After how many years of witnessing the sun rise each day in the East, we come to depend upon it, though it is theoretically possible it won't rise one day. We tend to trust those we love most deeply, even though it is possible they will betray us. We trust our eyes and ears, though they may deceive us. I don't think it is so outrageous to trust HPB, particularly if one is willing to go OUT INTO THE WORLD and experiment and APPLY the teachings and learn from the results. ***************************** Hats off to Daniel, his post was a hoot ! But I guess not everyone finds the same things funny. Boy, it gets nasty, though, when the "fundamentalists" start to write in the same ad hominem terms as the "anarchists" ... Oooops -- time for my out-of-body appointment. Where's that helmet? Gotta run. From Richtay@aol.com Sun Apr 28 09:01:59 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 05:01:59 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960428050155_384761599@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: more responses from Alexis Alexis writes to Daniel C, > I don't "razor blade" things I'll leave > censorship to folks like you. Is it just me or is it getting hot in here? > What I agree with are her views on > religion, on questioning authority (which is why I bother you so much > Daniel), I believe in the kind > of open minded attitude she brought to everything (the kind you certainly > don't possess). I enjoy the spirit of fun she brought to all the things she > did. (Once again unlike you). > I think even you will take my meaning when I sign myself formally: > > H.S.H. Alexis Alexandreivitch, Prince Dolgorukii of Uriev Wow. I thought it was important not to be "rude" and insult people on-line, but apparently even Princes can dispense with niceties when their decrees are contradicted. I think you've blown it now, though, Daniel. My money says he puts you in -THE FILTER- and never writes to you again. Cool. From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Mon Apr 29 04:54:26 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 21:54:26 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <31844B82.30E3@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Study Group References: <960428050146_384761579@emout19.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Richtay@aol.com wrote: > > Bee writes of her new study group, > > "Here is to small beginnings." > > I say, here is to GREAT beginnings. Congratulations, Bee. Sounds like you > are really doing some work out there ! Thank you. Now it remains to keep the momentum going and everyone's interest whetted. -- Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Mon Apr 29 05:09:39 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 22:09:39 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <31844F13.71AA@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re:Reply to Richay References: <960428050155_384761599@emout09.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Richtay@aol.com wrote: > > Alexis writes to Daniel C, > > > I don't "razor blade" things I'll leave > > censorship to folks like you. > > Is it just me or is it getting hot in here? > > > What I agree with are her views on > > religion, on questioning authority (which is why I bother you so much > > Daniel), I believe in the kind > > of open minded attitude she brought to everything (the kind you certainly > > don't possess). I enjoy the spirit of fun she brought to all the things she > > did. (Once again unlike you). > > I think even you will take my meaning when I sign myself formally: > > > > H.S.H. Alexis Alexandreivitch, Prince Dolgorukii of Uriev > > Wow. I thought it was important not to be "rude" and insult people on-line, > but apparently even Princes can dispense with niceties when their decrees are > contradicted. > > I think you've blown it now, though, Daniel. My money says he puts you in > -THE FILTER- and never writes to you again. Cool. Not only will you be filtered but you will be guilty of 'class related antagonism', I think that is what it was called. Some of us seem to forget our place, but at least there is an excuse for us provincials, we never learned any better. :-) Say cheese. -- Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From poulsen@dk-online.dk Sun Apr 28 14:24:37 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 12:24:37 -200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB34FF.8C8BD620@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (Kim Poulsen) Encoding: 77 TEXT Jerry HE: > I think were have the same thought here, but I made a poor >choice of words. My dictionary defines "extant" as still >existing, which is not what I had in mind. A better choice of >words for me would have been "exoteric" or "popular" Indian >system. Though truth can be found in every great religion, the >Maha Chohan also pointed out that all religions are also 3/4 >superstition. We should not confuse a religion with an esoteric treatise. It would be the same as confusing the average view of theosophists with the ideas contained in the Secret Doctrine. On the contrary in my opinion religionists generally distorts the texts in one or other direction - especially during translation. The bible is the wellknown example of this, but permit me, as an example, to quote from a private letter to Eldon written a few days ago - "A very short example - in the commentary on Bhagavad Gita 8.3 Shankara describes the active state of the universe as pravritti (as in ML XV) and the inactive state as "paramartha - the dissolution or cessation of brahma" (paramaarthabrahmaavasaanaM) as in the stanzas - "The universe was in Paramartha." Now this sounds simple enough, but in the translation of the hindu pundits of this passage it sound like this - "turns out in the end to be identical with the supreme reality, the Brahman" (Sastri) and "which in the ultimate analysis is Parabrahman" (Gambhirananda). They are postulating a semi-theistical principle by ignoring the term cessation or dissolution." I will go as far as saying that no ancient, eastern work can be studied from the translation alone. It is the same with hindu, buddhistic and hebrew writings.The theistic krishna-bhaktis (precisely like christians) will insert the word "God" in all kinds of places, while the orthodox brahmins will insert the word "Brahman." >....Yet voodoo is a reasonable and comprehensive religious system within >itself. Personally, I don't see a rational way to tell a reconciliation from a >syncretism, and I suspect that our intuitions might differ here. >Further, I would be inclined to think that the bringing in of outside authorities >would just complicate things and run the discussion into tangents. Hmm.. I had just started to examine the detailed exposition of Asanga (the founder of the Yogacharya School) on tattva, paramartha and the 7 skandhas in chapter 6 of the Mahayanasutralamkara (the "Tattva" chapter). This would solve several mysteries as to the relation between the 7 principles and the 7 elements, which in the Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 takes the form of an identification TAT TVAm asi, "That thou art", thus implying the term tattva. But I will refrain from following this line of investigation (a great pity!). Instead I am left with the works of HPB and a few diagrams in "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire" representing the view of CWL. As the various the explanations of HPB are as apparently irreconcilable as the CWL-HPB differencies we will have to resort to our own "esoteric" valuation of her writings - since a dead-letter investigation will make them seem contradictory - instead of relying on historical "authorities" to solve the true meaning of the words. But you are quite right that the scope of our discussion would be enormous. But as it is vital it can be as prolongued as you wish. If your view was correct we all aught to abandon all the works of not only CWL but also AB, AAB and many 20th century theosophical writers instantly! A few mistakes would be acceptable, but not a completely flawed understanding. Now when we have set up a set of rules for this discussion in some length, I certainly hope you will make use of them and defend your views - or we will both seem rather silly! If you are busy, please reply at a later time. In friendship, Kim - as a PS remark I would like that when my friend Alan reversed the meaning of the term "my friend" I just had adressed you as such in a post- in the original meaning of the term. From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 28 12:45:50 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 08:45:50 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960428084550_282497540@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The Gang of Five!!!! Alex, The poor man was probably reacting to being turned into a toad. Maybe Jerry S. did it. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 28 12:46:56 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 08:46:56 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960428084654_282497726@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: death Alex, NO NO NO!!! Alexander died of pneumonia in Babylon as the result of a chest wound received during a battle in India against the Malians. He was attacking their city and as his armor prevented them them from injuring him with their swords, they just stood off and shot arrows at him until one of the arrows penetrated his breastplate, bringing him down. His men, infuriated at seeing him fall and thinking him dead attacked with such fury that they did not stop until the entire population of the city had been killed. My source for this is "The Nature of Alexander" by Mary Renault. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 28 12:47:03 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 08:47:03 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960428084702_282497771@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: not wrong Alex, We disagree on the nature of an adept and clearly about Socrates. The man was a bore. What saved his reputation was that his pupils were better than he was. Ghandi was less adept than lucky. Any people of the time other than the British would have made quick work of him. I remember being dragged to see that terrible movie by my girlfriend at the time and muttering to myself through the whole thing "Why is this man alive?" I'm afraid that do-gooders do not impress me. I prefer do-badders. They're more fun, especially for a historian. Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Tourblemaker "Learn the rules, then break the rules." The Megalith of Dr. Mirabilis From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 28 12:47:15 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 08:47:15 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960428084714_282497787@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Shasta Alex, And I missed it! Curses, foiled again! Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA MGof 5 Heretic Troublemaker "When others present ideals of us to live up to, let us urinate on those ideals and go our own way" The Megalith of Dr. Mirabilis From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 28 12:47:17 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 08:47:17 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960428084716_282497807@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: feed me Alex, No pizza? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Conscience is word which cowards use, Devis'd first to keep the storng in awe." Shakespeare, Richard III From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 28 12:47:23 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 08:47:23 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960428084721_282497826@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Towels? Alex, It's not a spook, it's the Master DK. His flying carpet is parked on my front lawn. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the dinner." From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 28 12:47:28 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 08:47:28 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960428084727_282497845@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The RUSSIAN River! Alex, It must be fun to watch people row down main street. I remember years ago I proposed digging out the main street in Franklin Park and replacing it with a canal and gondolas like Venice (Italy, not California) but the village elders were not impressed with the idea. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Your desire to act is sufficient justification for anything." the Megalith of Dr. Mirabilis (do you think a certain person who likes pompous quotes has gotten the message by now?) From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 28 12:47:35 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 08:47:35 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960428084734_282497866@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Rich, HPB and me Alex, Ben Creme is the mouthpiece, as we all know, for the false Maitreya who lives in the London sewers and only comes out on alternate new moons to turn pure water into sewer water for the edification of the ignorant africans. (read their magazine sometimes. It's a stitch!) I am thinking of a contest to pick the biggest asshole in the TS. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Straight from the shoulder I think like a soldier, I know what's right and what's wrong. I'm the original, discriminating buffalo man And I'll do what's wrong as long as I can." The Incredible String Band, "The Minotaur Song" From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 28 12:47:42 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 08:47:42 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960428084739_282497885@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: ambivalence Alex, Actually someone did sort of appear in the bedroom and he had the appearance marks of one of the paintings, at least as my girlfriend described him, as she saw him more clearly than I did. Maybe he was looking for a place to park his carpet. You are right on one point, however, the TS does not want any serious study of the masters for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the very real possibility that the transhimalayan demigods may not be as benevolent or ineffectual as they would like to portray them. Remember, I view adepts as having a capacity for violence that puts even me to shame. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic troublemaker "The stronger a quality which resides in a person, the more likely it is to become a weakness." The Testament of Dr. Mirabilis From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 28 12:47:46 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 08:47:46 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960428084745_282497906@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: To Dan on Statistical Significance Jerry, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." What does that say about people who use them? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "The surest way to evil is to discover what constitutes conformity and then do the opposite." The Testament of Dr. Mirabilis From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 28 12:48:01 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 08:48:01 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960428084800_282497942@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Religion Alan, I agree with you. There was a time in my life when I thought it great fun to knock the crutches out from under people (and not always metaphorically I am somewhat ashamed to admit) but as I grow older, I find that at times I need them myself on occasion. The purpose of even my somewhat heretical brand of theosophy is to enable people to stand on their own, but that means they have to be able to do it, and it is not kind to smash the thing they need at the moment without giving them something better and sermons and books alone don't do it. Some of us are born with courage. Some of us are simply born too ornery to need anything but ourselves, but we are in the tiny minority of humanity. The bulk of people need some form of support structure for their lives and sanscrit spiritbabble is no more the answer for them than someone who just says "That's all nonsense! Get up and walk on your own!" Sometimes they need a strong arm to lean on while they learn. Sometimes they need the spiritual equivalent of close air support. That's where we come in, we heretics and troublemakers. We are the ones who stop the spiritual bullies from making life even more difficult for people than it already is. We act as the lightning rods and while the bullies are wasting their energies attacking us the others can gather their strength until they can join us. As long as they need us, we will be there. We may not always call ourselves theosophists. Maybe we will call ourselves Magicians or Gnostics or any of a thousand labels. But we will always be there. As long as people are spiritually oppressed and bullied by those who think they have the way, the truth and the life, we will be there. And if we fall, others will come to take our place. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "The work of the Villain is the death of authority." The Megalith of Dr. Mirabilis From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 28 03:21:15 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 04:21:15 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , M K Ramadoss writes >If the current trend continues, I am sorry to say, in our life time we >may see the TS to become just a publishing company with lots of assets >in the control of a few (after all litigations are completed and lawyers >plundering much of the assetsF). Even the Great Roman Empire >had its days. Where is it today? It decined and fell into oblivion. > >The house is on fire. Let us awake and do something soon. > > ....doss I suggest to you from time to time that you join us in the work of TI, which IS addressing these matters, and IS trying to do something, not soon, but now. You never reply. I have asked if you have particular reasons for declining the invitation, and if so, what they are. You never reply. Why? Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From blafoun@azstarnet.com Sun Apr 28 13:40:54 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 06:40:54 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604281340.GAA01130@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: more responses from Alexis Alexis writes to Daniel: >Daniel: I am not Paul Johnson and you will not send me "packing" the way you >and your bunch did him. So forget it! Now, let's get this straight, and I'll >put it as carefully as possible so as not to confuse you. Daniel responds: Alexis, I sent Johnson packing? I simply criticized some of his statements in his books. I never called him names or said he was a bad person. I even said I enjoyed his books, found them thought provoking and even recommended that people read them! If he "left", he choose to do so. I assume he just didn't like me criticizing what he had written. But I believe I had a right to do that. "Your bunch"???? Give me a break! Yes, Johnson had at one point said he thought I had sold my soul to the established Theosophical groups. Why? I guess because I had made certain criticisms of his book and there HAD to be some sinister, hidden reason behind my criticisms. And, oh, BTW, you haven't confused me. If you enjoy believing that you have, then continue believing so. Some of your remarks are so amusing. DHC >At 12:31 PM 4/27/96 -0400, you wrote: >>Alexis, >>you write: >> >>> When you combine these, which are >>>a very concise version of my objections [to anthropogenesis] , with my >>equal objections to the >>>Cosmo genesis. I think you can understand why I prefer "Isis Unveiled" to >>>the "Secret Doctrine"...... >> >>As you well know, Morya and Kut Humi : ) in the Mahatma Letters (1880-1882) >>wrote on Atlantis, Lemuria and the root races. I guess they were mistaken, >too? >>Or did they make "intentional" mistakes? Or write using blinds? > >Well I suppose to folks who take those letters as gospel, that's the final >no plea answer. But I don't, those letters, as far as I am concerned are >only alleged to be from the signers thereof Not being an "On Faith" >theosophist they aren't the Court of Final Appeal to me that they obviously >are to you.. > >>But even in your ISIS UNVEILED, HPB writes of Atlantis, "the great lost >>continent" and >>mentions various races before our present race. Sounds familiar to her more >>detailed >>exposition in THE SECRET DOCTRINE? Hopefully, you have razorbladed those >>paragraphs >>out of your copy of ISIS. : ) And I have found similar paragraphs in ISIS >>that echo what >>HPB says later in THE SECRET DOCTRINE on that cosmogenesis stuff to which >>you object. > >I have never said I am in agreement with every word only that I am in accord >with the over-all flavour. I don't "razor blade" things I'll leave >censorship to folks like you. But I have never read a book with which I >agree unreservedly and I probably never will. So What? >> >>Oh BTW, exactly what teaching does HPB present in any of her writings that >>you don't >>object to? Please list a few of them and I will give them to some of my >>scientist friends >>to see if these teachings accord with present day scientific findings and >>studies. > >Daniel: I am not Paul Johnson and you will not send me "packing" the way you >and your bunch did him. So forget it! Now, let's get this straight, and I'll >put it as carefully as possible so as not to confuse you. > >The things that H.P.B. wrote and said that I agree with strongly have >nothing at all to do with either science or cosmogenesis. It is my personal >belief that those things are far to risky to base something useful, which I >believe theosophy to be, on them. What I agree with are her views on >religion, on questioning authority (which is why I bother you so much >Daniel), on introducing to Western Intellectuals the fact that intellectuals >and philosophers and other thinkers exist somewhere else than in Europe, and >that Western Materialism wasn';t the all and end-all. I believe in the kind >of open minded attitude she brought to everything (the kind you certainly >don't possess). I enjoy the spirit of fun she brought to all the things she >did. (Once again unlike you). I strongly agree with her attitude toward >Christianity, which mirrors my own. I try very hard to live the motto of the >society Satyat-nasti-paro-dharma, and I strongly support the three objects, >as far as I'm concerned all the rest could be balderdash and it wouldn't >matter at all. > >I think even you will take my meaning when I sign myself formally: > >H.S.H. Alexis Alexandreivitch, Prince Dolgorukii of Uriev > >> >> >> >> > > > From blafoun@azstarnet.com Sun Apr 28 14:46:04 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 07:46:04 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604281446.HAA10435@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: more responses from Alexis Alexis writes: > I don't "razor blade" things I'll leave >censorship to folks like you. And how do you know what I censor? I probably hate censorship more than you do. I work in a library and would get my feathers really ruffled if someone came in and tried to get some of our books taken out of the collection because the books weren't "proper", etc. I believe that people should have access to a whole array of differing points of view. Marion Meade's book on HPB is right on the shelf at our library with Sylvia Cranston's HPB biography. I like that. Interested persons can read both, if they so choose, and see different viewpoints on HPB. > What I agree with are her views on >religion, on questioning authority (which is why I bother you so much >Daniel) One of the reasons I like HPB and her writings is because she questions authority! And do you think I naively believe what HPB writes? Believe what you will. But if I question what you write it is not because it "bothers" me. It is to draw you out. To get you to state in explicit terms and with details what you mean by some of your generalized statements. Maybe Chuck or Jerry S. can directly read your mind. I can't--- so I ask questions even if you think they are aimless. Yet it seems that when I ask you questions or when I ask you for more details or for your evidence or for your reasoning, instead of focusing on the subject under discussion, you instead focus on the personal and make some condescending (?) remark. Fine. Okay. Now another subject. For example, concerning your statement that HPB was a lesbian. Does this statement "bother" me. No, why should it? If she was gay, then so be it. Liesel and JRC say they don't care. Oh, it's a boring subject! But since I am a student of her life, I don't find the subject boring. And by asking you to tell me more about how you know she was gay, I was hoping you would simply give some of the details about the subject. Why make the general statement in the first place, if you are so unwilling to provide the details? I'm not saying that your grandfather was lying about it. All I wanted to know was under what circumstances did he know that she was a lesbian? When did he know her? And a dozen other questions! Any good historian would also ask such questions. > I believe in the kind >of open minded attitude she brought to everything (the kind you certainly >don't possess). I enjoy the spirit of fun she brought to all the things she >did. (Once again unlike you) Again here are your personal jabs! I hope you are enjoying them. : ) And then you sign your posting: >I think even you will take my meaning when I sign myself formally: >H.S.H. Alexis Alexandreivitch, Prince Dolgorukii of Uriev Possibly you have signed this in jest? A Chuckism? or is it a Chuckle-ism? Hoping for more details, DHC From blafoun@azstarnet.com Sun Apr 28 15:44:22 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 08:44:22 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604281544.IAA19394@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Basic scholarship Alexis, In what I said quoted below and what you replied to, my only point was that if you can cite what the scientific community believes about the absence, etc. of good evidence for the existence of lost civilizations,etc. and therefore dismiss HPB's teachings on Anthropogenesis, then one could equally dismiss HPB's teachings on psychic phenomena, the occult constitution of a human being, etc. in light of the fact that the latest psychological studies generally agree that there is no scientific justification for the existence of parapsychological (psychic) phenomena. That was my main point. Period. **************************************************************************** *********** Now personally, after studying parapsychology for 25 years, I believe there is SOME *scientific* justification and evidence for the existence of psychic phenomena. I agree with Dr. Dean I. Radin, a psychologist and parapsychologist, when he writes: "...Over the last 50 years scientists investigating psi phenomena have developed repeatable laboratory studies that demonstrate the existence of at least three main classes of unexplained effects [telepathy, remote viewing or clairvoyance, and psychokinesis." [Maybe Paul Johnson will give us a review of the latest book he is reading on parapsychology. A book which clearly illustrates what Dr. Radin is talking about.] But I also agree with Dr. Andrew Greeley when he writes: "...there's been a scientific iron curtain raised against serious research on these [psychic, paranormal] experiences [that millions of people have had]...." And even one of the most vocal skeptics of ESP and PK research/claims, Dr. Ray Hyman, has admitted: "...members of the scientific community often judge the parapsychological claims *without firsthand knowledge of the experimental evidence*....Parapsychologists have justification for their complaint that the scientific community is dismissing their claims *without a fair hearing*....." Asterisks added. Unfortunately, I have found that far too many "scientific" skeptics and disbelievers of the paranormal have the "open-minded attitude" exemplified by Thomas Jefferson in his remarks concerning the discovery of a meteorite by two scientists: "...I would rather believe that those two Yankee Professors would lie than to believe that stones fell from heaven." Even scientists will dismiss or downplay evidence which would go against their own pet theories. Could the latest anthopological studies, etc. also suffer from this same kind of prejudice and disbelief? Just food for thought. Daniel >At 12:36 PM 4/27/96 -0400, you wrote: >> >> >>Daniel comments as follows: >> >>In the above remarks you write: " the latest >>anthropological/paleontological studies all generally agree...." >> >>To me this statement means or at least implies that official science or the >>scientific community or the majority of anthropologists/paleontologists >>agree on "such and such". And you say that this "such and such" knowledge >>therefore invalidates HPB's anthopogenesis. Hence throw out Root Races, >>Atlantis, Lemuria, etc. > >HPB's Anthropogenesis, despite Rich's denials, is, to the best of my >knowledge almost entirely invalidated by the current "state of the art" in >Anthropology, Paleobiology, etc. Atlantis and Lemuria are entirely >speculative, there exists no proof either for or against their existence, >therefore they must be "shelved" as it were, until some kind of valid proof >either way is obtained. They're an interesting hypothesis as are "Flying >Saucers", but they are hardly factual, at least not at this point in time. I >didn't say "throw the S.>D. Out" it contains some interesting hypotheses, >but they cannot be assumed to be factual as they are neither amenable to >proof or amenable to disproof. >> >>But if we go by that kind of thinking, how much of what is left in HPB's >>teachings (after throwing out anthopogenesis) would merit our attention? > >Daniel: I think there's one hell of a lot in HPB's overall writing that >deserves our attention, and I have never even hinted otherwise. I just >happen to think concerning one's self with things that really are irrelevant >to our own lives, when those things are utterly unprovable and must be >"taken on faith" is a waste of time. > >Well, for starters, there are HPB's teachings on >>the occult constitution of a human being. ( The kind of stuff Jerry HE and >>Jerry S >>have been going around and around on.) > >That's nice, and if the two Jerry's and Kim find it enticing, they are >welcome to it. But to me the same objections apply, the whole thing is >neither provable or disprovable, it conflicts with my own experiences, and >it has to be "taken on faith". My own personal credo is" "Never take >anything on Faith". > >PB's affirms the reality of psychic >>phenomena and affirms the reality of other invisible planes of existence. >>She affirms >>the reality of life after death and even reincarnation. She even performed >>psychic feats such >>as materializing a cup and saucer at a Simla, India picnic. > >Obviously, at least as far as I'm concerned the reality of psychic phenomena >are amenable to proof and disproof, at least to me. As to the unreality of >death, I can accept what she claims by personal experience. As to >reincarnation, My view of that is different than hers, and for all you know >hers may have changed. As far as the cup and saucer, that was the dumbest >trick she ever pulled it's been used to prove she was a fraud ever since it >happened. And if you're the theosophical scholar you claim to be you know >that's true. It doesn't matter whether she did it or not, most people don't >believe it and that's what matters. > > >But what does >>official science >>and the scientific community as a whole say that is relevant to these >>teachings and claims of HPB's? >> >>For example, in an 1988 report prepared under the auspices of the National >>Academy of Sciences, the following conclusions were drawn: >> >>"...the best scientific evidence does not justify the conclusion that >>ESP...exists." > >Now Daniel: You know I not only believe in ESP but practice it, BUT, what >else can responsible scientists say, there is some statistical evidence >amassed by The J.B. Rhine Institute, but when it comes to actual recordable >empirical evidence, and reliably repeatable phenomena, what else can they >say? As far as they know, they're right, and all those of us who are >psychics can hope for is that a new methodology of "testing" or "Trying the >spirits" will be developed by scientists who count. Those whole actually >believe in ESP or paranormal phenomena are considered to be Kooks, at least, >and crazy, at worst. And when one views the overall community (Theosophy >included) who can blame them. CWL's maundering are hardly a good >introduction to a serious philosophical study. > >>"...Nor does scientific evidence offer support for the existence of >>psychokinesis...." > >See above. >> >>"The Commitee finds no scientific justification from reserach conducted over >>a period >>of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena." > >See above. >> >>Most members of this committee are well-known psychologists. > >These people are honestly reporting their opinions on what they have they >can legitimately work with, you wouldn't suggest the Secret Doctrine as >evidence would you? >> >>Furthermore, if ESP and PK were accepted in the scientific community, would we >>not see parapsychology being taught in universities and colleges? Would we >>not see >>parapsychology as a valid part of departments of psychology in universities >>and colleges? >>In reality, very few universities in the WHOLE world even have courses on >>parapsychology. And can you name the departments of psychology that have >>parapsychological sections? The latest psychological studies all generally agree that there is no >>scientific justification for the existence of parapsychological (psychic) >>phenomena. > >This statement is entirely true, it states the majority of the scientific >and academic community's position exactly. > >If it were accepted, and acceptable, we would. It is not yet accepted so we >don't. I really can't see why this surprises you. By their own best lights >they are being reasonable and careful. >> >>I think we can truthfully say (paraphrasing Alexis and the above mentioned >>report on >psychic phenomena) the following: > >Daniel: You don't actually mean "paraphrasing" what you do is "twist" a >persons meanings to fit your own thesis and make the other person look if >nothing else, unreasonable. It's really not good intellectual practice and >it's rude to boot. >> >> >>And Dr. Michael Mueckler, a cellular biologist, (who has been posted and >>mentioned on this >>list before), would agree with the above statement. Mueckler says that his >>scientific >>colleagues would also concur with such a dismissive summary about psychic >>phenomena. >> >>Therefore, in light of this scientific finding, who would be foolish enough >>to believe what >>HPB's says about the psychic, about life after death, etc. Following >>Alexis' reasoning, we >>should therefore throw out everything HPB said on THIS subject, too. Right? > >Daniel: That line of so-called reasoning is entirely non-sequitous and you >surely know that! And I think you've managed to paraphrase this as >maliciously as is humanly possible. But it is a terrible distortion of what >I've been saying. And I will not permit it to pass unchallenged. >There are things in HPB's Secret doctrine, and in her E.S. Material, and in >some of her other writings which I believe are just plain wrong and which I >therefore have rejected. There are other things she wrote that remain to be >either proven or dis proven and those I have set aside, in a wait and see >attitude. There are things that HPB wrote that I have either seen proven, or >proven myself and those I accept, not on faith, but on the basis of experience. >> >>Well, remember HPB was >>fallible and was (let's face it) simply wrong. And she could have made >>"intentional" errors? >>Right? > >Daniel: That's really kind of juvenile sarcasm. She WAS fallible. and >sometimes she could easily have been wrong. She never made "intentional >errors" but some things she said may have been what she referred to as >"blinds" and were intended to serve as "hints' of "clues" to those with the >inner independence not to take things at face value. > > >Alexis dolgorukii >Nothing, even theosophy, is higher than truth >> >>Okay, now what is left of HPB's teachings? Let us turn to an examination of >>WHATS LEFT...................... >> >> >> > > > From eldon@theosophy.com Sun Apr 28 17:22:51 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 10:22:51 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428172251.00675a70@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Little Theosophies Alexis: >While some of the schisms may refuse to give G de P a hearing, >this list is certainly not such a place. I'm glad to hear that, since I consider his writings to be of considerable value to people. At least, that has been my personal experience with them. >Supposedly none of the biases of the various "little theosophies" >are cogent on this list. But one man's "little Theosophy" may be another's best and favorite presentation. And for those that consider others that follow Blavatsky as also carrying on the work of the Masters and their representatives, they would put describe things in more positive terms. As to THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL, it's freedom of belief is, and >has been made, perfectly clear. There are no heretics of >blasphemers in the regard of T.I., but certainly adding >"comparative theosophy" to the second object isn't the worst ?Idea I've heard all week! It sounds like a good idea to me too. Especially as over the generations the various variants of the original Theosophy get wider apart in what they teach! -- Eldon From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sun Apr 28 17:30:45 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 11:30:45 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? In-Reply-To: <960428011612_384697164@emout10.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 28 Apr 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > Responding to JRC, Doss writes, > > > 1. Theosophy - Theos-Sophia has not been defined in the Objects. I do not > > think it is an oversight. I think it is very deliberate considering the > > fact Divine Wisdom or Truth is not something fixed. > > Absolutely. But the objects defined what was required for membership in the > Theosophical Society at large. The net was cast wide, and all were welcome > to come in who had even a modicum of interest in truth and brotherhood. There is, I think, a big mistake here. "Cast the net wide" implies the purpose of Theosophy was to bring people *to* the "Masters" - for the purpose of "taking the few" and "throwing back the many". This is the viewpoint at the core of "Field of Dreams" Theosophy ("If you study it, they will come"). Underlying it is the thought that it was for *recruiting* purposes that the TS was begun. But it seems equally likely that it was as a *vehicle of service* that it was formed, and the breadth of the Objects was to give the central current the widest possible reach. > This does not mean that belonging to the T.S. by merely accepting the three > objects brings one particularly close to the minds of the Adepts. Ah, I fear this really *does* seem to be the height of arrogance: Who would actually say they know what "brings one close to the minds of the Adepts"? - to know such a thing would require being able to grasp the minds of the Adepts. Fact is, we have *no* idea why the Adepts choose some people and not others for "personal training". Do you mean to say you actually understand the *standards by which their choices are made*?!!! We do have a glimmering of the standards they used to choose those who were to help HPB in the formation of the TS - a very specific, and indeed somewhat small project - but there is no certainty that the standards for this project are generalizable. At least some of them seem to be made by looking both at the spiritual and personality qualities of the person. But are there not hints that they work in virtually every realm of human endeavor? In "choosing" people work in the field of music, for instance, almost none of the founders of the TS would have been "chosen", as it would be *musicians*, not intellectuals, that would be required ... and musicians have very different personality structures, and the "training" appropriate to intellectuals (that is now being called in Theosophical circles "the" training the Masters wish us to do) may not be at all appropriate for musicians. From all accounts, the spiritual kingdom, when it chooses to interact directly with the human kingdom, does not do so for the purpose of enlightening a few humans who might be "ready", but does so in a very project-specific way; the "training" given is given to further the particular project at hand and not simply for the "personal spiritual growth" of the "chela", and the intention is to affect widest segment of humanity in the field of that particular work. > > This is in total agreement with > > what was stated to AP Sinnett in the letter from the Great Master wherein > > it was Their intention not to form a school of psychology but to get men > > and women who will help in the great idea of Universal Brotherhood. > > Again, no disagreement here. But the T.S. was an effort to help mankind at > large, and an effort which K.H. wrote in 1884 was almost a "total failure in > Europe; partially so in India." > > What was done to staunch the tide and try and turn it around? The E.S. was > formed (over Olcott's objections). HPB had an entirely new set of criteria > for who was to be admitted into that body of students. And again a new set > of criteria as to who would belong to the Inner Group. HPB did operate with free will. She ran her own ES, and she set the criteria for those *she wanted to teach*. And its questionable as to whether she formed it to "staunch the tide and try to turn it around", as it was a singular failure if that was its intention. > This wasn't merely elitism. It was what the Masters required of those who > wanted to actually approach the Mysteries and study the truths preserved by > Their lodge over the ages. It was HPB's requirements. And those chosen by HPB were not necessarily chosen by the "Masters" ... whose criteria seem far wider. *Edison*, for instance, a FTS, who was, according to the ML, "a good deal protected by M.", was *not* following the "spiritual-intellectual" approach, and spent little (if any) time pouring over theosophical texts and meditating. And if he *had* he probably would not have been nearly as *useful* as he was. > > Those who wish to pursue truth -- in whatever way -- and seek brotherhood > have every right to be called Theosophists. But those wh fancy themselves > Theosophical occultists, tulkus, gurus, whatnot, and yet throw out much of > what the Masters offered us as BEGINNING practice in the Mysteries, are very > much deluded. "Theosophists" they surely are -- but so what? What's in a > name? Certainly deluded by your standards. But your standards are not those of the Masters. > The interesting thing is not what to call people, but how to absorb the truth > as far as possible. HPB and her Masters offered the T.S. as a possible > gateway, but we live in flatland if we imagine that all that was required for > a deep student was to accept a little plank of three Objects and suddently > find themselves in the midst of the Temple of Wisdom. > Perhaps after you've lived a few more years, withstood a good deal more of suffering and involved yourself in the lives of "poor orphan humanity", you'll understand that those Three Objects, and especially the First, that you look down upon as being on the "flatland" after having climbed the first three feet up a hill, are really the shadows cast on the plains ... the shadows of peaks that stretch far above you. And there may be many a good deal closer to the "Temple of Wisdom" on those peaks that have never heard of the "spiritual-intellectual path", who don't even conceive of the "Masters", and who certainly don't believe themselves above most of the rest of humanity. -JRC From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 18:18:00 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 11:18:00 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428181800.006a044c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: JRC's comments are very relevant indeed! At 03:05 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>cut for continuity's sake<<<<<<< > You need not ask what the Three Objects have to do with this >list, as I did not assert that anyone needed to agree with my >perspective. your question should more properly, I think, be addressed to >Eldon ... what does acceptance of a "body of doctrines" have to do with >being on this list? It is Rich and Eldon who are trying to define >parameters of discussion, not myself. Frankly, I like the list just as it >is. > Regards, -JRC > > >Good for you JRC. I really think it's time to stand up to bullies. I'm doing so. No one can tell anyone what "Basic Theosophy" is. I have, however, filtered RichTay as he's as useless to talk to as Pat Robertson. The kind of theosophy that RichTay, Eldon, and Daniel Caldwell represent is exactly the kind of mindless pharaseeism that Blavatsky IMO would have loathed. She, like me, was "quick to loathe". This is a good list for it's probably the only semi-Theosophical venues upon which any kind of actual "Free Discussion" is encouraged. All the "Regulation" theosophical societies are bound up in dogmatism and are not for the likes of us. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 18:44:12 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 11:44:12 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428184412.006c51cc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Alexis to JRC At 03:10 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: JRC; After reading carefully Eldon's two really long 'dissertations" to you and another to me that was so long I had to save it to disk to be able to read it. I have the following questions and/or comments: 1. Do you think anyone, no matter how qualified, will ever have a meaningful "give-take" discussion with any of those people? One of the worst things about fundamentalists of any stripe, and that clearly is what we're dealing with, is that they refuse to really listen to the opinions of others, and they absolutely refuse to hear any disagreement with their dogmas. I gave up on RichTay because to disagree with him is heresy and anyone who does it is per se malevolently intended. 2. Do you realize that you, and I, Chuck, Alan, and Jerry Schueler, and some others I'm not ready to name, are actually the only "traditional" theosophists who regularly express themselves on this list? The others can only be described as Pharisees. I cannot begin to cite how many times and places in the earliest theosophical literature the words (or some variation thereupon): "THEOSOPHY HAS NO DOGMA, NO DOCTRINE" appear. And now Eldon et al are saying it does. Who then is the revisionist? 3. We are accused of being "anarchists" and "heretics" by a group of people who have totally subverted theosophy into a narrow sect. A cult based entirely on an intellectual fascination with things they cannot experience. A cult that is terrified that anyone might have an unauthorized, or "heavens forfend" an original idea. This is why The Theosophical Society (all three of them) is rapidly becoming more and more irrelevant. 4. Am I right when I say that you think, as I do, that theosophy is intended to be an attitude towards the "follow up" of the three objects? 5. Am I right, when I think that you too, as well as I, are getting very tired of the Pharisees continual "harping" and "sniping" and rudeness? 6. Am I right when I say I think that you too feel that THEOSOPHY of the Wheaton/Adyar, ULT, TSAP, varieties are hindering rather than promoting the three objects? 7. What shall we do? alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 18:46:52 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 11:46:52 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428184652.006be094@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: The Gang of Five!!!! At 08:48 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >The poor man was probably reacting to being turned into a toad. Maybe Jerry >S. did it. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." > > >Maybe it was the "Unatheosphist" alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 18:56:37 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 11:56:37 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428185637.0069ccd8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Mary Renault At 08:49 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >NO NO NO!!! Alexander died of pneumonia in Babylon as the result of a chest >wound received during a battle in India against the Malians. He was >attacking their city and as his armor prevented them them from injuring him >with their swords, they just stood off and shot arrows at him until one of >the arrows penetrated his breastplate, bringing him down. His men, >infuriated at seeing him fall and thinking him dead attacked with such fury >that they did not stop until the entire population of the city had been >killed. >My source for this is "The Nature of Alexander" by Mary Renault. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." > >Chuck: I love Mary Renault's books, and I own most of them, and have read and re-read them. But for cheese's sake, she's a novelist! That story doesn't match with history at all. But it's great story telling. I think the woman is a very great novelist, but I don't accept her as an historian. There's an entire section in my library on classical civilization, those are the books I rely on. Mary Renault's in the "Literary/Novels" section. Until we move my Library is in Three separate rooms, it's alphabetized, and divided into not only categories but purpose. "Serious" Books are in my Study, Novels and Literatures in the hallway, and metaphysical and occult books in the front living room. Now they'll all go down in the big library of the new house...all my books in one place....I am so anxious. Chuck, I am getting very tired of this board and some o the people on it. alexis the arrogant the eclectic person veritas vincit omnia member:"Gang of Five" "AN IT HARM NONE...DO WHAT THOU WILT SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW". From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun Apr 28 17:52:47 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 13:52:47 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604281857.OAA09051@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Doss' prince & pauper Dear Doss, You sound like you've never lacked material comforts. Since I dealt with poor people for 23 years of my life, I'd like to say that I think having money beats living in the streets. Even if your life as a well- to -do person is psychologically miserable, you still have the money to have fine furniture & a comfortable bed to sleep in in your house, & beautiful pictures on your wall, all of which I find uplifting. I love beautiful things. If you have the money, you can live in a space that's all yours ... no need to share a small space with a number of other people, where you don't even have the luxury of privacy in the bath room. You can also see to it that your teeth don't fall out too soon, because you can pay a dentist & a periodontist. If needed you can replace them so they look real & pretty, instead of loose & fake. If your child's teeth are crooked, you can make it look prettier & chew its food more finely by giving it braces. If you have a little girl whose pretty face is marred by a very long nose, you can have her nose bobbed. If you feel blue, you can afford to go to a movie, or a shopping mall. When you're cold, you can turn up your heat and voila. All these things are hard to come by, if you're poor. I think you're right that money isn't everything, but it sure helps. If you're well to do enough you can even donate money to Wheaton's elevator fund, & enable handicapped people to bless you, because they can then reach the auditorium & listen to all those fine talks. Re bweing descendant from kings, for myself, I think I've outgrown the wish to be related to kings, even though, if I wanted to I could claim a very distant ancestor named Queen Esther. Part of me is materialist, & so I wouldn't mind commanding the wealth of a Queen of England. I'd love to have enough money to buy lots of designer clothes. I think castles would be too big for my taste. I'd be content with a couple of 3 bed room houses in places I'd enjoy being, like Syracuse, Kauai, & Knoxville. I'd dislike going to all these affairs of state. I don't like large formal parties, but would rather spend an intimate evening with a few good friends. I get bored stiff talking about the weather, & I utterly dislike talking about Fergie's impending divorce. All in all, I think I'd rather be a descendant of Plato, Pythagoras, Isis, CW Leadbeater & Annie Besant. A King? Well, Martin Luther King would be ok. Liesel Member TI From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 19:04:15 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 12:04:15 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428190415.006b1e8c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Socrates At 08:49 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >We disagree on the nature of an adept and clearly about Socrates. The man >was a bore. >What saved his reputation was that his pupils were better than he was. >Ghandi was less adept than lucky. Any people of the time other than the >British would have made quick work of him. I remember being dragged to see >that terrible movie by my girlfriend at the time and muttering to myself >through the whole thing "Why is this man alive?" >I'm afraid that do-gooders do not impress me. I prefer do-badders. They're >more fun, especially for a historian. > >Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 >Heretic >Tourblemaker > >"Learn the rules, then break the rules." The Megalith of Dr. Mirabilis > >Actually Chuck, re; Socrates Morphantos, as I remeber him, he was a lot like you, a Gad Fly with an evil sense of humor. He was anything but a bore, and the people like our friends on this list considered him terribly evil. (Just like you) Don't forget he was executed for "debauching and misleading youths". I think it's time you gave me, chapter and verse, your definition of an Adept. And by that I don't mean citations of others words, I'm neither Daniel of Eldon. Adepts are impressive not because they are either "do-gooders" or "do badders" but because they are impressive in and of themselves, like Voltaire. alexis the arrogant the eclectic person veritas vincit omnia Member: Gang of Five "THERE ARE NO RULES" - Alexis dolgorukii From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 19:05:26 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 12:05:26 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428190526.006b1920@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Shasta At 08:50 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >And I missed it! Curses, foiled again! > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA MGof 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"When others present ideals of us to live up to, let us urinate on those >ideals and go our own way" The Megalith of Dr. Mirabilis > >Shall we plan another? Between John and I, and you and Jerry, it might be interesting! alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 19:06:49 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 12:06:49 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428190649.00684fd8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Pizza????? At 08:50 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >No pizza? > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA MG of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"Conscience is word which cowards use, >Devis'd first to keep the storng in awe." Shakespeare, Richard III > >Pizza in Syria-Palestra? I forgot that Alan wouldn't eat fish. But would he have in the original context of the story? alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 19:07:53 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 12:07:53 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428190753.006bbfa8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Spook! At 08:51 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >It's not a spook, it's the Master DK. His flying carpet is parked on my >front lawn. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA MG of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the dinner." > >I don't think there is, or was, a "Master D.K." so it's got to be a spook. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 19:09:11 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 12:09:11 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428190911.006996e8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Qoutus Pomicus At 08:51 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >It must be fun to watch people row down main street. I remember years ago I >proposed digging out the main street in Franklin Park and replacing it with a >canal and gondolas like Venice (Italy, not California) but the village elders >were not impressed with the idea. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"Your desire to act is sufficient justification for anything." the Megalith >of Dr. Mirabilis >(do you think a certain person who likes pompous quotes has gotten the >message by now?) > >Chuck: Oh I hope so, but until it seems that way let us continue to be irritating. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 19:18:18 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 12:18:18 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428191818.006aa9a0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: violence At 08:53 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Actually someone did sort of appear in the bedroom and he had the appearance >marks of one of the paintings, at least as my girlfriend described him, as >she saw him more clearly than I did. >Maybe he was looking for a place to park his carpet. >You are right on one point, however, the TS does not want any serious study >of the masters for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the very >real possibility that the transhimalayan demigods may not be as benevolent or >ineffectual as they would like to portray them. >Remember, I view adepts as having a capacity for violence that puts even me >to shame. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >troublemaker > >"The stronger a quality which resides in a person, the more likely it is to >become a weakness." The Testament of Dr. Mirabilis > >Chuck: Anyone with the capacity to do "good" possesses the equal capacity to do the opposite. A "Healer" can certainly "heal" but with no effort at all, and only a very strong intention the same cosmic harmonic can be use to "harm". An Adept can do anything the Adept wishes it is just that their agendas and motivations are hardly comprehensible to anyone who isn't one of them. The "spirits" either excarnate or discarnate do the work for an Adept and it's just amusing for them. When the so-called Theosophical Adepts get out of the kindergarten paradigm in which Theosophy has imprisoned them, everyone will be better off. alexis the arrogant the eclectic one veritas vincit omnia "The power to act, confers the absolute responsibility to do so; it carries with it, the equally absolute responsibility for the results of the action!......." alexis dolgorukii From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 19:22:15 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 12:22:15 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428192215.006cb374@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Religion At 08:54 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: Chuck: The sentiments you express below are beautiful and though I know there are some who will disagree with me violently, they are among the most spiritual thoughts I've seen expressed on this board. Good for you! Alexis the arrogant the eclectic person veritas vincit omnia Member: Gang of Five >Alan, >I agree with you. There was a time in my life when I thought it great fun to >knock the crutches out from under people (and not always metaphorically I am >somewhat ashamed to admit) but as I grow older, I find that at times I need >them myself on occasion. The purpose of even my somewhat heretical brand of >theosophy is to enable people to stand on their own, but that means they have >to be able to do it, and it is not kind to smash the thing they need at the >moment without giving them something better and sermons and books alone don't >do it. >Some of us are born with courage. Some of us are simply born too ornery to >need anything but ourselves, but we are in the tiny minority of humanity. > The bulk of people need some form of support structure for their lives and >sanscrit spiritbabble is no more the answer for them than someone who just >says "That's all nonsense! Get up and walk on your own!" Sometimes they >need a strong arm to lean on while they learn. Sometimes they need the >spiritual equivalent of close air support. >That's where we come in, we heretics and troublemakers. We are the ones who >stop the spiritual bullies from making life even more difficult for people >than it already is. We act as the lightning rods and while the bullies are >wasting their energies attacking us the others can gather their strength >until they can join us. >As long as they need us, we will be there. We may not always call ourselves >theosophists. Maybe we will call ourselves Magicians or Gnostics or any of a >thousand labels. But we will always be there. As long as people are >spiritually oppressed and bullied by those who think they have the way, the >truth and the life, we will be there. >And if we fall, others will come to take our place. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"The work of the Villain is the death of authority." The Megalith of Dr. >Mirabilis > > From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 19:37:36 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 12:37:36 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428193736.006cd954@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: amusement At 09:43 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis writes to Daniel: > >>Daniel: I am not Paul Johnson and you will not send me "packing" the way you >>and your bunch did him. So forget it! Now, let's get this straight, and I'll >>put it as carefully as possible so as not to confuse you. > >Daniel responds: > >Alexis, I sent Johnson packing? I simply criticized some of his statements >in his books. >I never called him names or said he was a bad person. I even said I enjoyed >his books, >found them thought provoking and even recommended that people read them! If he >"left", he choose to do so. I assume he just didn't like me criticizing >what he had written. >But I believe I had a right to do that. Anyone has a right to criticize what a person writes, but I contend that in the unrelenting and unremitting criticism of a person whom you knew was hyper-sensitive to criticism, you carefully and intentionally worded things in your inimical way so as to hurt his feelings to the maximum amount. Paul is a person who is far too sensitive for his own good, but you knew that, and I think, used it. > > And, oh, BTW, you haven't >confused me. If you enjoy believing that you have, then continue believing so. But I have quite obviously confused you, for somehow, no matter what I say, you respond to something else, usually something that I neither said nor implied. I don't bully easily Daniel, and you'll find that, after years and years of disputing Christian Fundamentalists I can handle Theosophical Fundamentalists too. By the way, I have never heard that calling a bully a bully was insulting, it's just truthful. > >Some of your remarks are so amusing. > >DHC > Well I hope you enjoy yourself while you may, I think you will find me far less amusing as time goes by.."he who laughs last...." alexis the oh so arrogant the eclectic theospher veritas vincit omnia Member :Gang of Five (That's my "bunch", not mine in that I "own" it, but mine in that I'm part of it)) > > > > > > > From mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz Sun Apr 28 19:17:57 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 07:17:57 +1200 From: mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz (Murray Stentiford) Message-Id: <199604281935.HAA54349@iprolink.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: rigidity/flexibility (Liesel & Jerry S) Liesel wrote in an earlier post> >When you ask for a statement from anyone who's undergoing a transformation, >it just occurred to me that I'm just undergoing a very major one. But it >also makes me vulnerable, so I'll be darned if I'd expose my vulnerability >on theos-l & let someone hack away on it. But I think that maybe I'll try >medit-l & see what kind of a response I get. Then recently she said> >Thank you for sharing this image of your advancing along the Path. > >Mine has more to do with getting older, slowing down, & depending more on >other people's strengths & abillities. It's not easy when you're used to >fending for yourself for all your previous life. Like, I don't have a car >anymore, because it's too expensive to maintain. I rent one for 1 week-end a >month to do my errands. Today, I wanted to hit a sale at Dunk & Bright, >because I need a new mattress. Makes no sense to hire a car for $40.- a day, >to save $100.- on a mattress. Well, I asked a young friend to drive me. She >didn't mind at all, but I'm used to doing everything for myself & I minded >imposing on her. It's a general problem with older people, I understand. No >one enjoys gettting to be so old that they have to depend on other people >for their upkeep. But I'm facing it in my own situation. Thanks goodness the >place where I live has lots of friendly staff. > >So while your change is that you're growing spiritually, mine is that I'm >declining physically. > >I hope Jerry S. sends you a response. Somehow, Liesel, I don't think you have just one and I have just the other. In fact, I know it! My mother has found it really tough, not being able to use the car any more. After years of being able to leap in and go where she wants, it is pretty frustrating. I'm hoping she'll cotton on to the idea of the Internet, to sort of get around in another way, and I have actually told her about you, as a shining example of what can be done! But she is somebody who very much needs to do things in her own way, at her own time and, preferably, because she thought of it! She gets it from me ... :-) . BTW, what did you intend to try out on medit-l? And another BTW; Jerry has already sent a response: Jerry> > First of all, Murray, thanks for showing the courage to >post something honest and meaningful to you. I especially like >the above paragraph. You have eloquently explained my whole >view of ethics and morals in one sentence. Bravo. To you, Jerry, thanks for the encouragement. And to you, Liesel, bye for now. Murray Member TI, & TS in NZ From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Apr 28 20:01:21 1996 Date: 28 Apr 96 16:01:21 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: dead adepts Message-Id: <960428200121_76400.1474_HHL66-1@CompuServe.COM> Chuck: >... only an adept can kill an adept. I think there is some truth in what Chuck says. Usually when an Adept dies, by anyone's hand, it is because they let them do it, for whatever reason. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Apr 28 20:01:25 1996 Date: 28 Apr 96 16:01:25 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Independent Bodies Message-Id: <960428200124_76400.1474_HHL66-2@CompuServe.COM> JHE to me: > Jerry, if this is your interpretation of what I wrote, then >I think our problem is a lot deeper than "semantics." It may well be, Jerry. But how else am I to understand a body "coming into existence" at the very moment of death? Even our physical bodies take 9 months of gestation. If you could give me a quote from MLs or HPB to the effect that the kama-rupa "comes into existence" at the moment of death, perhaps that would help me understand where you are coming from. I know you don't care for G de P, but let me quote him now anyway: "The kama-rupa, which becomes the vehicle for the unconscious or quasi-conscious entity in the kama-loka, is actually forming constantly during the life of the individual: in other words it is in a continual state of modification or change, these changes beginning when the incarnated entity as a child first feels itself conscious of mental and emotional affections, attractions, etc." FOUNTAIN-SOURCE OF OCCULTISM p. 579 Now my own experiences and study dovetail with G de P. If HPB or the Mahatmas say differently, then please give me a quote or two, and maybe we can thrash it out as to why G de P differs so much. As you can see from the above quote, the kama-rupa is with us all of our life, truly becoming the "kama-rupa" only after severance of the sutratman. Guess what, Jerry? Since it is here, now, during life, it is not too great a step to suggest that we can shift our consciousness to it during life, and use it. And this is exactly what we all do; magicians consciously, other folks unconsciously. Jerry S. Member, Ti From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Apr 28 20:01:28 1996 Date: 28 Apr 96 16:01:28 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: stray comments on anthropology-biology Message-Id: <960428200128_76400.1474_HHL66-3@CompuServe.COM> Eldon, I enjoyed your post on this. And I agree with everything except the following two paragraphs: > We are capable of (but not trained in) existing apart > from the physical body, and could function as full humans > minus the lowest principle, the physical body, the > Sthula Sarira. We would exist in our full awareness, > including sense perception, but not have a concrete, > organic anchor to call "me". I am not so sure that we can function "as full humans minus the lowest principle, the Sthula Sarira." First of all, the Sthula sarira is not a principle, but a body. Secondly, we don't need a physical body to have a sense of identity or "me" because any body will do. We can't exist on any plane without a suitable body of some kind, which is always used as a referment or anchor for our sense of identity. > With sufficient training, we could create an ad hoc > "anchor", the mayavi rupa, which would be something > like a self-created materialization on whatever plane > we would exist on. Here is one instance where I think you and JHE are plain wrong. You both seem to think that the mayavi- rupa is the *only* subtle body in town. It is not. It is the one consciously created by an Adept (actually an Initiate can do this too) but everyone has a subtle body, automatically and without effort. The difference is in memory--most people forgetting all experiences after their return to the physical while the mayavi-rupa allows the brain to accept and retain memory. Jerry S. Member, TI From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 20:09:28 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 13:09:28 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428200928.006c173c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Daniel: At 10:48 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis writes: > >> I don't "razor blade" things I'll leave >>censorship to folks like you. > >And how do you know what I censor? I probably hate censorship more than you do. >I work in a library and would get my feathers really ruffled if someone came >in and tried >to get some of our books taken out of the collection because the books >weren't "proper", etc. >I believe that people should have access to a whole array of differing >points of view. Marion Meade's book on HPB is right on the shelf at our >library with Sylvia Cranston's HPB biography. I like that. Interested >persons can read both, if they so choose, and see >different viewpoints on HPB. I don't know, or care, what you do in your library, but I do know what your apparently tryint to do to me, and that's shut me up, and that Daniel, to me, is censorship. You asked if I "razorbladed" Isis, of course I didn't and I can't imagine how the notion would enter your head. One can totally and absolutely disagree with something without "razorblading" it. > > >> What I agree with are her views on >>religion, on questioning authority (which is why I bother you so much >>Daniel) > >One of the reasons I like HPB and her writings is because she questions >authority! And do you think I naively believe what HPB writes? Believe >what you will. But if I question what >you write it is not because it "bothers" me. It is to draw you out. To get >you to state in >explicit terms and with details what you mean by some of your generalized >statements. Maybe Chuck or Jerry S. can directly read your mind. I >can't--- so I ask questions even if >you think they are aimless. Yet it seems that when I ask you questions or >when I ask you >for more details or for your evidence or for your reasoning, instead of >focusing on the > subject under discussion, you instead focus on the personal and make >some condescending (?) remark. Fine. Okay. Daniel: I honestly have never seen one iota of evidence that you are simply trying to "draw me out" to make more specific statements. Nor do you usually do so on docrtrinal matters when what I have said is perfectly obviously my own personal experience. But my opinion, and my formed concepts based on years and years of study are entirely dismissed by you if I don't supply citations. You seem to want to operate on this list like a Doctoral dissertation Committee, but that's not my view of what it is, it is, as far as I knew when I signed on a place to air opinions. I take your inquisitions personally becuase it seems to me that they are personal. I call you a bully, becuase that's what it seems to me you're doing. I call some of your inquisitions "idle curiosity" because the complete multi-thousand year of my family has not possible bearing on any of your interests. You tell me what my English ancestors in the 14th century have to do with your study of Theosophy. > >Now another subject. For example, concerning your statement that HPB was a >lesbian. >Does this statement "bother" me. No, why should it? If she was gay, then >so be it. Liesel >and JRC say they don't care. Oh, it's a boring subject! But since I am a >student of her life, >I don't find the subject boring. And by asking you to tell me more about >how you know she >was gay, I was hoping you would simply give some of the details about the >subject. Why make the general statement in the first place, if you are so >unwilling to provide the details? >I'm not saying that your grandfather was lying about it. All I wanted to >know was under what circumstances did he know that she was a lesbian? When >did he know her? And a dozen other questions! Any good historian would >also ask such questions. O.K. Let me explain something to you by parable> I have a Brother-in-Law, his youngest brother is a "Gay Man", how do I know this? I don't actually know this becuase he's a person whom I've never met. But my Mother has, she's had dinner with him and his life partner. And so I can confidently state that Don is Gay. And that's the case with Blavatsky, my Grandfather told me she was Gay. He knew her, and I have more than once explained how, they frequently met en passant in the world. My Grandfather was both a soldier and a diplomat and traveled a great deal, they occasionally met. The traveld in the same circles and he knew many people who also knew her. Can I give you times and dates of meetings and conversations? Of course not, and you surely know how impossible that would be. I also told you that my Grandfather was a very close friend of Emil Wittgensteins, and I assume you will admit that Wittgenstein and HPB were at least close friends. So then He passed on to me what was comoonknowledge in their circle of friends and relations.So then I can say I 'know" HPBV was Gay just as I know Don to be Gay. That's all there is, there ain't no more! Now, why did I bring it up? Oh it's very simple! I have personally experienced really vicious discrimination as a Gay man from the E.S. and through it, be extension, from the T.S. I think it perfectly equitable and fair to point out that no society who was founded by a gay person should discriminate against Gay People. It's a shame the late Mr. Carrithers isn;t still with us, he could tell you that I'm not as awful as you think I am. I recently turned a very nice letter from him to me over to Jerry Hejka-Elkins for his Alexandria West Library. > >> I believe in the kind >>of open minded attitude she brought to everything (the kind you certainly >>don't possess). I enjoy the spirit of fun she brought to all the things she >>did. (Once again unlike you) > >Again here are your personal jabs! I hope you are enjoying them. : ) Oh I am. But why not? Daniel, you don't seem to understand that I view many of the things you say to me as equally personal jabs. what's the matter don't like two way streets? Why is it O.K. for you to accuse me of "razorblading" books with some of whose contents I agree, and then accuse me of "personal jabs". Come on Daniel...."What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". In my perception you have been inexcusably rude to me, and when I react with irritation I am accused of "gettiing personal".."Give me a Break!" > > >And then you sign your posting: > >>I think even you will take my meaning when I sign myself formally: > >>H.S.H. Alexis Alexandreivitch, Prince Dolgorukii of Uriev > >Possibly you have signed this in jest? A Chuckism? or is it a Chuckle-ism? > >Hoping for more details, > >DHC > Oh no Daniel, it was far from a jest. it is how I sign myself when I'm not feeling friendly. It's a small part of who I am, and it makes me completely different from you. We don't really come from the same planet. My life, and my expereinces, becuase of that name are totally different from anything you know or could know> We may be currently "out of power" but people like me are the sum total of our family histories and genes. It really doesn't matter to me how either you or Bee Brown view it, but there is a distinct and definite "line", when that line is either crossed or about to be crossed. people like me tend to stand on our dignity. Like it or not, that's how I am, that's how my Mother is, and that's how HPB was, and all of our family back into the mists of time. It's a reminder that I'm something "other" than just plain Alexis. alexis the oh so arrogant the eclectic theosopher veritas vincit omnia Member: Gang of Five > From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 20:11:59 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 13:11:59 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428201159.006dcbd8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Basic scholarship At 11:52 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis, >In what I said quoted below and what you replied to, my only point was that >if you can cite >what the scientific community believes about the absence, etc. of good >evidence for the >existence of lost civilizations,etc. and therefore dismiss HPB's teachings >on Anthropogenesis, then one could equally dismiss HPB's teachings on >psychic phenomena, the occult constitution of a human being, etc. in light >of the fact that the latest psychological studies generally agree that there >is no scientific justification for the existence of parapsychological >(psychic) phenomena. That was my main point. Period. > >**************************************************************************** Daniel: And MY main point was that I do not think your sequence is valid. Period From alexei@slip.net Sun Apr 28 20:30:39 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 13:30:39 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960428203039.006c4bcc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Little Theosophies At 12:00 PM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >>Supposedly none of the biases of the various "little theosophies" >>are cogent on this list. > >But one man's "little Theosophy" may be another's best and >favorite presentation. And for those that consider others >that follow Blavatsky as also carrying on the work of the >Masters and their representatives, they would put describe >things in more positive terms. Eldon: By "Little Theosophies" i refer to groups whose feelings about their group lead them to exclude anyone that doesn't match their paradigm. I am explicitely referring to th ULT which I consider to be the most "Hassidic" of Theosophical groups in the exclusivity. On both this list, and in Theosophy International, people from these groups are not in a position to enforce ther exclusivity. They have evey right to be as exclusive as they please within their own paradigm but they have no right to impose their ideas on others> They have every right to express their ideas of course, but no right to accuse others of "heresy" or "blasphemy" when they are disagreed with. > >As to THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL, it's freedom of belief is, and >>has been made, perfectly clear. There are no heretics of >>blasphemers in the regard of T.I., but certainly adding >>"comparative theosophy" to the second object isn't the worst >?Idea I've heard all week! > >It sounds like a good idea to me too. Especially as over >the generations the various variants of the original >Theosophy get wider apart in what they teach! > >-- Eldon Eldon, do you grant that I am a sincere person, as sincere in my beliefs and perceptions as anyone else? Well if you do, and I hope you do, then you must have learned by now that I consider my view of theosophy as possibly the most traditional as it is based upon my perceptions of theosophy of the 1875 - 1880 variety, with no influences from later on. My "cut-off" is particularly intense in 1891 when HPB died. From then on I think there has been nothing but variance and revisionism. It may be rigid, it may even be limited, but it's hardly heretical. It may interest you to know that while I totally reject CWL, I don't reject G de P at all, while i don't agree with everything he says, I own, and have read a great many of his books. I do reject the ULT as I find their actions and attitude too fundamentalist for me. But that does not mean I reject WQJ, his books are some of the best written on later Theosophy. I've even got two copies of Robert Crosbie's book and he makes a lot of sense even if those who followed him don't. I'm a Shaman, and a Helaer, and a Psychic, but first and foremost I'm an intellectual, I too started with "book learning" but i've moved on. To make what I'm saying totally unequivocable, I will say that I believe that everything BHP wrote about attitude and goals is valid, about the rest I am totally uncomfortable with some of it, and more than a little unsure about much of it. That is all. I also, as I'm sure you know, think that each person must develop his or her own version of any existential philsoophy, relying on trust or faith in the perceptions of others is, I believe, a very dangerous "rubbber crutch". likely to fail the person in extremity. cordially alexis > > > From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 28 20:58:17 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 16:58:17 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960428165817_102224330@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: comparative theosophy Alan, By all means add it. But by the time we all through adding things we will have very big objects. :-) Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "To read quotations is a waste of time" Anonymous From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 28 20:59:18 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 16:59:18 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960428165917_102224769@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: feed me Alex, Have you forgetten what the English do to fish? They leave the bones in. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Teach a man to fish and he will make up stories." From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Apr 28 20:59:40 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 16:59:40 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960428165939_102224935@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Forgot something ??? Alex, That ain't what Crowley said! Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Love is the Law, Love under will, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 28 13:41:40 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:41:40 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Is this a Theosophical List? In-Reply-To: <199604280458.VAA00405@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604280458.VAA00405@web.azstarnet.com>, Blavatsky Foundation writes > Do you have to be a member of a T.S. to subscribe to >this list? I don't think so. Certainly not! > >And is the new Theosophy International the same as Theos-l? I hope not! Certainly not! There *is* a risk that newcomers to the list(s) might erroneously suppose this, which is why I for one encourage TI members to post TI-related matters to theos-buds - but it's a free world, and a fair proportion of list subscribers belong to TI, and a fair proportion also belong to the T.S. in America. So ... matters relating to these and other organisations will inevitably be discussed here. I think your suggestion of using theos-tech is a good one, if you can get people to use it in the way you have in mind. For many, it would be a real boon not having to put up with some of our inanities and sad attempts at humor. However, you would also run the risk of theos-l subscribers sending the one-liner to listproc@vnet.net "subscribe theos- tech " - and you would end up no better off. Hard life, Dan, hard life :-) Fraternally, Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 28 20:40:27 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 21:40:27 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: feed me In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960428082426.006a940c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960428082426.006a940c@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >What is it with you English and Fish? My houseguest, Michael, won't eat it >either. > >alexis Some vegetarians don't eat fish. I am one of them - nothing to do with being English. Until recent years, the British Isles were surrounded by them,++ especially cod, but over-fishing has done untold damage. There's a strong case for not eating fish on conservation grounds, but there are problems with the rest of Europe and "rights". Maybe one day the English who do eat fish will get the plentiful and inexpensive supplies we used to have ... Alan ++ Fish, not vegetarians. --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 28 20:55:03 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 21:55:03 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <6hwskcAns9gxEwop@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (Kim Poulsen) In-Reply-To: <01BB34FF.8C8BD620@x.dko.global-one.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <01BB34FF.8C8BD620@x.dko.global-one.dk>, Kim Poulsen writes >Kim >- as a PS remark I would like that when my friend Alan reversed the meaning >of the term "my friend" I just had adressed you as such in a post- in the >original meaning of the term. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 28 20:53:10 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 21:53:10 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <9xEtgZA2q9gxEwof@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: more responses from Alexis In-Reply-To: <960428050155_384761599@emout09.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960428050155_384761599@emout09.mail.aol.com>, Richtay@aol.com writes >> I think even you will take my meaning when I sign myself formally: >> >> H.S.H. Alexis Alexandreivitch, Prince Dolgorukii of Uriev Alexis - you've completely lost me on this one! Should I call Oprah? Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 28 20:35:53 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 21:35:53 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Religion In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960428082320.006d9224@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960428082320.006d9224@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >>Ah Alan, very true. But what happens when it's a "rubber Crutch"? > >alexis Help them up when they fall over ... what else? Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 28 19:32:59 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 20:32:59 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: This *is* a Theosophical List. In-Reply-To: <960428011612_384697164@emout10.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960428011612_384697164@emout10.mail.aol.com>, Richtay@aol.com writes >HPB did not require Theosophists to >accept HER PERSONAL DEFINITION of Theosophy, but she did require this of her >inner students. HPB is dead. The members of her inner group of students are dead. > >Those who wish to pursue truth -- in whatever way -- and seek brotherhood >have every right to be called Theosophists. But those wh fancy themselves >Theosophical occultists, tulkus, gurus, whatnot, and yet throw out much of >what the Masters offered us as BEGINNING practice in the Mysteries, are very >much deluded. WHAT? How do you know my friends and colleaues on this list so well, many of whom, like myself, have spent up to 40 years or more *applying* the standard of "no religion higher than truth."? You may find as much delusion in the mirror as you find here. In the meantime, although some of us may also have something to learn, *please* try to cultivate good manners and politeness to the other subscribers on the list. I offer you, as you have offered us from time to time, a quote. This is far older than the writings of 19th century masters or their pupils, but is, IMO, just as much a part of the ancient wisdom: "Then the Eternal answered Job from the heart of the tempest, saying: Who is this obscuring my designs with empty-headed words? Brace yourself like a fighter; now it is my turn to ask questions and yours to inform me. Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, since you are so well-informed? Who decided the dimensions of it, do you know? Or who stretched the measuring-line across it? Who supports its pillars at their bases? Who laid its cornerstone when all the stars of the morning were singing with joy, and the Children of God in chorus were chanting praise? Who pent up the sea behind closed doors when it leapt tumultuous out of the womb, when I wrapped it in a cloud of mist and made black clouds its swaddling bands; when I marked the bounds it was not to cross and made it fast with a bolted gate? Come thus far, I said, and no further: here your proud waves shall break. Have you ever in your life given orders to the morning, or sent the dawn to its post, telling it to grasp the earth by its edges and shake the wicked out of it, when it changes the earth to sealing clay and dyes it as a person dyes clothes; stealing the light from the wicked and breaking the arm raised to strike? Have you journeyed all the way to the sources of the sea, or walked where the Abyss is deepest? Have you been shown the gates of death or met the janitors of shadowland? Have you any inkling of the extent of the earth? Tell me all about it if you have? Which is the way to the home of the light, and where does darkness live?" (This is a modern adaptation of Job 38, verses 1ff). Jerry: note the reference to the Abyss! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 28 13:50:20 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:50:20 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Is this a Theosophical List? In-Reply-To: <199604280458.VAA00405@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604280458.VAA00405@web.azstarnet.com>, Blavatsky Foundation writes >Hey, you know, I can even read and study Theosophical books without ever >becoming a member of any of these Theosophical groups. That way I don't >have to get sucked into >all these squabbles about how bad Radha may be, or what sneaky things the >Wheaton people may be up to, etc etc. ad infinitum and ad pukum! So can we all. And we don't have to read everything that comes down the wire. I have even been known to press "delete" on the occasional posting of your :-) > > >Without ever being a member of any T. group, >I can study Theosophy and try to live it in my personal life and maybe try >to share it with >new people, people who could care less about Theosophical socieites and >groups, but who >might find some inspiration and upliftment from reading about Theosophy. So can we all. So many of us do - why should any reader of this list suppose that this is the *only* place we do anything? One of the newer TI members is also the organiser of medit-l. Sy Ginsburg runs the Miami Theosophical Lodge of 115 members. I even co-ordinate a small study group myself. > >Hey, folks, instead of spending so much time on Theos-l, maybe we should all >get out in our local communities and >let NEW people know there is such a thing as Theosophy. Most people don't >know about it. Why not do both? You seem, if I may say so, to have a problem. >Buy TONS of your favorite Theosophical books and share them with others. The >Theosophical publishers will make some money and will reprint the books and NEW >people will hear about Theosophy, theosophy, Thesophia or however you want >to spell or >define the term. Gladly. Send me the money. Sincerely, Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 28 19:34:52 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 20:34:52 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Study Group In-Reply-To: <31840940.38ED@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 To Bee Brown : > Congratulations! Thanks for some good cheer! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 28 13:43:10 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:43:10 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Is this a Theosophical List? In-Reply-To: <199604280458.VAA00405@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199604280458.VAA00405@web.azstarnet.com>, Blavatsky Foundation writes >If Pat Robertson wanted to subscribe to this list, he could, couldn't he? >And could he post >e-mail messages telling how Theosophy in any form or description is from >Satan? I would >hope he could! So he could. In fact it is not so long ago that we were all besieged by a bible-quoting subscriber, you may recall! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 28 21:13:26 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 22:13:26 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Rich, HPB and me In-Reply-To: <960428084734_282497866@emout16.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960428084734_282497866@emout16.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >I am thinking of a contest to pick the biggest asshole in the TS. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Don't tempt me ... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 28 19:36:59 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 20:36:59 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Wilting In-Reply-To: <960428014545_282425554@emout18.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960428014545_282425554@emout18.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." I just channelled a message from someone called Edward Alexander something, and he said that this part of his teaching should have been in the Book of Lies. Dunno what that means. :-) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 28 21:15:19 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 22:15:19 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Religion In-Reply-To: <960428084800_282497942@emout14.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960428084800_282497942@emout14.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >We may not always call ourselves >theosophists. Maybe we will call ourselves Magicians or Gnostics or any of a >thousand labels. But we will always be there. As long as people are >spiritually oppressed and bullied by those who think they have the way, the >truth and the life, we will be there. >And if we fall, others will come to take our place. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Yep. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Apr 28 21:43:13 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 22:43:13 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Alexis to JRC In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960428184412.006c51cc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960428184412.006c51cc@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >7. What shall we do? > >alexis Aren't we doing it? Alan (see below) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Apr 28 22:01:48 1996 Date: 28 Apr 96 18:01:48 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Basic scholarship Message-Id: <960428220148_76400.1474_HHL35-2@CompuServe.COM> Rich: > WHAT CONSTITUTES PROOF? >For all the scads of psychics/shamans/tulkus/gurus on theos-l, their own >personal experience is proof. Great. This is an excellent question, Rich. And I don't have an answer. Even personal experience won't hold up, because that too can change. As I have said here before, our experience always tends to substantiate our beliefs. >For those of us who believe in Adepts, and believe HPB to have been working >directly with Adepts, their statements, are, until good proof is brought >against them, usually regarded as at least possible, if not probable. I agree, that for those without any direct experience, this is, by far, the best course. And even those with direct experience must have a very good reason to disregard what, after all, is the direct experience of many Adepts for a very long time. Alan, for example, doesn't believe in reincarnation. This is based on his direct experience and study. We all have the right to pick and choose the "gold nuggets," as Eldon likes to say, that currently appeal to us. >It really depends upon what one chooses to accept as a valuable >source, and what can disrupt how one sees this source. Exactly. Asking someone to change their worldview is too much to ask. But I think, as theosophists, we should all of us be questioning our worldviews, and leaving at least some room in there for doubt. One of the ways in which I have been able to do this is to keep reminding myself that my own worldview has changed a lot over the years, and so more change may yet be in the works. We need to stay flexible because without flexibility we open ourselves up to fundamentalism and orthodoxy. >After so many years in the movement, I have come to trust HPB and her >writings a very great deal. (This does NOT imply infallibility). I did not >come to feel such trust all at once, but over the years, as more and more of >the teachings made sense to me, and I saw their value in practical >application. Now I tend to accept what she says on face value, unless I come >across compelling reasons to doubt it. Me too, for the most part. >I don't think it is so outrageous to trust HPB, particularly if one is >willing to go OUT INTO THE WORLD and experiment and APPLY the teachings >and learn from the results. Agreed. But we have to remember that HPB did not give us the whole story. I have been accused of saying things on theos-l that are not theosophical, because HPB didn't say so. This, to me, smacks of fundamentalism. If I say something that flatly contrdicts her, then that would be another thing altogether. Eldon and I, for example, both agree that G de P expounded on HPB's teachings and that therefore G de P can also be used as a "source." This kind of thing, I think, helps us to expand our worldviews beyond what HPB gave out last century, without in any way criticising her or going against what she did have to say. Jerry S. Member, TI Note: I am sorry that things got so out of hand between you and Alexis. From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Apr 28 22:01:39 1996 Date: 28 Apr 96 18:01:39 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Serious Discussions Message-Id: <960428220139_76400.1474_HHL35-1@CompuServe.COM> >Perhaps my opening statements give that impression. But I go on to >explain that I'd hope to see a serious study of Theosophy >peacefully coexist with discussions based upon disinterest or >disbelief in it. Eldon, why can't we have a serious discussion? I would hope that we could, and that we have had such discussions. I just quit one with JHE on bodies/planes out of frustration, but I could always start it up again, or begin another one, at any time. Why can't you pick a topic, post some thoughts, and sit back and wait for some responses and get a discussion going at any time? A response of "I don't believe it" is certainly a valid one, and hopefully you could explain why you do so, and go on from there with some other folks. I agree that there is not much room for discussion when the other side won't even believe in the topic. But there are other folks who probably do. If I wanted to talk about reincarnation, for exaample, I probably wouldn't get far sparring with Alan, who doesn't beleive in it. But you and others do. What is stopping you, or anyone else from such a serious discussion? >I'm not sure of the Adyar/Wheaton ideology, but in both the Point >Loma and ULT approaches there's a definite attempt to acquire an >intellectual understanding of the theosophical doctrines, with a >strong emphasis on the source literature. There is nothing wrong with this approach. However, at some point, these teachings need to be internalized into a functional worldview. This is not easy, and cannot be done by reading and study alone. It has to be put into practice and lived. I would hope that the friction and challenge here on theos-l would help a good deal by providing a chaotic background in which these ideas can germinate into living realities rather than just lie fallow as mental ideas. >The T.S. was to be the cornerstone of future western >religions; it's up to us to be the masons to build the rest of the >structure. Eldon, you are probably right, but could you give me a source for this. I do recall Judge saying that it was to be the "cornerstone of western occultism" but I don't recall the use of the word "religions." Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Apr 28 22:01:49 1996 Date: 28 Apr 96 18:01:49 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: To Dan on Statistical Significance Message-Id: <960428220149_76400.1474_HHL35-3@CompuServe.COM> >Jerry, >"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." >What does that say about people who use them? They are all doing well, on Madison Ave. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Apr 28 22:01:52 1996 Date: 28 Apr 96 18:01:52 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: The Ol' Toad Spell Message-Id: <960428220151_76400.1474_HHL35-4@CompuServe.COM> >Alex, >The poor man was probably reacting to being turned into a toad. Maybe Jerry >S. did it. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Well, I get blamed for everything else. Why not this? Truth is, he doesn't need my help. He is doing this very nicely all on his own Jerry S. Member, TI From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Mon Apr 29 17:17:40 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 10:17:40 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <3184F9B4.6C4@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Bee's comments References: <2.2.32.19960428181800.006a044c@mail.slip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit alexis dolgorukii wrote: > > At 03:05 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: > >>>>>cut for continuity's sake<<<<<<< > > You need not ask what the Three Objects have to do with this > >list, as I did not assert that anyone needed to agree with my > >perspective. your question should more properly, I think, be addressed to > >Eldon ... what does acceptance of a "body of doctrines" have to do with > >being on this list? It is Rich and Eldon who are trying to define > >parameters of discussion, not myself. Frankly, I like the list just as it > >is. > > Regards, -JRC > > > > > >Good for you JRC. I really think it's time to stand up to bullies. I'm > doing so. No one can tell anyone what "Basic Theosophy" is. I have, however, > filtered RichTay as he's as useless to talk to as Pat Robertson. The kind of > theosophy that RichTay, Eldon, and Daniel Caldwell represent is exactly the > kind of mindless pharaseeism that Blavatsky IMO would have loathed. She, > like me, was "quick to loathe". This is a good list for it's probably the > only semi-Theosophical venues upon which any kind of actual "Free > Discussion" is encouraged. All the "Regulation" theosophical societies are > bound up in dogmatism and are not for the likes of us. > > alexis So there we have it. You have set yourself up as judge and jury on what this list should be. Theosophy according to H.S.H. Alexis etc. You accuse Daniel, for example, of bullying yet you have been doing just that in a much more subtle and insidious way. Systematically making remarks like above on people who like a view of Theosophy that you do not subscribe to. This list will be for the 'gang of five' very soon and you can all have your sort of "Free Discussion" by yourselves. This list has become a major focus for your philosophical views and woe be tide anyone who has the temerity to question your right to impose yourself on discussions that are really irrelevant to your point of view. I had my little falling out previously and had to distance myself and have a look at myself. I realised that I did resent being given lessons in royal protocol and extracts from Who's Who. I was disappointed that someone with your wit and standing had to respond in such a manner. I had been very interested in your input when you first came on this list as you had such an unusual background and were obviously a very intelligent and well read person. I am also well aware that you are quite different from the rest of us because of you background but that should have enriched this list not turned it into the battleground it seems to have become. I have had to come to a way of dealing with your responses that do not push my buttons so I do not take you seriously anymore and I am rather sorry about that. The way you hammer at the establishment will only serve to make them more entrenched and I hope Adyar does not get on e-mail because I can just see them receiving the benefit of your advise and so getting more convinced that theos-l is a danger to them. It is better to woo the opposition and lull them into a sense of security and then change their minds when they aren't looking. That does not seem to be your way of operating. I am trying to make things happen in my neck of the wood and already Theosophy on the Internet is being spoken off in negative tones because the rumours of what goes on here has reached the ears of quite a few who are not computer oriented. Some of us had planned to set up computers at our next Convention and have theos-l running for the participants to read but it won't be this list if it remains as it is. I am used to it by now but to the ordinary person it would not endear them to the idea of TI that we are trying to promote among non computer people. I am trying to put my money where my mouth is and it isn't easy when I have to overcome the hurdles from here first. I will not waste anymore time on this matter as I know it won't make the least difference what I think. I am just thankful that another list is in the making and I shall transfer myself to that so you won't have to put up with naive provincials who can't seem to get the curtsy right. RIP Theos-l :-( -- Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun Apr 28 23:04:33 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 19:04:33 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604290009.UAA24402@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Richard I., Re:psychogenesis >it is thus easy to see how an >individual can indeed be regarded as having lost his or her "human" status >and be living the remaining portion of his or her life as a completely >unSelf-aware "animal." > Richard, I don't understand what you're saying. I'd appreciate it, if you'd explain it to me. Thanks Liesel Member TI From blafoun@azstarnet.com Mon Apr 29 00:19:56 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 17:19:56 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604290019.RAA25823@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: JRC's comments are very relevant indeed! Alexis, You write: The kind of theosophy that RichTay, Eldon, and Daniel Caldwell represent is exactly the kind of mindless pharaseeism that Blavatsky IMO would have loathed. She, like me, was "quick to loathe". This is a good list for it's probably the only semi-Theosophical venues upon which any kind of actual "Free Discussion" is encouraged. Daniel replies: Alexis, you first paint Rich, Eldon and me with a certain color brush. And then in the next breath you speak of this list as a place where there can be"actual Free Discussion." Free? Free as defined by whom? Free as defined by YOU? You think you are free to say anything you want to on this list. (And I also believe you have that right). But if any of us might question some of your assertions, you quickly label us with "mindless pharaseeism", etc. As far as I can remember, I have not called you names and yet today you have referred to me personally five or six times with negative labels. I guess Rich, Eldon and I are not free on this list to put forth our views and questions without a barrage of negativisms emanating from you? I will not lose sleep over this; but if this is what "actual free discussion" is all about, mmmmmmm............ Daniel From rdon@garlic.com Mon Apr 29 01:23:17 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 18:23:17 -0700 From: rdon@garlic.com (Rodolfo Don) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Bee's comments, and everything else Alan, Can something be done here on theos-l, *without taking sides* on the latest out of control discussions? I had some expectations when I joined theos-l, being a discussion list, but nothing like this. I refuse to take sides on these discussions, but if the quality and civility of the discussions don't improve, I will have to sign-off. Rodolfo Don >alexis dolgorukii wrote: >> >> At 03:05 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >> >>>>>cut for continuity's sake<<<<<<< >> > You need not ask what the Three Objects have to do with this >> >list, as I did not assert that anyone needed to agree with my >> >perspective. your question should more properly, I think, be addressed to >> >Eldon ... what does acceptance of a "body of doctrines" have to do with >> >being on this list? It is Rich and Eldon who are trying to define >> >parameters of discussion, not myself. Frankly, I like the list just as it >> >is. >> > Regards, -JRC >> > >> > >> >Good for you JRC. I really think it's time to stand up to bullies. I'm >> doing so. No one can tell anyone what "Basic Theosophy" is. I have, however, >> filtered RichTay as he's as useless to talk to as Pat Robertson. The kind of >> theosophy that RichTay, Eldon, and Daniel Caldwell represent is exactly the >> kind of mindless pharaseeism that Blavatsky IMO would have loathed. She, >> like me, was "quick to loathe". This is a good list for it's probably the >> only semi-Theosophical venues upon which any kind of actual "Free >> Discussion" is encouraged. All the "Regulation" theosophical societies are >> bound up in dogmatism and are not for the likes of us. >> >> alexis > >So there we have it. You have set yourself up as judge and jury on what this >list should be. Theosophy according to H.S.H. Alexis etc. You accuse Daniel, >for example, of bullying yet you have been doing just that in a much more >subtle and insidious way. Systematically making remarks like above on people >who like a view of Theosophy that you do not subscribe to. This list will be >for the 'gang of five' very soon and you can all have your sort of "Free >Discussion" by yourselves. This list has become a major focus for your >philosophical views and woe be tide anyone who has the temerity to question >your right to impose yourself on discussions that are really irrelevant to >your point of view. >I had my little falling out previously and had to distance myself and have a >look at myself. I realised that I did resent being given lessons in royal >protocol and extracts from Who's Who. I was disappointed that someone with >your wit and standing had to respond in such a manner. I had been very >interested in your input when you first came on this list as you had such an >unusual background and were obviously a very intelligent and well read >person. I am also well aware that you are quite different from the rest of us >because of you background but that should have enriched this list not turned >it into the battleground it seems to have become. I have had to come to a way >of dealing with your responses that do not push my buttons so I do not take >you seriously anymore and I am rather sorry about that. >The way you hammer at the establishment will only serve to make them more >entrenched and I hope Adyar does not get on e-mail because I can just see >them receiving the benefit of your advise and so getting more convinced that >theos-l is a danger to them. It is better to woo the opposition and lull them >into a sense of security and then change their minds when they aren't >looking. That does not seem to be your way of operating. I am trying to make >things happen in my neck of the wood and already Theosophy on the Internet is >being spoken off in negative tones because the rumours of what goes on here >has reached the ears of quite a few who are not computer oriented. Some of us >had planned to set up computers at our next Convention and have theos-l >running for the participants to read but it won't be this list if it remains >as it is. I am used to it by now but to the ordinary person it would not >endear them to the idea of TI that we are trying to promote among non >computer people. I am trying to put my money where my mouth is and it isn't >easy when I have to overcome the hurdles from here first. >I will not waste anymore time on this matter as I know it won't make the >least difference what I think. I am just thankful that another list is in the >making and I shall transfer myself to that so you won't have to put up with >naive provincials who can't seem to get the curtsy right. >RIP Theos-l :-( >-- > > > > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Mon Apr 29 01:32:03 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 19:32:03 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Bee's comments, and everything else In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Rodolfo Don wrote: > Can something be done here on theos-l, *without taking sides* on the latest > out of control discussions? > > I had some expectations when I joined theos-l, being a discussion list, but > nothing like this. > > I refuse to take sides on these discussions, but if the quality and > civility of the discussions don't improve, I will have to sign-off. > > Rodolfo Don Wonder if an entire list can collectively take a big deep breath. (-:), -JRC From 76400.1474@COMPUSERVE.COM Mon Apr 29 00:34:08 1996 Date: 28 Apr 96 20:34:08 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Re: OCCULTISM Message-Id: <960429003408_76400.1474_HHL90-1@CompuServe.COM> John Paul Rolston posted a short essay by Judge on occultism. Apart from being a tad overdramatic (which Judge tended to do a lot) I agree completely. Is there a reason for the post? Was it meant to tell us something? I am sorry, but I tend to get suspicious whenever someone posts a quote from an "authority" (and I agree that Judge was an Adept) without any rationale for it. Jerry S. Member, TI From Richtay@aol.com Mon Apr 29 00:28:15 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 20:28:15 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960428202815_282829688@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Bee's comments Dear Bee, It's about time someone "neutral" pointed out what's been going on here. Why is it so easy to go from "difference of opinion" to "I'm going to character-assassinate you"? For myself, I can say that the VERY DAY the new list Eldon and Jerry HE and JPR and others gets up and running, I am transferring, and theos-l can insult, belittle, and berate all the Theosophists and Establishments it likes. Should be interesting who will be left to get "beat up" gangster-style. Just imagine -- no more one-liners, no more insults. Maybe on the new list people can talk about their STUDY, their IDEAS and their PRACTICE of the teachings of Theosophy, and leave personal stuff (including attacks) at home. I think it will be a hell of a lot more welcoming to newcomers trying desperately just to learn what the heck Theosophy is about. And perhaps a supportive community for those of us who work in lodges, we could actually report what our study groups are studying, and how it's going, and what we'd like more of. Cool. From Richtay@aol.com Mon Apr 29 00:28:05 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 20:28:05 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960428202804_282829566@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Filters Alexis writes, > I have, however, > filtered RichTay as he's as useless to talk to as Pat Robertson. Wow. I think that makes five times that Alexis has mentioned that I have been added to his filter. Actually, I think I have missed a few of his posts and so it could be more. > The kind of > theosophy that RichTay, Eldon, and Daniel Caldwell represent is exactly the > kind of mindless pharaseeism that Blavatsky IMO would have loathed. How many villains do we have now? Perhaps we should form our own "Gang of Pharisees"? Betcha we'd get LOTS of members ! But actually, Eldon, Daniel and I have significant disagreements. Quite significant. Yet I don't remember the last time one of them insulted me, or vice versa. In fact, we seem to work pretty well together, have established reasonable boundaries, and have (I think) quite high respect for each other. Wow -- is it possible that a brotherhood exists among those who think quite differently? > She [HPB], > like me, was "quick to loathe". Well, now. How many similarities indeed there truly are between Alexis and HPB. Let's count them, shall we? Why, they are virtually the same person, no? Maybe HPB has come back to teach us all a lesson in brotherhood and kindness. From Richtay@aol.com Mon Apr 29 00:28:08 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 20:28:08 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960428202808_282829607@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: This *is* a Theosophical List. Alan writes, > You may find as much > delusion in the mirror as you find here. In the meantime, although some > of us may also have something to learn, *please* try to cultivate good > manners and politeness to the other subscribers on the list. Alan, are you kidding?!?! Let me get this straight -- YOU are telling ME to cultivate good manners and be polite ! It is only in the last week -- deliberately -- that I have begun responding to some on this list as I and others have been responded to over the past months. After the countless instances of nastiness and jokes at others' expense, coming from a very few on this board, you have the audacity to ask ME to be "polite"? Perhaps you find me disrupting the board? Perhaps you find me insinuating that some of your friends are deluded in their views of Theosophy? Wow -- how novel. Of course I've never experienced THAT phenomenon !! But I ask you -- find the SOURCE of the disruption, and get back to me. But in the meantime, let me refresh your memory as to the kind of "politeness" some are dishing out, and in which you are gleefully joining in: > Drpsionic@aol.com writes > >I am thinking of a contest to pick the biggest asshole in the TS. > > > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 > > Don't tempt me ... > > Alan From Richtay@aol.com Mon Apr 29 00:28:00 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 20:28:00 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960428202800_282829531@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? JRC writes, > Fact is, we have *no* idea why the Adepts choose > some people and not others for "personal training". Do you mean to say > you actually understand the *standards by which their choices are made*?!!! Yes ! HPB left a whole bunch of articles describing what was needed to make even the FIRST STEPS OF APPROACH to the Masters. I assume you have seen her articles on "Mahatmas and Chelas" etc. If not, RUN, don't walk, to the nearest collection of HPB articles. > From all accounts, the spiritual kingdom, when it chooses to > interact directly with the human kingdom, does not do so for the purpose > of enlightening a few humans who might be "ready", but does so in a very > project-specific way; This is an interesting theory -- I'm all ears. What are your reasons for believing this? Honestly, I'm willing to hear you out on this. But at this point, it seems you have entirely missed the main thrust of HPB's work. She dedicated it "FOR THE FEW." > HPB did operate with free will. She ran her own ES, and she set > the criteria for those *she wanted to teach*. And its questionable as to > whether she formed it to "staunch the tide and try to turn it around", as > it was a singular failure if that was its intention. Why is the ES suddently HPB's "free will," while the T.S. is the work of her Masters? Come on ! Besides which, HPB wrote in black and white what the ES was formed was to do. Let me quote so there is no room for equivocation: "The Theosophical Society had just entered upon the fourteenth year of its existence; and if it had accomplished great, one may almost say stupdendous, results on the exoteric and utilitarian plane, it had proved a dead failure on all those points which rank foremost among the objects of its original establishment .... [lots of examples] ... For this reason it was decided to gather the 'elect' of the T.S. and to call them to action. It is only by a select group of brave souls, a handful of determined men and women hungry for genuine spiritual development and the acquirement of soul-wisdom, that the Theosophical Society at large can be brought back to its original lines." Therefore I don't think it is questionable what her intentions were. As to whether it was a failure -- I think we each find our own answer for that. > It was HPB's requirements. And those chosen by HPB were not > necessarily chosen by the "Masters" ... whose criteria seem far wider. > *Edison*, for instance, a FTS, who was, according to the ML, "a good deal > protected by M.", was *not* following the "spiritual-intellectual" > approach, Edison was a member of the ES, and we have the signed diploma to prove it. Why do you assert that HPB could choose people without the Master's approval? Do you think that in such an important matter as who was to lead the occult work of the TS HPB just kind of did her own thing, while the Masters were busy elsewhere? It is certainly possible that many, many people have the proection of the Masters, whether in or out of the TS let alone the ES. What does that prove? My point is that HPB formed the ES at the EXPLICIT direction of her Teachers, and students were guided by Them through HPB. If you don't care to believe it, so what? > Certainly deluded by your standards. But your standards are not > those of the Masters. And how do you know that? For all you know I could be the Maha-chohan Himself, or the lowliest pip-squeak of a neophyte. Why is it that you condemn me for making value judgments based on the writings of HPB and the Masters, and yet presume to judge me and my level of attainment? Why, I could be a Black Magician -- how could you know? > Perhaps after you've lived a few more years, withstood a good > deal more of suffering and involved yourself in the lives of "poor orphan > humanity", you'll understand that those Three Objects, and especially the > First, More judgment from JRC. What is your basis for such condescencion toward me -- that I don't live up to *your* standards? But you are making your *own* standards, and I am trying to grasp what the Masters and HPB have said. If I am inaccurate in so doing, by all means point it out. But your AD HOMINEM tone really doesn't help "wake up" the people you may be trying to reach. From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 29 01:15:01 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 21:15:01 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604290219.WAA03904@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: How do we broadcast theosophy nowadays Dear Jerry, I'm happy for you that you're getting new perspectives from reading Chuck & Alexis. A week or 2 ago, Alexis got quite disgustingly abusive on the subject of CWL. I'm really not going to tolerate that anymore. That man's writings mean a great deal to me, & as a person I revere him. He was my Teacher's Teacher. Harry didn't say CWL was always right, but he surrounded his memory with a great deal of love & affection; he learned from him & assisted him as a young lad; he took care of him at times when he got older, I was told that CWL had a really beautiful relationship with many who knew him; and I just won't tolerate anymore listening to utter garbage about a person who means a lot to me too. I think I have a right. So I don't read Alexis anymore at all. I don't read Chuck either, because I simply don't have time for negative drivel. I want to look at things I can learn something from, or get some sort of positive feeling. Everything Chuck writes is negative. I've been taught, by CWL's pupil, Harry, and also by Serge King, that other people's negative thoughts have an adverse effect. Serge even taught us what to do so that other people's negative statements can glance off. By the same token, I don't look at gruesome murder msyteries on TV or in the movies any more. I can tolerate negativity even less than others, because I was raised in a very negative atmosphere, & it took me years to shake it off. So I don't need it reinforced now. Not even a little bit. If it pleases you, and you've learned a few things from it, well, then, good for you. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. Liesel Member TI From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 29 01:15:08 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 21:15:08 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604290219.WAA03908@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: to Doss re the TS >Even the Great Roman Empire >had its days. Where is it today? It decined and fell into oblivion. > >The house is on fire. Let us awake and do something soon. > > ....doss Doss, I agree with everything you wrote. What do you think we ought to do? I'd really like to hear your ideas, because outside of trying to make a go of TI I do't see any other good possibilities. I was going to say "hire a PR agent". That's been tried, & it was found that it would have to be a person who's also a Theosophist, because anyone else didn't work out well. I think someone at Wheaton was even sent to take a PR course about 10 years ago. When you compare the TS to Rome, you may have a point there. We are taught that civilisations rise & fall. Well, maybe it's the TS's time to go, & something else will arise. The Ancient Wisdom won't die. It may stay buried for a while, but it didn't do that even during the Dark Ages in Europe. It has a way of surviving in the hearts & minds if only of a few people. Really now, what is our asuggestion? Liesle Member TI From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 29 01:15:15 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 21:15:15 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604290219.WAA03915@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List?:JRC's comments: How relevant are these comments? Daniel, You may be on to something. We could start doing missionary work, as the Mormons do. Like at one of our Summer Schools, long time ago, it was suggested that we advertise ourselves by giving free talks on comparative religion, or Budhism, or Theosophy, or the New Age true & false, at neighboring colleges. Another suggestion was to invite a variety of ministers to Lodge meetings, to explain the philosophies or garb, or a number of other items of interest, which they got on a list before they came. That'd broadcast theosophy. Local groups could start local TOS projects, like vegetarian soup kitchens, or Montessori kindergartens. For the large lodges who own houses maybe there could even be midnight basketball, if not, there could for sure be a tutoring program, where 1 parent family kids could get help with their school work while relating to role models. Or maybe somebody could get kids interested in a Theosophical Round Table. Kids need something positive to do these days, anything will help. Anything is better than hanging around street corners, not knowing what to do next & waiting for trouble to happen. I'm not even talking about what Jerry is doing, trying to straighten out abused kids in his home, which is a full time job; Im talking about 1 or 2 afternoons, or evenings a week. If someone starts telling you that's not what Theosophists do, well, it belongs properly under the aegis of the TOS, and that's real easy. Long time ago, when I asked someone at the TOS for a community project to do, the answer came back that I should find my own. I don't think he even wanted a report on it. All you have to do is say it's under the aegis of the TOS, pay your TOS dues & voila. Brotherhood applied in the neighborhood. How about it? Liesel Member TI From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 29 01:15:54 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 21:15:54 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604290220.WAA05257@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Richard Re: raising chidren Dear Richard, If you're talking about battling bureaucrats ... I did 23 years of that, & I pity any child that gets tanged up in it. It's bad enough for the grown ups I tried to help. By "we", I meant our society. We have all the good ideas, & child psychological, -sociological, - physiological research. I just listed a few things amateurs can do to help, in my answer to Daniel. I also just saw an example of what you can do with kids. I belong to the Friends of the Library & we sponsored TV-Turnoff days. To make it easier, we had an activity going on each of the 4 TV-Turnoff Thursdays, & the leaders were Friends members with certain skills. We made sure that there was only a minimum of things to prepare ahead of time. All of the events were well attended by little kids with parents & we all had a ball. We had story telling, at the end of which a state senator came & read the kids a book. He's going to send them all certificates. Then we had crafts night, & they made licorice & fruit loop necklaces, then we had a singalong with Cele playing the guitar, then we had game night. What I'm trying to say is I think part of it is that people don't know what to do with their kids. Part of it is also that everyone works & they don't have time for their kids. One of the women in the Friends group is newly divorced. She now lives near her parents, & her 3rd grader goes to their house after school & they give him cookies & play with him. That's nice for grandparents, & the kid is well taken care of till she gets home from work. I wish I could have done more with my grand kids. They were always out of the country. I think it would help a great deal if someone were in charge of kids who knew what to do with them, until their parents come home from work. Of course, if you have nutty parents who abuse their kids, then that's a diferent ball game. I'm not talking about those kids especially. So generally, when I said "we", I meant all of us collectively. The knowledge & the money is there. It's just not being applied. Liesel From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon Apr 29 02:56:18 1996 Date: 28 Apr 96 22:56:18 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: This *is* a Theosophical List. Message-Id: <960429025618_76400.1474_HHL92-1@CompuServe.COM> >(This is a modern adaptation of Job 38, verses 1ff). Jerry: note the >reference to the Abyss! > >Alan I spotted it right off. Thanks Alan. Jerry S. Member, TI From SeussInUse@gnn.com Sun Apr 28 11:29:25 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 11:25:26 From: SeussInUse@gnn.com (Virginia Behrens) Message-Id: <199604281529.LAA13183@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: SeussInUse@gnn.com (Steve Spaeth) (from www-49-185.gnn.com. 205.188.49.185) Subject: Re: Question about "Facts Underlying Adept Biographies" In message, Sat, 27 Apr 1996 14:58:41 -0400 , Alan writes about a quote from one of G. De Purucker's books as sent by Nick Porreco: >Actually, it is a transliteration, not a translation. The Greek >has "sabachthani" (as rendered into English) as Greek has no >equivalent of the Hebrew/Aramaic "Shin" - so is the >transliteration a Shin or a Samech? The Aramaic Peshitta text has >"Eil, Eil; lmana Shwaqthan" - "My God, My God, for this I was >kept." [Mar Aprem, ~Teach Yourself Aramaic~; Mar Narsai Press, >Trichur, Kerala, India, 1981]. I had thought, when first reading the text Nick sent, that G. De P. had taken the transliteration from the same place in HPB's works where I had found it ("Facts Underlying Adept Biographies" in Collected Writings, volume XIV, p. 137). But, after reading Alan's note above, I checked and found the transliteration for the verb in question as "sabachthani" in HPB's article. To recall my first message, this transliteration, as well as the Greek and Hebrew words, are all in a quote of J. R. Skinner's, "...Source of Measures" as given by HPB (pgs. 146-7). So, I have no idea where G. De P. got his transliterated verb, "shavahhtani". If it holds true that the Aramaic text was not translated back from the Greek (as Skinner did from Greek to Hebrew) then I, personally, will accept this Aramaic verb, "shwaqthan". Although I may never decide if a "?" was or was not intended at the end of "My God, My God, for this I was kept (.) or (?), I can still say with certainty - this would make great comic script. Virginia Behrens TI, TSA From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 29 21:15:29 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 17:15:29 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604292220.SAA11109@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Virginia, Re: to follow through Hi, Virginia, Thanks for your thoughtful answer. I especially like your apt use of the word "tenant". I had thought of it as "consciousness", but that gives a vague image. When you use "tenant", you're clearly describing a being, a tenant, residing within something else. When the tenant leaves, the dwelling places is empty & lifeless, even though a few signs of what was life still stay behind as reminders that here there once was life ... until the reminders decompose. It's like an empty apartment stripped to the walls, but the light switches are still there unused, & a few things are left behind which the tenant didn't want to take along. The picture fits all along the line, until one comes to what Theosophists call the monad. And I'm wondering ... does the tenant reside there, or do you think the monad is the tenant itself? To your question further on, I'd guess, same as you, that the tenant needs to be present "to keep the units of so-called aetheric or astral substance attracted." It makes sense, but it's also conjecture. I have no ESP to prove it's right either. I think, in a way, one can borrow the scientific method to investigate non-physical phenomena, dunno about substance. The best I've come across which one can do is for a number of people who have ESP to view the same subject, or do the same experiment, and then compare notes of what they found. Besant & Leadbeater did that while researching "Occult Chemistry". They used a technique that allowed them to look at very small things. I've heard that modern scientific findings have borne them out. You say non-physical substances change a lot. I wonder how that fits into the puzzle. When you look at the pictures of auras drawn from Leadbeater's descriptions, they're quite different in some of the details from the ones drawn from Dora's descriptions. And yet, I know that Leadbeater taught Dora how to interpet more clearly what she saw, so some of the vision must've been the same, or one wouldn't have been able to learn from the other, & CWL had a number of gifted clairvoyant etc. pupils, whome he taught to better intepret what they saw. But how to capture this into something more concrete? Well, in 1 of the books it mentions that in her younger years the clairvoyant worked with a physician, & the clairvoyant diagnosis was compared with what was found on the X-rays, or during a subsequent operation. I've also read of an experiment where a modern yogi was able to stop his heart for a while, & the result was confirmed, because he was strapped to an electrocardiogram. Incidentally, after the experiment he told the scientists that he could have stopped his heart longer than he did, but someone had told him before the experiment that the cardiogram graph paper was very expensive. So he didn't want to use up too much of it. That's sort of at the edge of it. It proves phenomena more than it does what substance they are made of. I don't know what kind of experiments they're doing at Duke University. Do You? Do you know anything about the experiments the Russians did, are doing, because it seems they didn't deny the existence of ESP the way we did, but instead went right ahead & experimented with it. I understand some scientists are experimenting in this country as well, but they don't very readily admit to it, because it's frowned upon. I wonder whether any of them are coming any closer to what it is. From some of the things my Teacher said, I suppose that etheric material is made up of finer & finer vibes. Liesel >Sat, 27 Apr 1996 12:09:09 -0400, liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. >deutsch) wrote: >>So I thought maybe if I give a couple of quotes we could start a >>discussion going. So I'm trying: >>"In the presence of a corpse, the skeptical physiologist stands >>dumb when asked by his pupil whence came the former tenant of that >>empty box, and whither has it gone." >>"Who has been able to penetrate the secret formation of a body...? >>who has sounded to the bottom the abyss in a grain of sand" which >>"has been studied for thousands of years?" >>"Why should there be an attraction between the molecules of >>matter, & none between those of spirit?" >>"The Hermetic, Orphic, and Pythagorean cosmogonical doctrines, ... >>are all based upon one irrefutable formula, viz. that the Aether >>& Chaos, or, in the Platonic language, mind and matter, were the 2 >>primeval and eternal principles of the universe..." > >These quotes, from my perspective, relate, in part, to non-physical >substance. Out of body experiences have proved to me that humans >have non-physical bodies. These bodies stay in a specific form so >it folows they consist of a substance that coheres. Is this >non-physical substance (aetheric? or astral?) made up of units? If >so, this would mean the non-physical body holds form because the >units of its substance attract each other? On the physical level, >when the tenant leaves the units of physical substance break apart >from each other. The physical units diffuse. > >[This leads to a sure way of knowing if the physical body is empty >or not. See if the physical body rots. Of course our modern noses >can't stand the thought. We freeze and then embalm or burn bodies >before they stink.] > >The attraction of the units of the physical body depend, then, upon >the presence of the tenant. Does the tenant need to be present to >keep the units of so-called aetheric or astral substance attracted? >If so, how many other bonds must be broken and other bodies >dispersed? Dying - what a process! > >I wonder how the make-up of non-physical substance can be >investigated? So far I've found the contributions of people who >see non-physical substance not very helpful. From the little I've >seen, on my own, of these non-physical substances I can understand >why. They change so much! Talk about variability - it's mind >boggling. > >Virginia Behrens TI, TSA > > > From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 30 00:25:05 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 19:25:05 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960429192727.1157e73c@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: TSA Elections - 2 Year Voting Requirement Hi Everybody: The following letter was Faxed by me to John Algeo on the morning of 27th April 1996. I have not yet heard from him as of this writing. I am posting it here as I think all of you need to know about this matter. MK Ramadoss Member, Theosophical Society in America San Antonio Lodge PS: I am copying this to theos-l since there may be TSA members who are on theos-l but not on theos-buds. ============================================= April 27, 1996 John Algeo National President The Theosophical Society in America P.O. Box 270 Wheaton, IL 60189 National Elections Ballots Dear Bro. Algeo The members of TSA have received the ballots for the upcoming election of National Officers. It has come to my attention that members who have not been TSA members for two years as of January 1996 have not received their ballots. These include the members who voted in the last ballot to change the bylaws of TSA. By excluding those who have not been members for two years but who voted in the bylaws change, in effect the two year voting rule is being applied retroactively. It is common knowledge that this kind of retroactive application is considered serious disenfranchisement of the voting rights of the members. I hope this above non mailing of the ballots to the above class of members is an oversight. I would appreciate your clarifying the situation. If in fact it is an oversight, these members should be sent their ballots with greatest urgency so that they can exercise their voting rights in the national election. With fraternal greetings, Yours fraternally, M. K. Ramadoss ==================end of message============== From eldon@theosophy.com Tue Apr 30 10:15:19 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 03:15:19 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960430101519.006e62d0@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TSA Elections - 2 Year Voting Requirement MKR: I was reading your letter to John Algeo regarding the TSA ballots, and think that I can answer your questions. I can tell you what rules were applied to determine which members would be sent a ballot, since I wrote a new program to implement the rules. You also might want to note that I also wrote and ran a report that lists all members, showing who would be sent a mailing. For those that were not to receive a ballot, the report listed the reason(s) why that person was excluded. Why? So that at a later date, if someone wanted to know why they did not get a ballot, they could find out. Without the report, the membership database could change over time, and it might not be possible to determine what a member's records showed at that time. What are the rules? (Note that I don't have the program in front of me, and I'm recalling these from memory.) 1. Someone must be an active member, not having been lapsed for non-payment of dues. 2. We must have a valid mailing address for the member. (Otherwise a mailing label will be generated but not sent out.) 3. The member must not be in the prisoner category. (Prisoners get reduced dues, but don't vote or get "The American Theosophist.") 4. The member must have been a member in good standing for the past two continuous years. This means the member must have joined at least two years ago, and not have let their dues lapse for four-or-more months during that period before being reinstated. > It has come to my attention that members who have not been TSA > members for two years as of January 1996 have not received their > ballots. This should not happen except for one of the above reasons. Such members should contact the membership department and ask why they were excluded from the mailing. The membership department can look at the reason(s) from the eligible-voters report. >These include the members who voted in the last ballot to >change the bylaws of TSA. Since the two-years continuous membership rule was not in effect at that point, you're probably right about this. >By excluding those who have not been members for two >years but who voted in the bylaws change, in effect the two >year voting rule is being applied retroactively. It is >common knowledge that this kind of retroactive application >is considered serious disenfranchisement of the voting >rights of the members. I hope this above non mailing of the >ballots to the above class of members is an oversight. This is a matter of interpretation of the new bylaws. That would be up to the TSA Board to decide. If you want to make a case that people having been members for less than two years but who have already voted be excluded from the new rules, it would have to be quickly made. Based upon the report that was run, it is possible to determine who was excluded from receiving a ballot *solely* based upon the two-year rule. And it would be further possible to narrow them down to those that had joined soon enough to have voted for/against the bylaws earlier in the year. From that list, a second set of labels *could* be generated, if that is what is decided. I'm not, though, involved in the political side of things. My support is simply in providing computer services to the membership department. I *ask* what are the rules, and try to clarify them so that I can accurately program to them. I don't decide *what* they are. But being a database person, I can come up with whatever is needed as people decide things or change their minds. -- Eldon From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Mon Apr 29 04:14:26 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 22:14:26 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? In-Reply-To: <960428202800_282829531@emout10.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 28 Apr 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > JRC writes, > > > Fact is, we have *no* idea why the Adepts choose > > some people and not others for "personal training". Do you mean to say > > you actually understand the *standards by which their choices are made*?!!! > > Yes ! > HPB left a whole bunch of articles describing what was needed to make even > the FIRST STEPS OF APPROACH to the Masters. I assume you have seen her > articles on "Mahatmas and Chelas" etc. If not, RUN, don't walk, to the > nearest collection of HPB articles. Yes, and the Masters left numerous signs that their purpose in starting the TS was *not* to provide a "recruiting" station for people who wanted to become chelas. From ML #2: "To our minds then, these motives, sincere and worthy of every serious consideration from the worldly standpoint, appear -*selfish*... They are selfish because you must be aware that the chief objeect of the TS is not so much to gratify individual aspirations as to serve our fellow man; and the real value of this term "selfish", which may jar upon your ear, has a peculiar significance with us which it cannot have with you; therefore, and to beegin with, you must not accept it otherwise than in the former sense. Perhaps you will better appreciate our meaning when told that in our view the highest aspirations for the welfare of humanity become tainted with selfishness if, in the mind of the philanthropist, there lurks the shadow of desire for self-benefit or a tendency to do injustice, even when these exist unconsciously to himself. Yet you have ever discussed but to put down the idea of a universal Brotherhood, questioned its usefulness, and advised to remodel the T.S. on the principle of a college for the special study of occultism. This, my respected and esteemed friend and Brother-will never do!" > > From all accounts, the spiritual kingdom, when it chooses to > > interact directly with the human kingdom, does not do so for the purpose > > of enlightening a few humans who might be "ready", but does so in a very > > project-specific way; > > This is an interesting theory -- I'm all ears. What are your reasons for > believing this? Honestly, I'm willing to hear you out on this. But at this > point, it seems you have entirely missed the main thrust of HPB's work. She > dedicated it "FOR THE FEW." Yes, but the work of the Masters is clearly dedicated to the "many". > > HPB did operate with free will. She ran her own ES, and she set > > the criteria for those *she wanted to teach*. And its questionable as to > > whether she formed it to "staunch the tide and try to turn it around", as > > it was a singular failure if that was its intention. > > Why is the ES suddently HPB's "free will," while the T.S. is the work of her > Masters? Come on ! Besides which, HPB wrote in black and white what the ES > was formed was to do. Let me quote so there is no room for equivocation: > > "The Theosophical Society had just entered upon the fourteenth year of its > existence; and if it had accomplished great, one may almost say stupdendous, > results on the exoteric and utilitarian plane, it had proved a dead failure > on all those points which rank foremost among the objects of its original > establishment .... [lots of examples] ... For this reason it was decided to > gather the 'elect' of the T.S. and to call them to action. It is only by a > select group of brave souls, a handful of determined men and women hungry for > genuine spiritual development and the acquirement of soul-wisdom, that the > Theosophical Society at large can be brought back to its original lines." > > Therefore I don't think it is questionable what her intentions were. As to > whether it was a failure -- I think we each find our own answer for that. > > Why do you assert that HPB could choose people without the Master's approval? > Do you think that in such an important matter as who was to lead the occult > work of the TS HPB just kind of did her own thing, while the Masters were > busy elsewhere? > > It is certainly possible that many, many people have the proection of the > Masters, whether in or out of the TS let alone the ES. What does that prove? > My point is that HPB formed the ES at the EXPLICIT direction of her Teachers, > and students were guided by Them through HPB. If you don't care to believe > it, so what? ML #28: K.H. to Hume: "...We (the Chiefs and I) entirely repudiate the idea that such was our hope (however we might wish it) in regard to the A.I. Society. The aspiration for brotherhood between our races met no response-nay, it was pooh-poohed from the first-and so, was abandoned even before I had received Mr. Sinnet's first letter. On his part, and from the start, the idea was solely to promote the formation of a kind of club or "school of magic". It was, then, no "proposal" of *ours*, nor were we the "designers of the scheme". Why then, such efforts to show us in the wrong? It was Mad. B. - not *we*, who originated the idea; and it was Mr. Sinnet who took it up. Notwithstanding his frank and honest admission to the effect that being unable to grasp the basic idea of *Universal Brotherhood* of the Parent Society, his aim was but to cultivate the study of occult Sciences, an admission which ought to have stopped at once every further importunity on her part, she first succeeded in getting the consent-a very reluctant one I must say-of her own direct chief, and then my promise of cooperation-as far as I could go. Finally, through my mediation, she got that of our highest CHIEF, to whom I submitted the first letter you honored me with. .... But a "hot-bed of magic" we never dreamt of." This refers to not the ES, but to an earlier attempt along the same lines. From the beginning of the Society there was continual tension between the Master's desires to spread the idea and practice of universal brotherhood, and the desire of the members - even the best of them - to get personal instruction, to gain the opportunity for *personal* admittance into the "mysteries". I do not think there is any evidence that it was *ever* the intention of the Adepts to begin a school of occultism, rather, with reluctance they helped HPB in *her* desire to do so, and *always* added the stipulation that in doing so the work of universal brotherhood - the actual *intention*, the *project*, of the TS - had to remain foremost in the minds of the students. It appears, at least to me, that the Masters continually foresaw the great danger of any such activity ... that rather than expending effort to spread the idea, philosophy and practice of universal brotherhood ... a philosophy the present world clearly *badly*, even desperately, needs articulated ... Theosophy would become little more than people who believed its main activity was the study of occult science, and expended the greatest degree of their efforts in attempts to qualify *themselves* for initiation into the mysteries. > > Certainly deluded by your standards. But your standards are not > > those of the Masters. > > And how do you know that? For all you know I could be the Maha-chohan > Himself, or the lowliest pip-squeak of a neophyte. Why is it that you > condemn me for making value judgments based on the writings of HPB and the > Masters, and yet presume to judge me and my level of attainment? Why, I > could be a Black Magician -- how could you know? This is a delibrate reflection Rich. It is a value judgement based on *my* reading of the writings of the Masters. The point I was attempting to make was that there is a difference between *your* judgements "based" on the writings of HPB and the Masters, and the *actual* judgement of the Masters. Our minds, our range of awareness and comprehension, are smaller, are *subsets* of those of the Masters. Their writings are vast, and one can enter that ocean with any particular perspective, and swimming in it, can attract hundreds of quotations that will back up that perspective - but it is quite another thing altogether to make what (IMO) is a big mistake and believe *our conceptualizations* of the values of the Masters are identical with their *actual* values. > > Perhaps after you've lived a few more years, withstood a good > > deal more of suffering and involved yourself in the lives of "poor orphan > > humanity", you'll understand that those Three Objects, and especially the > > First, > > More judgment from JRC. What is your basis for such condescencion toward me > -- that I don't live up to *your* standards? But you are making your *own* > standards, and I am trying to grasp what the Masters and HPB have said. If I > am inaccurate in so doing, by all means point it out. But your AD HOMINEM > tone really doesn't help "wake up" the people you may be trying to reach. No, I'm not making my "own" standards, anymore than you are. and this was the point. Might it just be possible that someone that has been trying to "grasp what HPB and the Masters have said" for a good decade and a half longer than you have may have come to conclusions different than those you currently hold? Do you not expect *your own* views to be very different a decade from now? Two decades from now? Believe it or not, I've read all the literature you have Rich ... and probably a good deal more as I've been at it just as intensly and for considerably longer. Judge and G de P were quite attractive to me in my 20's. It took considerable time, and a lot of contemplation, before I was even fit to grasp the beginnings of what is truely latent in the idea of Universal Brotherhood. My point in writing that sentence was again to reflect something .. a tone that seems to reside in all your writings. You seem to confuse *your understanding* of the Masters philosophy with *their* understanding of it ... and this is assumed throughout your response here - in which you it is apparently not even conceivable that *your* understanding is not the true one ... and if someone judges you, as you judge others, that person is simply speaking their own opinions, while *you* are judging according to the values of the "Masters". It was not a flame. Nor a judgement. And while you may misunderstand my intention for saying this, it may be possible that you will actually at least partially agree with it a decade from now. And in the same way as you invite me to read the letters of HPB ... I would invite you to begin the contemplation of "Universal Brotherhood" - which in two words (IMO) encompasses and philosophy as vast as anything in the Esoteric Writings - and indeed, enormously more difficult to understand .. and requires a discipline far more rigorous than those required for "personal spiritual growth" to practice. Best Regards (*really*), -JRC From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 29 04:48:27 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:48:27 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429004827_385418293@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Alexis to JRC Alex, First, we make dart boards with the pictures of the Pharisses on them. Second, we tell jokes about them. Third, we ignore them and do our own thing whether they like it or not. Chuck the Barbarian MTIm, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Radha don't allow no thinking around here, Radha don't allow no thinking around here, Well, we don't care what Radha don't allow We're gonna think our thinkin' anyhow, Rahda don't allow no thinking around here." From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 29 04:49:35 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:49:35 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429004933_385418852@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Mary Renault Alex, There is nothing to prevent a novelist from writing accurage history. Thomas Costain did it with his series of books on the Plantagenets. Arrian, incidentally, agrees with Mary Renault and he was no novelist. I can see why you are getting tired of this list. After you do all your postings, do you have any time left to paint? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "round and around and around it goes." From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 29 04:49:49 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:49:49 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429004949_385418982@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Socrates Alex, Shame on you for expecting me to act like one of the pharisees. Here it is. I view an adept as someone with extraordinary preternatural ability who has the ability to control it. They rarely appear directly in history, but work behind the scenes when they bother with politics at all. Being beyond such petty considerations of ethics, morality, good and evil, they are capable of any action which serves their purposes. Adepts are interesting to study, fascinating to look for and never to be trusted, not because they intend malice, but because they are working in areas that are very difficult for ordinary folks to understand. I am inclined to think the big problem with the orthodox theosophical misunderstanding of adeptship is black/white way the older writers had of looking at the world. The split in their minds between the Masters and the Dugpas was the result of getting a glimpse into the broader reality and not being really able to process the information, so they formulated two opposing camps, one nice, one not nice. This has proven unfortunate because it places both out of reach of the aspirant. My personal belief is that many of the people you consider to be adepts were merely very talented people who took advantage of the historical situation in which they found themselves. It is not impossible for a true adept to simply use such people while being totally unknown himself, as my own experiments in the 1980's with political magick have proven. The adepts are out there, but they do not fly carpets, live in villas in the Himalayas and would not waste their time with the likes of the Bishop or George Arundale. And they can be very, very dangerous. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Well, that's another fine mess you've gotten us into." From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 29 04:49:51 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:49:51 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429004951_385419002@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Shasta Alex, Sounds like great fun. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Some nights you just can't get a drink on the cuff anywhere." ST. Serpentine, Epistle to the Greengrocer From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 29 04:49:57 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:49:57 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429004956_385419035@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Pizza????? Alex, Sure, you get this big, huge round pita thingy and cover it with goat cheese... Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 29 04:50:03 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:50:03 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429005001_385419089@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Spook! Alex, See my private post on this one. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker Good Lord! I've run out of quotes! From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 29 04:50:09 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:50:09 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429005007_385419143@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Qoutus Pomicus Alex, I would love to see their faces. I'll bet they're all red with purple blotches by now. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "The more he talked of his morals, the more we counted the spoons." From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 29 04:50:13 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:50:13 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429005012_385419179@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: violence Alex, We will be long buried before these fools even get out of nursery school. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "You must get beyond any concept of right and wrong if you wish to accomplish anything in this world or any other." Charles W. Cosimano From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 29 04:50:19 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:50:19 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429005017_385419235@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Religion Alex, Thanks. You know who I was thinking of when I wrote it. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage." St. Paul From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 29 04:50:23 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:50:23 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429005022_385419276@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: dead adepts Jerry, A little known fact. My teacher in magick was in THE bunker when Berlin fell to the Russians. He walked out through the Russian lines. No one saw him and he found his way to Chicago. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 29 04:50:28 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:50:28 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429005026_385419310@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: your signature to Danny Boy Alex, The nerve of him accusing you of using a Chuckism. You have more than enough Alexisisms. Maybe I should start using some of the real Chuckisms that I don't use on this board. That might cause some hair loss! Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA MG of5 Heretic Troublemaker "Slay them all, the lord knoweth them which are his." Simon de Montfort the Elder From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Apr 29 04:52:58 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:52:58 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Bee's comments, and everything else In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Rudy: Let me but in. There are several things that can be done. 1. Put certain names in your program filter which will direct any messages from the individual(s) directly to trash and you will never even see it. 2. Stop responding to any message that you think is not worth continued discussion. (2) will be very effective if more posters as more people join in and do not give opportunity to continue a message chain. There may be other techniques that work. I would like to hear of any more creative ideas. ....doss PS: Unsubscribeing is not the best answer, IMHO. On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Rodolfo Don wrote: > Alan, > > Can something be done here on theos-l, *without taking sides* on the latest > out of control discussions? > > I had some expectations when I joined theos-l, being a discussion list, but > nothing like this. > > I refuse to take sides on these discussions, but if the quality and > civility of the discussions don't improve, I will have to sign-off. > > Rodolfo Don > > >alexis dolgorukii wrote: > >> > >> At 03:05 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: > >> >>>>>cut for continuity's sake<<<<<<< > >> > You need not ask what the Three Objects have to do with this > >> >list, as I did not assert that anyone needed to agree with my > >> >perspective. your question should more properly, I think, be addressed to > >> >Eldon ... what does acceptance of a "body of doctrines" have to do with > >> >being on this list? It is Rich and Eldon who are trying to define > >> >parameters of discussion, not myself. Frankly, I like the list just as it > >> >is. > >> > Regards, -JRC > >> > > >> > > >> >Good for you JRC. I really think it's time to stand up to bullies. I'm > >> doing so. No one can tell anyone what "Basic Theosophy" is. I have, however, > >> filtered RichTay as he's as useless to talk to as Pat Robertson. The kind of > >> theosophy that RichTay, Eldon, and Daniel Caldwell represent is exactly the > >> kind of mindless pharaseeism that Blavatsky IMO would have loathed. She, > >> like me, was "quick to loathe". This is a good list for it's probably the > >> only semi-Theosophical venues upon which any kind of actual "Free > >> Discussion" is encouraged. All the "Regulation" theosophical societies are > >> bound up in dogmatism and are not for the likes of us. > >> > >> alexis > > > >So there we have it. You have set yourself up as judge and jury on what this > >list should be. Theosophy according to H.S.H. Alexis etc. You accuse Daniel, > >for example, of bullying yet you have been doing just that in a much more > >subtle and insidious way. Systematically making remarks like above on people > >who like a view of Theosophy that you do not subscribe to. This list will be > >for the 'gang of five' very soon and you can all have your sort of "Free > >Discussion" by yourselves. This list has become a major focus for your > >philosophical views and woe be tide anyone who has the temerity to question > >your right to impose yourself on discussions that are really irrelevant to > >your point of view. > >I had my little falling out previously and had to distance myself and have a > >look at myself. I realised that I did resent being given lessons in royal > >protocol and extracts from Who's Who. I was disappointed that someone with > >your wit and standing had to respond in such a manner. I had been very > >interested in your input when you first came on this list as you had such an > >unusual background and were obviously a very intelligent and well read > >person. I am also well aware that you are quite different from the rest of us > >because of you background but that should have enriched this list not turned > >it into the battleground it seems to have become. I have had to come to a way > >of dealing with your responses that do not push my buttons so I do not take > >you seriously anymore and I am rather sorry about that. > >The way you hammer at the establishment will only serve to make them more > >entrenched and I hope Adyar does not get on e-mail because I can just see > >them receiving the benefit of your advise and so getting more convinced that > >theos-l is a danger to them. It is better to woo the opposition and lull them > >into a sense of security and then change their minds when they aren't > >looking. That does not seem to be your way of operating. I am trying to make > >things happen in my neck of the wood and already Theosophy on the Internet is > >being spoken off in negative tones because the rumours of what goes on here > >has reached the ears of quite a few who are not computer oriented. Some of us > >had planned to set up computers at our next Convention and have theos-l > >running for the participants to read but it won't be this list if it remains > >as it is. I am used to it by now but to the ordinary person it would not > >endear them to the idea of TI that we are trying to promote among non > >computer people. I am trying to put my money where my mouth is and it isn't > >easy when I have to overcome the hurdles from here first. > >I will not waste anymore time on this matter as I know it won't make the > >least difference what I think. I am just thankful that another list is in the > >making and I shall transfer myself to that so you won't have to put up with > >naive provincials who can't seem to get the curtsy right. > >RIP Theos-l :-( > >-- > > > > > > > > Bee Brown > > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > > Theos Int & L > > > From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Mon Apr 29 05:08:53 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 22:08:53 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9604290508.AA29964@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: Independent Bodies >JHE to me: >>Jerry, if this is your interpretation of what I wrote, then >>I think our problem is a lot deeper than "semantics." JS > It may well be, Jerry. But how else am I to understand >a body "coming into existence" at the very moment of death? Even >our physical bodies take 9 months of gestation. If you >could give me a quote from MLs or HPB to the effect that >the kama-rupa "comes into existence" at the moment of death, >perhaps that would help me understand where you are coming >from. JHE First of all, Jerry, you are changing your interpretation of what I wrote. The comment you made that led me to suggest that our problem is deeper than semantics was not that a body comes into existence at the "moment of death" but that: ">JHE was implying that after we die, we >will receive a body (kama-rupa) that was either standing >around waiting for us, or made by someone at that instant >in time just for us to inhabit, and until we enter it, it is >entirely independent of us. I don't buy that." JHE Well, Jerry, I don't "buy that" either, and it is very far afield from our original exchange. Below is the original post which I think will make it clear that I did not say this: ----------------------------------------------------------- [post from April 24th] >JHE >>> For HPB, bodies are independent entities that >>>come into existence either at the death of the physical body, >>>or through an extraordinary act of will. > >JS >>This is certainly true for the kama-rupa, but not so >>for all bodies--the mayavi-rupa being used during life by those >>who know how. > >JHE > Yes--as I wrote above--"through an extraordinary act of >will." ____________________________________________________________ JHE As you can see here, you were actually in agreement with me at the time, and only wanted to make the point that the Mayavi rupa is used during life. In response to your correction, I responded by quoting myself to point out that I had already covered that point. Also, notice that there is no mention of pre-existing bodies "standing around waiting for us." Now to continue quoting this same post: ------------------------------------------------------------ [continuation of the April 24th post] >JHE >>> "Mental body" would >>>also be an incorrect equivalent of "manas," because the they >>>do not have independent existences as entities. > >JS >>You have lost me here. No bodies, however we >>want to define them, have "independent existences." > >JHE > You lost me too. You already admitted in your first >comment above that the kama rupa is an independent entity that >comes into [independent] existence after the death of the >physical body. ---------------------------------------------------------------- JHE Now here, you seem to be balking at an earlier point that you had already agreed upon. Therefore, you appear to be contradicting what you had already accepted earlier. But still, please note that there is still no mention of pre-existing bodies "standing around waiting for us:" JS >I know you don't care for G de P, but let me quote him >now anyway: JHE Who told you that I don't care for Purucker? The person with whom I studied Theosophy for eighteen years was a Purucker student, and a student of Boris de Zirkoff (who was one of GdeP's students). Our classes were regularly attended and guest lectured by (among others) Boris deZirkoff, Geoffrey Barborka and Gordon Plummer--all of whom studied under Purucker. It is hardly conceivable that I would spend 18 years voluntarily studying a school of Theosophy that I did not enjoy. JS (quoting Purucker) >"The kama-rupa, which becomes the vehicle for the >unconscious or quasi-conscious entity in the kama-loka, is >actually forming constantly during the life of the individual: >in other words it is in a continual state of modification or >change, these changes beginning when the incarnated entity as a >child first feels itself conscious of mental and emotional >affections, attractions, etc." >FOUNTAIN-SOURCE OF OCCULTISM p. 579 JHE To the best of my understanding, your selected quote neither contradicts what I had written to you, nor does it contradict what I understand Blavatsky to have written on the subject. JS Now my own experiences and study dovetail with G de P. If HPB or the Mahatmas say differently, then please give me a quote or two, and maybe we can thrash it out as to why G de P differs so much. JHE Jerry, why after declining to discuss CWL and HPB with me, do you want to "thrash it out" concerning GdeP and HPB? JS >As you can see from the above quote, the kama-rupa is with us >all of our life, truly becoming the "kama-rupa" only after >severance of the sutratman. JHE Jerry, it is difficult to diagnose misreadings over the e- mail, but my guess is that you are confusing the *principle* called "kama rupa" (more correctly just called "kama"), with the *body* called "kama rupa." I admit that the distinction is not very clear in the GdeP quote you selected, and if not read carefully, it would be very easy to misread this passage. But GdeP is indeed making that distinction between the kama rupa principle and the kama rupa body here. This is why he uses the phrase "....*truly* becoming the `kama rupa' *only* after severance of the sutratman." JS >Guess what, Jerry? Since it is here, now, during life, it is >not too great a step to suggest that we can shift our >consciousness to it during life, and use it. And this is >exactly what we all do; magicians consciously, other folks >unconsciously. > Jerry S. > Member, Ti JHE Jerry, I don't know what magicians do, nor do I particularly care. But if you are alluding to "astral vision" then I think you are confusing HPB's kama with CWL's "astral body." If you are refering to astral projection, then you are confusing the kama rupa with the mayavi rupa. ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Apr 29 05:10:38 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:10:38 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: How do we broadcast theosophy nowadays In-Reply-To: <199604290219.WAA03904@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > Dear Jerry, > > I'm happy for you that you're getting new perspectives from reading Chuck & > Alexis. > > A week or 2 ago, Alexis got quite disgustingly abusive on the subject of > CWL. I'm really not going to tolerate that anymore. That man's writings mean > a great deal to me, & as a person I revere him. He was my Teacher's Teacher. > Harry didn't say CWL was always right, but he surrounded his memory with a > great deal of love & affection; he learned from him & assisted him as a > young lad; he took care of him at times when he got older, I was told that > CWL had a really beautiful relationship with many who knew him; and I just > won't tolerate anymore listening to utter garbage about a person who means a > lot to me too. I think I have a right. So I don't read Alexis anymore at all. ----------------- MKR: Liesel: I am delighted to see your message. The facts of the matter are (1) here is a man (CWL) who sacrificed most of his prime of his life to Theosophy (2) thousands of people have benefitted by his work. Even to this day there are Theosophists who are benefitting from his works. (3) He gave the world JK and who in turn has affected much larger number of people. Let us give credit and gratitude where it is due. It is easy to critize anybody. One of the key factors that I always keep in mind is what the other person has sacrified for the good of the many and compare it to what my sacrifices are (tiny compared to many of the others). BTW, who is Harry? I do not recognize his last name or background. ....doss > > I don't read Chuck either, because I simply don't have time for negative > drivel. I want to look at things I can learn something from, or get some > sort of positive feeling. Everything Chuck writes is negative. I've been > taught, by CWL's pupil, Harry, and also by Serge King, that other people's > negative thoughts have an adverse effect. Serge even taught us what to do so > that other people's negative statements can glance off. By the same token, I > don't look at gruesome murder msyteries on TV or in the movies any more. I > can tolerate negativity even less than others, because I was raised in a > very negative atmosphere, & it took me years to shake it off. So I don't > need it reinforced now. Not even a little bit. > > If it pleases you, and you've learned a few things from it, well, then, good > for you. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. > > Liesel > Member TI > > From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Apr 29 05:48:53 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:48:53 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Bee's comments In-Reply-To: <3184F9B4.6C4@whanganui.ac.nz> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Bee: I thoroughly enjoyed your message. You are on target. Just stay in here and I am an eternal optimist and I am sure things will change. Whether it is next hour, next day, next week or next month, I do not know. ....doss On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Bee Brown wrote: > alexis dolgorukii wrote: > > > > At 03:05 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >>>>>cut for continuity's sake<<<<<<< > > > You need not ask what the Three Objects have to do with this > > >list, as I did not assert that anyone needed to agree with my > > >perspective. your question should more properly, I think, be addressed to > > >Eldon ... what does acceptance of a "body of doctrines" have to do with > > >being on this list? It is Rich and Eldon who are trying to define > > >parameters of discussion, not myself. Frankly, I like the list just as it > > >is. > > > Regards, -JRC > > > > > > > > >Good for you JRC. I really think it's time to stand up to bullies. I'm > > doing so. No one can tell anyone what "Basic Theosophy" is. I have, however, > > filtered RichTay as he's as useless to talk to as Pat Robertson. The kind of > > theosophy that RichTay, Eldon, and Daniel Caldwell represent is exactly the > > kind of mindless pharaseeism that Blavatsky IMO would have loathed. She, > > like me, was "quick to loathe". This is a good list for it's probably the > > only semi-Theosophical venues upon which any kind of actual "Free > > Discussion" is encouraged. All the "Regulation" theosophical societies are > > bound up in dogmatism and are not for the likes of us. > > > > alexis > > So there we have it. You have set yourself up as judge and jury on what this > list should be. Theosophy according to H.S.H. Alexis etc. You accuse Daniel, > for example, of bullying yet you have been doing just that in a much more > subtle and insidious way. Systematically making remarks like above on people > who like a view of Theosophy that you do not subscribe to. This list will be > for the 'gang of five' very soon and you can all have your sort of "Free > Discussion" by yourselves. This list has become a major focus for your > philosophical views and woe be tide anyone who has the temerity to question > your right to impose yourself on discussions that are really irrelevant to > your point of view. > I had my little falling out previously and had to distance myself and have a > look at myself. I realised that I did resent being given lessons in royal > protocol and extracts from Who's Who. I was disappointed that someone with > your wit and standing had to respond in such a manner. I had been very > interested in your input when you first came on this list as you had such an > unusual background and were obviously a very intelligent and well read > person. I am also well aware that you are quite different from the rest of us > because of you background but that should have enriched this list not turned > it into the battleground it seems to have become. I have had to come to a way > of dealing with your responses that do not push my buttons so I do not take > you seriously anymore and I am rather sorry about that. > The way you hammer at the establishment will only serve to make them more > entrenched and I hope Adyar does not get on e-mail because I can just see > them receiving the benefit of your advise and so getting more convinced that > theos-l is a danger to them. It is better to woo the opposition and lull them > into a sense of security and then change their minds when they aren't > looking. That does not seem to be your way of operating. I am trying to make > things happen in my neck of the wood and already Theosophy on the Internet is > being spoken off in negative tones because the rumours of what goes on here > has reached the ears of quite a few who are not computer oriented. Some of us > had planned to set up computers at our next Convention and have theos-l > running for the participants to read but it won't be this list if it remains > as it is. I am used to it by now but to the ordinary person it would not > endear them to the idea of TI that we are trying to promote among non > computer people. I am trying to put my money where my mouth is and it isn't > easy when I have to overcome the hurdles from here first. > I will not waste anymore time on this matter as I know it won't make the > least difference what I think. I am just thankful that another list is in the > making and I shall transfer myself to that so you won't have to put up with > naive provincials who can't seem to get the curtsy right. > RIP Theos-l :-( > -- > > > > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L > > From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 29 06:33:39 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:33:39 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960429063339.00693bf8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Help them up! At 05:27 PM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960428082320.006d9224@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>>Ah Alan, very true. But what happens when it's a "rubber Crutch"? >> >>alexis > >Help them up when they fall over ... what else? > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >And that, Alan my dear, is what I've been doing for many long years. My aim, and my efforts, intend to help them not "fall" in the first place. I want not simply to take away the rubber crutch, but take away the need for any crutch at all. And that's what I'm trying to do provide a valid existential replacement. alexis dolgorukii the eclectic theosopher veritas-vincit-omnia Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Priest Member Theosophy International, FTSA., "The Gang of Five". From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 29 07:04:20 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:04:20 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960429070420.00689028@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Lost? At 05:26 PM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <960428050155_384761599@emout09.mail.aol.com>, >Richtay@aol.com writes >>> I think even you will take my meaning when I sign myself formally: >>> >>> H.S.H. Alexis Alexandreivitch, Prince Dolgorukii of Uriev > >Alexis - you've completely lost me on this one! > >Should I call Oprah? > >Alan :-) >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan: And you've lost me vis a vis "Oprah". I assume you mean Oprah Winfrey but the connection is lost because I've never watched that show or anything even remotely like it. So I haven't the vaguest idea what you are referring to. Now, as to what I meant: Daniel has been "bugging" me for a genealogy, allegedly to trace my connection with H.P.B., and I very cooperatively gave him exactly what he said he needed and wanted. I traced H.P.B.'s relationship to the Dolgorukii Family and to me personally, and gave his a short but full synopsis of the Dolgorukii Heritage H.P.B. shares, and suggestions as how that made her what she was. But, it also makes me what I am. And I am not "your ordinary guy", anyone who associates with Royalty takes the risk of someday trespassing on the very subtle but never the less distinct "line" that is drawn around us. One crosses that line at great peril to the relationship, if any, that existed. We may be "out of power" and "out of style" at this moment, but my ancestors ruled one third of the earth's landmass as absolute rulers, and with Russia in the complete anarchic state it is at present, we may yet rule it again. In the message to me which received my response and my formal signature, Daniel had just gone too far. As you know we Dolgorukii have a low threshold of irritation and he pushed me over the line. So I responded by drawing that line a little more clearly and to indicate that the conversation had gone beyond the bounds of propriety and that I was no longer feeling "friendly". "I am that I am" and nothing can or will ever change that. Now what really astonishes me is this" these people are Theosophists. They allegedly believe in both Karma and Reincarnation. If either of those conceptions are valid, I am obviously both where and what I am not accidently but as a result of Karma and evolution. Now, quite some time ago Bee Brown made an utterly gratuitously vicious remark anent Prince Charles not being as important as a Black Rugby player. To me that wasn't a simple observation but a distinct attempt to insult everyone like Prince charles and show how important she was by comparison. Now as you know Prince Charles, like H.P.B. is my fourth cousin, ergo I was just a touch "miffed" on his behalf. I also don't see the need for gratuitous insult. The other thing that really bugs me here,is that these people seem interested ONLY in that aspect of me. I have spent over 40 years busting my butt in the human rights movement. I worked with Martin Luther King back when no one was interested in him, I started campaigning against Jim Crow long before it was either fashionable or safe to do so. I was very welcome in the movement because my impeccable social connections earned me a leeway that others did not have. I did how ever, not simply "work my butt off" but risked the poor thing entirely several times. But for a quirk of fate, I'd have died with my friends Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner in Philadelphia, alabama but fate intervened and I was sent elsewhere to do other aspects of the voter registration drive. As you also know I've been actively involved in the Gay Liberation movement since the early 1950's, it too got a little "hairy" at times, on top of this, I'm a well respected artist, and a teacher with students all over this globe, as well as a psychological=spiritual counselor who works very hard for free. And all these people can do is resent me for my background and direct inquisitions to me concerning it. I am tired of it, the line has been passed and repassed, and I will not put up with it any longer. Over a half century in hiding and I come out of that occultation joyously to find myself resented for being myself. Bah Humbug. I am not taking this out on you Alan, but I consider you a good friend and I really needed someone to express myself to. fondly alexis etc. From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 29 07:10:50 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:10:50 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960429071050.00690a60@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: dead adepts At 04:04 PM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >Chuck: >>... only an adept can kill an adept. > > I think there is some truth in what Chuck says. >Usually when an Adept dies, by anyone's hand, it is >because they let them do it, for whatever reason. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Usually yes, but hardly "always" alexis From Richtay@aol.com Mon Apr 29 07:08:23 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 03:08:23 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960429030823_480416105@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? JRC writes, > Might it just be possible that someone that has been > trying to "grasp what HPB and the Masters have said" for a good decade > and a half longer than you have may have come to conclusions different > than those you currently hold? Wow. Wish I'd never given my age out on this list, so that it would not continually be flung back in my face. I know many people in their eighties that agree with me. That doesn't make me (and them) right -- or wrong. Nor does your age or your length of time of study make your position inherently any more reasonable or unreasonable. Your quotes are good ones, and I will concede that HPB and the Masters were not always identical in mind and intention. And I will concede that universal brotherhood is the first, last and central platform of the Masters work -- now, before, and always. But the point I am trying to make is not I think what you are arguing against. My point is not tht Theosophy was ever FOR the few, but that only the FEW are able to grasp what is being taught, and for them HPB gave herself entirely. Several on this board like to reiterate AD NAUSEUM that Theosophy has no doctrines. Well, if by that is meant "the Theosophical Society," this is quite true. Almost anyone has a right to call themselves Theosophists if they so choose, based purely upon the three Objects. I am NOT arguing against that, I have no problem with it. But the Masters state time and again that They have the true doctrines, and that Their countless centuries of work has produced a DISTINCT body of knowledge and doctrine. The "many" in the Theosophical movement are certainly welcome to believe what they like. The "few" will actually want to go beyond the loose restrictions of the T.S. and actually study the SPECIFIC doctrines of Theosophy PER SE. This is, I think, what Eldon has been trying to communicate. It is not some kind of "forced" acceptance, and I have never used the word "heresy" or "blasphemer" against any one on this list. Those words were first used against me, and then were taken up as the Cause for the "Gang" to fight against. But all I am saying is that the Masters have what They consider to be the truths about things, and have endeavored to provide those "few" of us who will have it, the barest beginnings of an inkling of what those truths contain. Those in the ES were privy to more than others, and the Inner Group to even more. Doubtless good old Damodar and Judge got even more info than the Inner Group -- but who is to say? JRC, we are not fighting about universal brotherhood, but about what Theosophy is. And it is not about control, because we each concede to the other perfect freedom to think as he likes. But perhaps we are arguing over what exactly HPB delivered to the masses -- theories, facts, or something in between? Perhaps you use "Theosophy" as a word to indicate the search for truth altogether. But I use it to indicate that knowledge which the Masters have, a tiny bit of which was delivered to us through HPB. This was not the final word, and I think to the degree each of us follows the path you are pointing out -- UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD -- to that degree more light will be given, either through our own Higher natures, or through Those Who Know. But in any case, what I object to is the continual dismissal of the teachings of HPB and the belittling of her Teachers, who tried Their best to give out to us as much as we were ready for. Perhaps They gave too much ?? ( I am not making an oblique reference necessarily to YOU ...) In any case, when I say "Theosophy" I mean Their knowledge, and as much of it as we pygmies can grasp of it. From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 29 07:17:44 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:17:44 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960429071744.0069f928@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: comparative theosophy At 05:00 PM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alan, >By all means add it. But by the time we all through adding things we will >have very big objects. :-) > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"To read quotations is a waste of time" Anonymous > >To have no opinion that isn't a quote is an even bigger waste of time - the eclectic theosopher strikes again! From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 29 07:18:41 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:18:41 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960429071841.0069a0ac@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: feed me At 05:01 PM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Have you forgetten what the English do to fish? They leave the bones in. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"Teach a man to fish and he will make up stories." > >As I only eat smoked salmon it isn't a problem! alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 29 07:22:48 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:22:48 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960429072248.0069895c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Forgot something ??? At 05:01 PM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >That ain't what Crowley said! > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"Love is the Law, Love under will, AN IT HARM NONE, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of >the Law." > Check your various Crowley books, I find all three quotes in various places depending on the condition of the Master Therion's piles that day. alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 29 07:27:12 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:27:12 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960429072712.0069915c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: feed me At 05:22 PM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >Some vegetarians don't eat fish. I am one of them - nothing to do with >being English. Until recent years, the British Isles were surrounded by >them,++ especially cod, but over-fishing has done untold damage. >There's a strong case for not eating fish on conservation grounds, but >there are problems with the rest of Europe and "rights". Maybe one day >the English who do eat fish will get the plentiful and inexpensive >supplies we used to have ... > >Alan > >++ Fish, not vegetarians. >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >But Michael isn't a vegetarian. I agree with you by the way about over-fishing.What happened to Cod in England has happened to Mackeral in New England. By the way, if everyone became vegetarians in an instant, I think it would do the animal population a world of harm Think about what the disappearance of the market would do to the animals maintained ONLY to supply that market. alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 29 07:33:58 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:33:58 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960429073358.0068d548@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Alexis to JRC At 06:06 PM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960428184412.006c51cc@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>7. What shall we do? >> >>alexis > >Aren't we doing it? > >Alan (see below) >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Aren't we just? But I was hoping for the bigger "we"! alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 29 07:36:40 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:36:40 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960429073640.0069894c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Dan on Statistical Significance At 06:11 PM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: >>Jerry, >>"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." >>What does that say about people who use them? > > They are all doing well, on Madison Ave. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Don't forget Capitol Hill! alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 29 07:58:53 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:58:53 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960429075853.006a07e8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: JRC's comments are very relevant indeed! At 09:24 PM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote: Let's just see. since coming onto this list, I have been accused of "heresy". "Blasphemy" and being a "anarchist", and when I finally am driven to respond to the people I believe are responsible, by saying that suhc accusations result from "mindless pahraseeism" I am suddenly accused of "calling people nmes gratuitously"? Give me a break! We were Chrsitened "The Gang of four", which is certainly not a compliment, by one of the group to which I referred. That we have chosen to flaunt the insult, I do not feel to be a bad thing. It's like Gay people calling themselves Queers. Daniel, I submit you cannot have it both ways, you cannot bully someone and then complain when they fight back. And I am not just talking about your continual sniping at me since I first subscribed to this list. You do this to everyone. You're constantly demanding "references and citations" in support of statements that may be opinion or may be the result of long study. I cannot believe you are so naif as not to realize tht what you're doing is very subtly implying that other people have neither valid knowledge or valid opinions. I'm not the only person miffed with you and you know it very well. You are a very coercive person, and as far as I can ascertain, you have never made even the slightest attempt to grant plausability to the opinions of others. I have literally "stood on my head" to achieve some kind of modus vivendi with you and you will not let me. I have cooperated with you in the matter of my genealogy to the extent that it is your business, and yet you accuse me of being uncooperative. I have atempted to explain my point of view to you repeatedly and am continually acused of "not being responsive". In the last few days I have written responses to you any number of times in which I have attempted to answer every question you ask. The result? As far as I can see it, you ignore everything I do or say and continue with the same old accusations. The people on this list are obviously following these "strings" of ours and how long do you think you can keep it up. Except for Bee Brown to whom I can obviously do no right and who I guess thinks I'm a really "bad" person, most of the people on this list don't think so, even some with whom I regularly disagree. I have to ask you this. Why is it that I can have reasonable and polite discussions with Eldon Tucker when he and I disagree on almost everything? Why is it that he and I can strongly disagree and remain on a cordial basis? Why don't I irritate him the way I obviously do irritate you? We all started off on the same basis. If I can have good discussions with eldon and with Jerry schuler with whom I also don';t always agree, why is it that I'm so awful where you're concerned? Thoughts to ponder. alexis > > From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 29 08:04:02 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 01:04:02 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960429080402.006aa4fc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Mantram? At 12:49 AM 4/29/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >First, we make dart boards with the pictures of the Pharisses on them. >Second, we tell jokes about them. >Third, we ignore them and do our own thing whether they like it or not. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTIm, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"Radha don't allow no thinking around here, >Radha don't allow no thinking around here, >Well, we don't care what Radha don't allow >We're gonna think our thinkin' anyhow, >Rahda don't allow no thinking around here." > >Chuck: Is that the Mantram for the "Group of five"? alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 29 08:15:43 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 01:15:43 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960429081543.0069b568@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: etc. At 12:53 AM 4/29/96 -0400, you wrote: Chuck: As you now, I have anything but an orthodox approach to adept hood, but I must say that your definition is as far from mine as CWL's were. How did you develop these ideas, what is your basis for assuming that people you've never heard of exist and do "secret things"? I need to have a lot more out of you before i can begin to consider what you say as possibly valid. I think I've been entirely open and clear with you on what I think about adepts and why. In fact my view of them is so entirely demythologized that you view my lists of adeptii as just very talented people, but that's exactly what I think them to be, with an "x" factor built in. You will find out about the "x" factor when Connections is finished. But i will say this. None of them is a Homo Sapiens. alexis > > > From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 29 08:16:32 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 01:16:32 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960429081632.00698968@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Shasta At 12:54 AM 4/29/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Sounds like great fun. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"Some nights you just can't get a drink on the cuff anywhere." ST. >Serpentine, Epistle to the Greengrocer > >It is, and it will be! alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 29 08:20:18 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 01:20:18 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960429082018.006abf30@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: your signature to Danny Boy At 12:58 AM 4/29/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >The nerve of him accusing you of using a Chuckism. You have more than enough >Alexisisms. >Maybe I should start using some of the real Chuckisms that I don't use on >this board. That might cause some hair loss! > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA MG of5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"Slay them all, the lord knoweth them which are his." Simon de Montfort the >Elder > >Here we go again: It was The Bishop of Beauvais (the Papal Legate) who said that TO Simon de Montfort (guess what? You're right!)at the seige of Toulouse, during the Crusade against the Cathers. alexis From poulsen@dk-online.dk Mon Apr 29 13:15:55 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 11:15:55 -200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB35C4.4D9FC8C0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: Bee?s comments, and everything else Encoding: 60 TEXT Dear all, in the latest 2 weeks I have seen (some of them private) messages from about 10 people planning or in the process of unsubscribing to this list. As I feel affections for several of them this is very painful to me. This is NOT merely their own problem - every time a group of people communicates daily, especially on spiritual subjects, they are bound to have a great effect on each other. It is my opinion that in these last weeks we have reached a low ebb of common decency and mutual respect. It is extremely sad to watch these daily accusations and allegations. I am almost indifferent to attacks on myself, but not so with regard to my friends. Every day seems to start with a blow in the heart region (I read my mail in the morning), and the affects of staying here seems sinister. Having said that, I would like to add that to merely leave seems to be a unsatifying solution. Similar problems are likely to arise elsewhere. The personal attacks here are nothing compared to the environment of the news-groups like alt.buddhism.tibetan. I have seen serious people, even a lama from Tibet, trying to start a serious thread, again and again being answered by a choir of disgusting, sexual proposals. Leaving for another theosophical list (I have already subscribed to the new ones, but have no intention of leaving here) will only move the problem. Surely most people here will subscribe as well. We are left with the problem of solving such problems - since they are likely to arise again and again. I have already employed the 2 solutions below for myself - only I "filter" myself the mail, I delete manually al least half the arriving posts without reading them. I think it a pity that the thread system almost disappeared from here, many contributors name each reply individually and as a consequence one has to read all posts, to be sure to reply the posts directed at oneself . So many apologies if I now and then fail to respond. In friendship and a beginning frown, Kim ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------ Doss: >Rudy: >Let me but in. There are several things that can be done. >1. Put certain names in your program filter which will direct any >messages from the individual(s) directly to trash and you will never even >see it. >2. Stop responding to any message that you think is not worth continued >discussion. >(2) will be very effective if more posters as more people join in and do >not give opportunity to continue a message chain. >There may be other techniques that work. I would like to hear of any more >creative ideas. ....doss >PS: Unsubscribeing is not the best answer, IMHO. From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 29 12:45:03 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 08:45:03 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429084503_102600835@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? Alan, Besides, just think of the karmic merit they build up by having to read our inanities and sad attempts at humor. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "More slack!" Bob Dobbs From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 29 12:46:05 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 08:46:05 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429084604_102601200@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: more responses from Alexis Alan, Don't get him started. None of us will ever hear the end of it. :-) Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "And it came to pass that the Great Heresiarch came out of the west and said unto Jerusalem 'Let it be returned to the muck from whence it came. And Lo the sea came ashore and washed all of Palestine into the Mediterranean and peace returned to the earth." The Book of St. Preposterous From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 29 12:46:13 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 08:46:13 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429084613_102601247@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Wilting Alan, I have the Book of Lies on disk that I downloaded from the web. Would you like a copy? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "And the donuts were truly holy." The Acts of Alice Horton From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Apr 29 12:46:19 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 08:46:19 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429084617_102601290@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The Ol' Toad Spell Jerry, They blamed me first and who else on this list besides, you, Alex and me knows how to do it? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "And the moon became the color of a bloody mary, which meant the Prophet had had a little too much that night." The Acts of St. Serpentine From blafoun@azstarnet.com Mon Apr 29 15:08:28 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 08:08:28 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199604291508.IAA02157@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: JRC's comments are very relevant indeed!--Thoughts for Alexis and others Alexis wrote in part as follows: (My reply is below. Daniel.) > >Daniel, I submit you cannot have it both ways, you cannot bully someone and >then complain when they fight back. And I am not just talking about your >continual sniping at me since I first subscribed to this list. You do this >to everyone. You're constantly demanding "references and citations" in >support of statements that may be opinion or may be the result of long >study. I cannot believe you are so naif as not to realize tht what you're >doing is very subtly implying that other people have neither valid knowledge >or valid opinions. I'm not the only person miffed with you and you know it >very well. You are a very coercive person, and as far as I can ascertain, >you have never made even the slightest attempt to grant plausability to the >opinions of others. I have literally "stood on my head" to achieve some kind >of modus vivendi with you and you will not let me. I have cooperated with >you in the matter of my genealogy to the extent that it is your business, >and yet you accuse me of being uncooperative. I have atempted to explain my >point of view to you repeatedly and am continually acused of "not being >responsive". In the last few days I have written responses to you any number >of times in which I have attempted to answer every question you ask. The >result? As far as I can see it, you ignore everything I do or say and >continue with the same old accusations. The people on this list are >obviously following these "strings" of ours and how long do you think you >can keep it up. Except for Bee Brown to whom I can obviously do no right and >who I guess thinks I'm a really "bad" person, most of the people on this >list don't think so, even some with whom I regularly disagree. I have to ask >you this. Why is it that I can have reasonable and polite discussions with >Eldon Tucker when he and I disagree on almost everything? Why is it that he >and I can strongly disagree and remain on a cordial basis? Why don't I >irritate him the way I obviously do irritate you? We all started off on the >same basis. If I can have good discussions with eldon and with Jerry schuler >with whom I also don';t always agree, why is it that I'm so awful where >you're concerned? >Thoughts to ponder. > >alexis Alexis, Your characterization of what I do or don't do, I will let each person on Theos-l decide for themselves whether it is accurate or not. I would simply suggest that the interested person go back and read the content of what I have written to you over the last month or so. Until recently I did not know that you were upset with me.I had sent you a copy of my book, etc. But starting several days ago, you seemed really put out with Rich Taylor and then it seemed you turned your displeasure on me. As far as I know I have not called you names or anything like that. And what's wrong with asking you for more details on a statement you've made or asking you for a quotation or citation. Now if you don't want to provide the information, etc,, then fine. I won't waste my time asking for it. But I thought this was a DISCUSSION group..... As for asking for the original source, when someone says HPB taught this or CWL was accused of that, is it so unreasonable to ask for the source for this general statement? This is my modus operandi and I sometimes drive myself crazy, but I believe it is a good way to get to the heart of the matter. If your statement is not just based on a simple quotation, but is the result of study or something else, would it not also be helpful to give a short explanation of that and try to convey some of your reasoning BEHIND the bald statement. Maybe you are correct in some of what you say about HPB, her books, etc., maybe you're not, but how can I or anyone else determine that if you don't share some of that with the rest of the group. I would hope that theos-l could be a place where those who would like to learn more could in fact do so. Again maybe Theos-l is not a discussion group where the players involved can share their opinions, insights, etc. In the recent dialogue between Jerry S and Jerry HE, one would say HPB taught this and the other one might say HPB said that. Since this is a discussion list with almost 90 people on board, I believe a few people on this list might have appreciated HPB's own words or some reference to where her words could be found. This is why I suggested to both Jerry HE and Jerry S that they should reference their sources since the issue being discussed was whether there were differences between what HPB and CWL taught on the subject. I have studied HPB for years, but in some of the comments by both Jerrys I had no idea exactly what they meant or were referring to when they said HPB taught or CWL said. Now if they don't want to cite the exact source, okay. But it makes it difficult for anyone else [at least for me!] who wants to really follow the thread of discussion and TRY to understand the content of what is being said. Alexis, in summary, I have many times (not all the time) enjoyed reading what you have written and in fact you have presented many interesting and even thought-provoking ideas. You certainly have made Theos-l sometimes a more exciting place. But you yourself recently said that you admired HPB for she challenged authority, etc. Well, if HPB was here today on Theos-l, might not she challenge some of my opinions, or some of your statements or something Eldon or Rich or whoever might say? I would suspect that she would. Maybe each of us on Theos-l (at least those who participant) need to take a deep breath (as JRC wisely counseled) and try to take a step or two back and not be caught up in any emotions that may distort our perceptions,etc. Surely each of us can take some heat (if that if what we perceive it to be) from others on this list. IF WE CAN GIVE IT, THEN WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE IT. Or as they say, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. HPB challenged entrenched dogmas and ideas of her day. She was willing to turn up the heat. In turn, what was she to expect? On Theos-l, with such diversity of opinion, what can one expect but some heat, sometimes scorching heat? But why can't the heat be directed at the ideas, instead of at people on the other side of the discussion. For example, Rich Taylor has been criticized a number of times on this list for his age. Oh, when you are older, Rich, you will see my point of view and its validity. Maybe or maybe not. But what is this, but not a not so subtle reference to Rich's supposed immaturity of thought. What does such a reference really prove? Maybe I'm 74 and I agree with Rich. Win your supposed "opponent" to your side by showing with reason, etc. the superiority or the truthfulness of your ideas. Focus on IDEAS not the person who conveys the idea. [ I betcha that there are people on Theos-l and out there in the real world who would agree with Alexis' ideas about HPB's anthopogenesis.] Therefore focus on the idea not the person. Does the idea or statement merit attention, approval,rejection, etc. regardless of who wrote or said it. Food for thought, Daniel From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 29 18:08:00 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 11:08:00 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960429180800.00697330@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? At 08:47 AM 4/29/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alan, >Besides, just think of the karmic merit they build up by having to read our >inanities and sad attempts at humor. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"More slack!" Bob Dobbs > >What is really beginning to disturb me is that there are people who regard humor (even sadly lacking attempts at humor), as negative and "out of place". I must be totally misled as to the purposes of lists like this which I assumed (falsely apparently) were avenues for one on one contact. Humor, and nonsense, are part of human contact and interactions. It seems to me that humorless folks have caused much of humanity's problems. Now, please explain: What does "more slack" mean, and is there really a "Bob Dobbs"? That's the problem with being an intellectual sometimes one loses contact with the vernacular. I am seriously considering "signing-off" this list. I can keep in touch with people I care for, like you, by private posting. If I am as much of a problem as I'm being accused of being, and if I'm "dominating" the board, then I can easily find something else to do with the time...paint for instance, or work on "Connections - Connections". As to the "Concordance" I still think it would be a good idea, but I am also beginning to suspect that the constant demand for the support of authorities for personal opinions is a conscious attempt to intimidate the iconoclastic. Somehow, it seems pathetically futile for me to sit here being insulted by the inconsequential. alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 29 18:12:08 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 11:12:08 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960429181208.0069fe40@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Wilting At 08:51 AM 4/29/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alan, >I have the Book of Lies on disk that I downloaded from the web. Would you >like a copy? > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"And the donuts were truly holy." The Acts of Alice Horton > >Chuck and Alan: I have an actual copy of the book. I think it's very much in print because it's a quite new "Trade Paperback" from Samuel Weiser & co. It was bought at the Bodhi Tree Bookstore in Los Angeles. I've got quite a lot of Crowley stuff. That's the fun of being eclectic it's not so limiting. alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Apr 29 19:01:35 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 12:01:35 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960429190135.006a6894@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: JRC's comments are very relevant indeed!--Thoughts for Alexis and others At 11:11 AM 4/29/96 -0400, you wrote: Daniel: I'm going to respond to your message paragraph by paragraph. But first let me say this, as of this morning I was (and perhaps still am) seriously considering signing-off this list as I do not wish to be considered a divisive or dominating influence. But perhaps JRC is right..take a deep breath step back and calm dawn...I'm trying to take his advice for myself, and for the nonce, we'll see what happens. > >Your characterization of what I do or don't do, I will let each person on >Theos-l decide for themselves whether >it is accurate or not. I would simply suggest that the interested person go >back and read the content of what I have >written to you over the last month or so. Until recently I did not know >that you were upset with me.I had sent >you a copy of my book, etc. But starting several days ago, you seemed >really put out with Rich Taylor and then it >seemed you turned your displeasure on me. Now I want to ask you, will you grant that I am sincere in how I feel about these things? If you grant that, I can deal with it. As to Richard Taylor, yes I was "put out" with him, and honestly I still am. It is not his age that bothers me but his attitude and crassness. To me it seems as if he doesn't grant anyone else the right to any opinion counter to his own, and that bothers and irritates me. I really don't feel that I "turned my displeasure from him to you". I got hot under the collar because I felt you were not, in some way, reading what I felt to be calm and reasonable responses to your questions, and instead of saying "O.K. Alexis, I read your response and now I'd like to ask you....." It just seemed to me that my attempts at answering you were ignored entirely and the same old questions were slightly re-phrased and asked again as if I had made no attempt at all to communicate with you. This I think, is adequate to explain irritation even in a person without my admittedly "hair trigger temper". I was, as I told you earlier, very glad to receive your book. But Daniel, I honestly felt that you were not interested in discussion with me but only interested in making me look foolish. Perhaps I was/am wrong I surely hope so, and if I am, I apologize, but I truly think that, perhaps simply thoughtlessly, you contributed to this situation. > >As far as I know I have not called you names or anything like that. And >what's wrong with asking you for more >details on a statement you've made or asking you for a quotation or >citation. Now if you don't want to provide the >information, etc,, then fine. I won't waste my time asking for it. But I >thought this was a DISCUSSION group..... >As for asking for the original source, when someone says HPB taught this or >CWL was accused of that, is it so >unreasonable to ask for the source for this general statement? This is my >modus operandi and I sometimes drive >myself crazy, but I believe it is a good way to get to the heart of the >matter. If your statement is not just based on >a simple quotation, but is the result of study or something else, would it >not also be helpful to give a short explanation of that and try to convey >some of your reasoning BEHIND the bald statement. Maybe you are correct in >some of what you >say about HPB, her books, etc., maybe you're not, but how can I or anyone >else determine that if you don't share some >of that with the rest of the group. I would hope that theos-l could be a >place where those who would like to learn more could in fact do so. Again >maybe Theos-l is not a discussion group where the players involved can share >their >opinions, insights, etc. Well I should hope, and certainly DID hope that Theos-L was a place that all people could share their thoughts with others and perhaps, in sharing them, come to understand them better. But Daniel, being called a "heretic" a "Blasphemer" and "Anti=Blavatsky" is hardly "sharing". Now I hasten to add that you didn't do that, but it created an atmosphere of animosity that I felt was out of place and unfortunately the "old Hair Trigger" went to work and I reacted rather than pro acted. Now I do think that you will admit that I almost never (if ever) preface any of my opinions with a statement that "So and So said". I don't feel the need for authority to back my opinions. I may sometimes say that "I think that So and So thought thus and such". but then it should be obvious that this is based upon my "reading" of them. Not everyone works the way I do for I am an individual and I do things "My Way". Look at it this way, when I say: "I think H.P.B. thought.......etc." I am giving an opinion based upon a synthesis of everything I have read both by her, and about her. This is my "modus operandi" in everything I do. Perhaps it's because of the fact that I have an eidetic memory and so synthesis of stored data is the easiest thing for me to do. But then, when someone comes along and asks me to justify my opinion with "chapter and verse" it's really hard to do. As I understand it, a synthesis is just that, a blend or compendium of a lot of otherwise disconnected data. I have written a five hundred some odd page book on my synthesis , how can I explain one of them in a venue this limited? I welcome questions because I am relatively sure of my syntheses, but let me know you received my responses, and by responding to them directly go on to ask other questions. That I will have no trouble with. > >In the recent dialogue between Jerry S and Jerry HE, one would say HPB >taught this and the other one might say >HPB said that. Since this is a discussion list with almost 90 people on >board, I believe a few people on this list >might have appreciated HPB's own words or some reference to where her words >could be found. This is why I suggested to both Jerry HE and Jerry S that >they should reference their sources since the issue being discussed >was whether there were differences between what HPB and CWL taught on the >subject. I have studied HPB for years, >but in some of the comments by both Jerrys I had no idea exactly what they >meant or were referring to when they said >HPB taught or CWL said. Now if they don't want to cite the exact source, >okay. But it makes it difficult for anyone >else [at least for me!] who wants to really follow the thread of discussion >and TRY to understand the content of what is being said. As to the above, at the risk of being considered a "Philistine", after an early perusal I avoided that "string" because the discussion of "who said what" just doesn't interest me, nor does the topic they were discussing. >Alexis, in summary, I have many times (not all the time) enjoyed reading >what you have written and in fact you have >presented many interesting and even thought-provoking ideas. You certainly >have made Theos-l sometimes a >more exciting place. But you yourself recently said that you admired HPB >for she challenged authority, etc. Well, >if HPB was here today on Theos-l, might not she challenge some of my >opinions, or some of your statements or something Eldon or Rich or whoever >might say? I would suspect that she would. Maybe each of us on Theos-l >(at least those who participant) need to take a deep breath (as JRC wisely >counseled) and try to take a step or two >back and not be caught up in any emotions that may distort our >perceptions,etc. Surely each of us can take some heat >(if that if what we perceive it to be) from others on this list. IF WE CAN >GIVE IT, THEN WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE IT. >Or as they say, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. HPB >challenged entrenched dogmas and ideas of her >day. She was willing to turn up the heat. In turn, what was she to expect? >On Theos-l, with such diversity of opinion, >what can one expect but some heat, sometimes scorching heat? But why can't >the heat be directed at the ideas, >instead of at people on the other side of the discussion. For example, Rich >Taylor has been criticized a number of times on this list for his age. Oh, >when you are older, Rich, you will see my point of view and its validity. >Maybe or maybe not. But what is this, but not a not so subtle reference to >Rich's supposed immaturity of thought. What does such >a reference really prove? Maybe I'm 74 and I agree with Rich. Win your >supposed "opponent" to your side by showing >with reason, etc. the superiority or the truthfulness of your ideas. Focus >on IDEAS not the person who conveys the >idea. [ I betcha that there are people on Theos-l and out there in the real >world who would agree with Alexis' >ideas about HPB's anthopogenesis.] Therefore focus on the idea not the >person. Does the idea or statement merit attention, approval,rejection, >etc. regardless of who wrote or said it. > >Food for thought, > >Daniel > Now as to that last: I was considering "signing off" because some people seem to find me a disturbing and distracting influence and I don't want to ruin the list. I do get upset with those who imply disagreement with H.P.B. is "heresy", I do get upset with people who imply that disagreement with their point-of-view makes one not a theosophist. Now as to Richard Taylor and the age question. I am not the only person who has brought that up. It's not the immaturity of his ideas we are finding fault with it's the immaturity of his attitude. So he's got a degree from Harvard, so what? There are people on this board who have several degrees and are as well-informed and easily as intelligent as he is, but he doesn't seem to grant that possibility. He seems to operate on the premise that anyone who doesn't accept his views as gospel are either ignorant fools or malevolent heretics, and this I, and others, object to. I also object to his incapacity to hold a gentlemanly discussion. I tend to judge people this way: "Would I invite them to dinner"? Now you or Eldon I would gladly invite into my home, and even cook you one hell of a vegetarian meal. But Richard Taylor? No, I don't think so. Of course that's based upon our interaction on this list, but based upon that interaction he just doesn't seem to be the kind of person I want to get to know better. If he was only rude to me, I might assume a good portion of the responsibility for it, but I read this list, and He's really rude to almost everyone. I had an early very bad experience with the ULT and to me, he typifies that experience. alexis > > > > From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon Apr 29 19:28:36 1996 Date: 29 Apr 96 15:28:36 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: How do we broadcast theosophy nowadays Message-Id: <960429192835_76400.1474_HHL75-1@CompuServe.COM> >By the same token, I >don't look at gruesome murder msyteries on TV or in the movies any more. I >can tolerate negativity even less than others, because I was raised in a >very negative atmosphere, & it took me years to shake it off. So I don't >need it reinforced now. Not even a little bit. Liesel, this is exactly my wife's attitude, and I respect it. Especially since reading some recent psychological reports on the effects of tv and movies. Negativity, in any form, can adversely effect you. If I had it to do over again, I would not have allowed my children to watch the amount of junk movies that they did. >If it pleases you, and you've learned a few things from it, well, then, good >for you. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. I do. And I respect your right to push the delete key whenever you want to. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon Apr 29 21:22:22 1996 Date: 29 Apr 96 17:22:22 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: violence Message-Id: <960429212222_76400.1474_HHL125-2@CompuServe.COM> "You must get beyond any concept of right and wrong if you wish to accomplish anything in this world or any other." Charles W. Cosimano Chuck, you rat. You stole my motto. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon Apr 29 21:22:27 1996 Date: 29 Apr 96 17:22:27 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Bee?s comments, and everything else Message-Id: <960429212226_76400.1474_HHL125-4@CompuServe.COM> > I think it a pity that >the thread system almost disappeared from here, many contributors name each >reply individually and as a consequence one has to read all posts, to be >sure to reply the posts directed at oneself . Kim, at one time we did keep the thread titles going. Someone complained, at some point, and so we changed. Now we try to title each post with a specific title. If you want to go back to the old way, just say so. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon Apr 29 21:22:25 1996 Date: 29 Apr 96 17:22:25 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? Message-Id: <960429212224_76400.1474_HHL125-3@CompuServe.COM> >JRC, we are not fighting about universal brotherhood, but about what >Theosophy is. And it is not about control, because we each concede to the >other perfect freedom to think as he likes. And so it goes, Rich. After several years of discussion, we here on theos-l still can't decide on what Theosophy is. No wonder we have so many arguments--none of us can even agree on what it is we are talking about. I am not sure we are any closer to a definition now then when we started. Perhaps Alan can form a committee... >But in any case, what I object to is the continual dismissal of the teachings >of HPB and the belittling of her Teachers Where was this Rich? Did I miss a posting? >In any case, when I say "Theosophy" I mean Their knowledge, and as much of it >as we pygmies can grasp of it. Are you suggesting that Theosophy be defined as the MLs? Or the MLs together with all of HPB's writings? If I am not mistaken, awhile back you also wanted to include Judge. Jerry S. Member, TI From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 29 12:56:56 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 13:56:56 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <6k+KFHAYyLhxEwAQ@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Basic scholarship In-Reply-To: <960428220148_76400.1474_HHL35-2@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960428220148_76400.1474_HHL35-2@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >Alan, for example, >doesn't believe in reincarnation. This is based on his direct experience >and study. We all have the right to pick and choose the "gold nuggets," >as Eldon likes to say, that currently appeal to us. O please do pay attention! :-) My view on reincarnation is that the CWL/AB model as presented (say) in "The Lives of Alcyone" is a logical absurdity. Neither do I believe in reincarnation as an inevitable and universal *requirement* for human development. At the same time I accept the possibility that humans *do* reincarnate from time to time for particular purposes, or even by accident! > >HPB did not give us >the whole story. Quite! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 29 12:58:21 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 13:58:21 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <40TKRIAtzLhxEwgZ@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Serious Discussions In-Reply-To: <960428220139_76400.1474_HHL35-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960428220139_76400.1474_HHL35-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >If I wanted >to talk about reincarnation, for exaample, I probably wouldn't >get far sparring with Alan, who doesn't beleive in it. Wrong. See other post. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 29 13:06:24 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 14:06:24 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <2k8JlTAQ7LhxEwh8@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Bee's comments, and everything else In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , Rodolfo Don writes >Alan, > >Can something be done here on theos-l, *without taking sides* on the latest >out of control discussions? > >I had some expectations when I joined theos-l, being a discussion list, but >nothing like this. > >I refuse to take sides on these discussions, but if the quality and >civility of the discussions don't improve, I will have to sign-off. > >Rodolfo Don .. which would be a sad day. I have made a few pleas for civility and politeness, and we could all do the same. If such pleas fall on deaf ears or dead keyboards, then some *serious* rethinking may become necessary, I agree. Hang in there for now please, Rudy. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 29 13:19:06 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 14:19:06 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: This *is* a Theosophical List. In-Reply-To: <960428202808_282829607@emout17.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960428202808_282829607@emout17.mail.aol.com>, Richtay@aol.com writes >Alan writes, > >> You may find as much >> delusion in the mirror as you find here. In the meantime, although some >> of us may also have something to learn, *please* try to cultivate good >> manners and politeness to the other subscribers on the list. Note the use of the word "may" - we all need to examine ourselves from time to time, do we not, including me. > >Alan, are you kidding?!?! Let me get this straight -- YOU are telling ME to >cultivate good manners and be polite ! It is only in the last week -- >deliberately -- that I have begun responding to some on this list as I and >others have been responded to over the past months. .. and I have made similar requests to some of them from time to time. > >After the countless instances of nastiness and jokes at others' expense, >coming from a very few on this board, you have the audacity to ask ME to be >"polite"? Wfy is it audacious to ask anyone to be polite, especially when they sate *categorically* that someone they probably have never met is deluded? > >Perhaps you find me disrupting the board? Perhaps you find me insinuating >that some of your friends are deluded in their views of Theosophy? Wow -- >how novel. Of course I've never experienced THAT phenomenon !! You did not *insinuate* - you *claimed*. If others have accused you of the same, in the same way, that is between you and them. I certainly have never attacked you beliefs or opinions to the best of my recollection. > >But I ask you -- find the SOURCE of the disruption, and get back to me. > >But in the meantime, let me refresh your memory as to the kind of >"politeness" some are dishing out, and in which you are gleefully joining in: > > >> Drpsionic@aol.com writes >> >I am thinking of a contest to pick the biggest asshole in the TS. >> > >> >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >> >> Don't tempt me ... >> >> Alan I was hinting that I might nominat Chuck - an idea that would not have been lost on him. Anyhow, was he addressing his remark to you? AB --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From eldon@theosophy.com Tue Apr 30 06:30:24 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 23:30:24 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960430063024.0068942c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Having Bodies Jerry S: >Eldon, I enjoyed your post on this. Thanks. >And I agree with everything except the following two paragraphs: >> We are capable of (but not trained in) existing apart >> from the physical body, and could function as full humans >> minus the lowest principle, the physical body, the >> Sthula Sarira. We would exist in our full awareness, >> including sense perception, but not have a concrete, >> organic anchor to call "me". >I am not so sure that we can function "as full humans minus >the lowest principle, the Sthula Sarira." This is what HPB describes as the Nirmanakaya state, which I think she mentioned in "The Inner Group Teachings." >First of all, the Sthula sarira is not a principle, but a body. True, if you take the esoteric enumeration of the seven principles, running from the Auric Egg to the Linga Sharira, leaving off the physical body as not an aspect of consciousness, and leaving Atman off as universal and not a person's particular consciousness. >Secondly, we don't need a physical body to have a sense of >identity or "me" because any body will do. Yes, any body would do, on this or whatever plane of existence. But when we exist in our six principles on that plane, we can be fully conscious, including having sense perception, without the literal body or form to represent ourselves on that plane. So, for those capable of it, we can exist on a plane, in full consciousness, including sense perception and the ability to interact with others, *minus a body*. >We can't exist on any plane without a suitable body of some >kind, which is always used as a referment or anchor for our >sense of identity. Not as a fully embodied being, with all seven principles. But we can exist as an invisible participant, in the Nirmanakaya vesture, as six-principled beings. (When I say "we can", of course, I don't mean the typical person, I just mean that it is possible to do.) When we move from an passive observer to someone with the ability to interact with the external world, though, we need a body of some type. This can be acquired through the normal means of birth, childhood, growth, maturity, etc. using the standard method of existence on that plane. Or it can be self-created, a mayai-rupa. >> With sufficient training, we could create an ad hoc >> "anchor", the mayavi rupa, which would be something >> like a self-created materialization on whatever plane >> we would exist on. >Here is one instance where I think you and JHE are plain wrong. Or this is one area where the HPB/Purucker model varies from the CWL model, which you prefer. >You both seem to think that the mayavi-rupa is the *only* >subtle body in town. It is not. No, not the only non-physical body. It is possible for us to acquire bodies on worlds on this or other planes. Those bodies can be acquired by normal means, using the status quo of childbirth and growth as locally defined. Or the body can be acquired via temporary means, using super-normal powers (powers that transcend the status quo of the birth process on the world in question.) >It is the one consciously created by an Adept (actually an >Initiate can do this too) but everyone has a subtle body, >automatically and without effort. We have our seven principles, each composed of its own "stuff". Mind is composed of thoughts, Kama of desires and feelings, etc. These principles apply to our seven-principled existence here on Globe D earth. In the after-death states, we drop our lower principles, and are no longer connected to an external, objective world. We then exist in the spheres of effects, that follow our earth, a sphere of causes. These "places" are called spheres of effects because of their entirely subjective nature. Some are hell worlds, like kamaloka, others are heaven worlds, like devachan (dewachan in Tibetan). The subjective states that we go through are based upon our natural process of exhausting and freeing ourselves of the unspent energies in our lower principles. We are, for instance, in kamaloka for the time necessary to exhaust our unspent-desires. After that process of dealing with unspent energies is completed, we're then ready for another objective existence in a sphere of causes, either a direct return to our earth, to Globe D, or birth on the next sphere of causes, Globe E, on a higher plane. Until or unless we have an actual birth on Globe E, we cannot be said to have a body on a higher plane, in the normal manner of having bodies. An adept may temporarily exist on those higher planes, on the spheres of causes that we know as the Globes of our planetary chain, through mind-created forms, through mayavi-rupas, but I suspect it would be exceedingly rare for one to find a normal birth process and lifetime on such a world. Basically speaking, earth (Globe D) is it for us; this is the place where we have bodies and objective existence. >The difference is in memory--most people forgetting all >experiences after their return to the physical while the >mayavi-rupa allows the brain to accept and retain memory. I agree that most people forget their experiences during sleep, not even remembering dreams of the previous night. But during sleep, the usual situation is for someone to reside in the subjective states, in the earth's spheres of effects, and not to awaken on the next objective world, Globe E. -- Eldon From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 29 22:14:50 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 23:14:50 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <0GeJLDAa9ThxEwiD@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Wilting In-Reply-To: <960429084613_102601247@emout16.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960429084613_102601247@emout16.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >I have the Book of Lies on disk that I downloaded from the web. Would you >like a copy? Got it on a CD-ROM with a load of other ...... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 30 00:01:40 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 19:01:40 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960429190402.27efff72@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: to Doss re the TS Dear Liesel: What each member and each Lodge has can do is something that each individual and each lodge should ponder. What works for one lodge may not work in another lodge. One of the areas I personally would like to see members active in any local activity that will help the local people. ...doss At 10:21 PM 4/28/96 -0400, Liesel wrote: >>Even the Great Roman Empire >>had its days. Where is it today? It decined and fell into oblivion. >> >>The house is on fire. Let us awake and do something soon. >> >> ....doss > >Doss, > >I agree with everything you wrote. What do you think we ought to do? >I'd really like to hear your ideas, because outside of trying to make a go >of TI I do't see any other good possibilities. > >I was going to say "hire a PR agent". That's been tried, & it was found that >it would have to be a person who's also a Theosophist, because anyone else >didn't work out well. I think someone at Wheaton was even sent to take a PR >course about 10 years ago. > >When you compare the TS to Rome, you may have a point there. We are taught >that civilisations rise & fall. Well, maybe it's the TS's time to go, & >something else will arise. The Ancient Wisdom won't die. It may stay buried >for a while, but it didn't do that even during the Dark Ages in Europe. It >has a way of surviving in the hearts & minds if only of a few people. > >Really now, what is our asuggestion? > >Liesle >Member TI > > From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 29 13:47:27 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 14:47:27 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Lost? In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960429070420.00689028@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960429070420.00689028@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >I am not taking this out on you Alan, but I consider you a good friend and I >really needed someone to express myself to. > >fondly > >alexis etc. > On March 1st 1983 I was awarded the title of "Knight Grand Officer (Magisterial Grace) in the Dynastic Order of Chivalry of the Royal Equestrian Order of St. Blaise of Caria by letters patent from the sovereign and Roayl House of Bythynia and Lydia by authority of His Majesty King Theodore I (Duke of Imbros)." Now this guy, more recently described only as a Prince, claimed jurisdiction over a territory that ceased to exist around the thirteenth century, and at the time of the award was part of the U.S.S.R. He may well be a direct descendant of a (black) Royal Family. I regarded my knighthood as a load of crap, and made no bones about it. My ancestors were kings of Scotland. Without wishing to cause you any offence, or personal disrespect - so what? I understand that you are proud of your heritage, as no doubt are several thousand "Bains" around the world - most of whom have heard of the family history. Your own princely title receives a high profile in your writings on theos-l, but in all honesty, I much prefer John's friend Alexis. I sincerely hope this does not upset you, as I intend a compliment, not a put down. Fondly, Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 30 00:25:05 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 19:25:05 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960429192727.1157e73c@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: TSA Elections - 2 Year Voting Requirement Hi Everybody: The following letter was Faxed by me to John Algeo on the morning of 27th April 1996. I have not yet heard from him as of this writing. I am posting it here as I think all of you need to know about this matter. MK Ramadoss Member, Theosophical Society in America San Antonio Lodge PS: I am copying this to theos-l since there may be TSA members who are on theos-l but not on theos-buds. ============================================= April 27, 1996 John Algeo National President The Theosophical Society in America P.O. Box 270 Wheaton, IL 60189 National Elections Ballots Dear Bro. Algeo The members of TSA have received the ballots for the upcoming election of National Officers. It has come to my attention that members who have not been TSA members for two years as of January 1996 have not received their ballots. These include the members who voted in the last ballot to change the bylaws of TSA. By excluding those who have not been members for two years but who voted in the bylaws change, in effect the two year voting rule is being applied retroactively. It is common knowledge that this kind of retroactive application is considered serious disenfranchisement of the voting rights of the members. I hope this above non mailing of the ballots to the above class of members is an oversight. I would appreciate your clarifying the situation. If in fact it is an oversight, these members should be sent their ballots with greatest urgency so that they can exercise their voting rights in the national election. With fraternal greetings, Yours fraternally, M. K. Ramadoss ==================end of message============== From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Apr 29 23:29:22 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 19:29:22 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604300033.UAA27428@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: >Subject: Re:Reply to Richay Hey, you guys, he filtered me out first; line forms to the rear. Liesel, TI From Richtay@aol.com Tue Apr 30 00:46:50 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 20:46:50 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960429204650_480992643@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Heresy and Blasphemy I would like to challenge anyone who is interested to go back over the files and see when the words "heresy" and "blasphemy" first entered this list. I can guarantee you that they were not uttered by me, or Eldon, or Daniel, or JHE, or Bee, or Jerry S., or anyone else discussing a serious topic on a thread. The words first entered the list when several of the "Gang of Four/Five" began imagining that what they were saying was really blowing the lid off a few readers. (I can't speak for others, but I sat calmly and thought to myself, "This is silly.") The words "heresy" and "blasphemy" were used as jokes, really, as "Gang" members tried to defend themselves from "fundamentalists" whom they imagined were trying to stop others from speaking. Things were said like "Wow, this will get me accused of heresy !! " This, from people whose self-avowed purpose was "irritation" and signed, for example, "Troublemaker." (Well, we got irritation and trouble, which I guess was the goal....?) Once the words entered in JEST, they began to circulate and take on a life of their own, until people began to IMAGINE that someone had actually *CALLED* them "heretic" and "blasphemer." I assure you, this has never happened, and I am psyched the files are all there to back me up. No one, on either side of the great "Abyss" has ever called anyone on this list a heretic or a blasphemer, although now a few believe they were called these names. And of course, once this has been imagined, it is easy to feel persecuted and pushed out. It would also be interested to look at when OTHER names first appeared on the list -- the first blow I think was "fundamentalist" which was NOT said in jest, and WAS aimed directly at individuals. There is no retort to "fundamentalist," because how would you categorize those who aren't fundamentalists? Free thinkers, perhaps? That's no insult. Some began to categorize themselves as a "Gang." That was self-chosen and no insult. You see my point. It has been rather one-sided for a long, long time. But perhaps everyone is willing to drop the personal attacks. Good. I am happy to go along. But I agree with Daniel that we should look at where it began, and say to participants, IF YOU DISH IT OUT, LEARN TO TAKE IT. From eldon@theosophy.com Tue Apr 30 08:47:47 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 01:47:47 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960430084747.0070153c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Membership in the Gang of Four Alexis: In a posting where you mentioned that you and three others on the list where supporting a certain position, I coined the term "gang of four" with intended humor. The four of your seemed to like the term and you've already had one outsider join, making five! >We were Chrsitened "The Gang of four", which is certainly not a >compliment, by one of the group to which I referred. That we have >chosen to flaunt the insult, I do not feel to be a bad thing. It's like Gay people calling themselves Queers. > >Daniel, I submit you cannot have it both ways, you cannot bully someone and >then complain when they fight back. And I am not just talking about your >continual sniping at me since I first subscribed to this list. You do this >to everyone. You're constantly demanding "references and citations" in >support of statements that may be opinion or may be the result of long >study. I cannot believe you are so naif as not to realize tht what you're >doing is very subtly implying that other people have neither valid knowledge >or valid opinions. I'm not the only person miffed with you and you know it >very well. You are a very coercive person, and as far as I can ascertain, >you have never made even the slightest attempt to grant plausability to the >opinions of others. I have literally "stood on my head" to achieve some kind >of modus vivendi with you and you will not let me. I have cooperated with >you in the matter of my genealogy to the extent that it is your business, >and yet you accuse me of being uncooperative. I have atempted to explain my >point of view to you repeatedly and am continually acused of "not being >responsive". In the last few days I have written responses to you any number >of times in which I have attempted to answer every question you ask. The >result? As far as I can see it, you ignore everything I do or say and >continue with the same old accusations. The people on this list are >obviously following these "strings" of ours and how long do you think you >can keep it up. Except for Bee Brown to whom I can obviously do no right and >who I guess thinks I'm a really "bad" person, most of the people on this >list don't think so, even some with whom I regularly disagree. I have to ask >you this. Why is it that I can have reasonable and polite discussions with >Eldon Tucker when he and I disagree on almost everything? Why is it that he >and I can strongly disagree and remain on a cordial basis? Why don't I >irritate him the way I obviously do irritate you? We all started off on the >same basis. If I can have good discussions with eldon and with Jerry schuler >with whom I also don';t always agree, why is it that I'm so awful where >you're concerned? >Thoughts to ponder. > >alexis >> >> > > From poulsen@dk-online.dk Tue Apr 30 05:52:27 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 03:52:27 -200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3648.7FC54300@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: Bee?s comments, and everything.... Encoding: 22 TEXT Jerry S. >Kim, at one time we did keep the thread titles going. Someone >complained, at some point, and so we changed. Now we try to title each >post with a specific title. If you want to go back to the old way, just say so. Jerry, I remember it well, it was a complaint by Jim Meier that several threads kept the title which included the name "Bailey" or "AAB" long after the subject of the discussion had changed into something else. It is certainly not for me to decide, but I would suggest certain changes. If we kept the thread title for replies, continuing discussions, etc. and had short remarks, jokes with specific titles, everything would be easier for someone like me. I do not have the time (and lately the wish) to read 50 messages a day - every day, it would be nice for the titles to convey some idea of the content of the post. Of course Jim was quite right but (sigh!) could we not find a middle path? In friendship, Kim From eldon@theosophy.com Tue Apr 30 08:54:01 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 01:54:01 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960430085401.00706224@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Membership in the Gang of Four Alexis: >We were Christened "The Gang of four", which is certainly not a >compliment, by one of the group to which I referred. That we have >chosen to flaunt the insult, I do not feel to be a bad thing. In a posting where you mentioned that you and three others on the list where supporting a certain position, I coined the term "gang of four" with intended humor. The four of your seemed to like the term and you've already had one outsider join, making five! Somehow you've decided to take it as an insult and carry it with bitterness, when you only would have had to ask me what did I mean by the term! It certainly was not as strongly worded as a Chuck-ism... Also, you seem to be putting me in a group with others with different views and approaches to Theosophy. The only thing that we may have in common is to believe that it might actually be true. Should that be so remarkable on a list that would call itself theosophical? Why all the us-versus-them polarizations? I'm not taking sides nor seeing battle lines drawn. I respond to various people and postings, or make original postings of my own, as I feel an interest and attraction to do so. I'm not operating out of some crusade to make things a certain way. -- Eldon P.S. When I was trying a cut-and-paste in constructing this message, it somehow escaped before it was fully edited... From eldon@theosophy.com Tue Apr 30 08:57:46 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 01:57:46 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960430085746.006a0ad0@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Bee?s comments, and everything else Jerry S: [writing to Kim] >> I think it a pity that >>the thread system almost disappeared from here, many contributors name each >>reply individually and as a consequence one has to read all posts, to be >>sure to reply the posts directed at oneself . >Kim, at one time we did keep the thread titles going. Someone >complained, at some point, and so we changed. Now we try to title each >post with a specific title. If you want to go back to the old way, just say so. I don't think that it's possible to control the individual way that each of us posts. There is a solution, though, that you can do at your end. Some email programs allow searching the mailbox for keywords. You can search for "Kim" and read the messages mentioning your name. I've found it helpful for finding out why my ears are burning at times! -- Eldon From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue Apr 30 02:09:06 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 22:09:06 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604300313.XAA25822@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: insults >I refuse to take sides on these discussions, but if the quality and >> civility of the discussions don't improve, I will have to sign-off. >> >> Rodolfo Don Take heart. Sooner or later they'll ge tired of their tirades. Liesel From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 30 03:14:54 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 23:14:54 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429231453_283761450@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Forgot something ??? Alex, It could be you a have a Crowley book that I don't have, because the only context I ever saw it in was the Wiccan one and I'm feuding with them after they tried to kill me last summer. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "You take one pound of master and three pounds of curry powder..." The Theosophical Cannibal Cookbook From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 30 03:15:29 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 23:15:29 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429231507_283761655@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: your signature to Danny Boy Alex, Very interesting. The quote is usually attributed to Simon himself in response to a knight asking what to with the civilians after the battle was over since the Xtians and the Alibgensians all looked alike. I wonder if liked the T-shirts paraphrasing him that were so popular about 15 years ago. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "And Simon sayeth unto the Bishop of Beauvais, ' Oh Goodie!'" The Chronicle of St. Hildebrand of the Gout From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 30 03:15:34 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 23:15:34 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429231502_283761560@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Mantram? Alex, We were thinking of singing it a convention this summer. But by all means we can use it as a mantra. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Orthodoxy is the refuge of the mindless." Dr. Mirabilis From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 30 03:15:09 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 23:15:09 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960429231505_283761608@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: etc. Alex, It is a long and very weird story that I would rather were not public. We'll talk about it on the phone. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "That which is above is above and that which is below is below and if they should meet--kaboom!" The Ruby Laser Tablet of Sam Trismegitus From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 30 04:57:18 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 23:57:18 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960429235941.27bf970c@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TSA Elections - 2 Year Voting Requirement Eldon: It was very Theosophical of you for your forthright and quick response. There is a legal issue that is involved here regarding some of the members who were not sent the ballots even though they voted in the last bylaws change. Even though the my message was Faxed to John Algeo early Saturday, (An e-mail message would have saved me long distance toll charges for Fax as it was sent on my dime not that of TSA; But e-mail communication at TSA is still not very satisfactory). I did not receive any response either on Saturday, Sunday or Monday. It was only after giving ample time to John, I posted it here. Let us wait and see, whatever happens. ...doss PS: I am fairly familiar with your role in that I was a database person in my last job quite some years ago. I am in my present vocation by "accident" if you believe in accidents!!! ============================================================================ ======== At 11:34 PM 4/29/96 -0400, you wrote: >MKR: > >I was reading your letter to John Algeo regarding the TSA ballots, >and think that I can answer your questions. I can tell you what >rules were applied to determine which members would be sent a >ballot, since I wrote a new program to implement the rules. > >You also might want to note that I also wrote and ran a report >that lists all members, showing who would be sent a mailing. >For those that were not to receive a ballot, the report listed >the reason(s) why that person was excluded. Why? So that at a >later date, if someone wanted to know why they did not get a >ballot, they could find out. Without the report, the membership >database could change over time, and it might not be possible >to determine what a member's records showed at that time. > >What are the rules? (Note that I don't have the program in >front of me, and I'm recalling these from memory.) > >1. Someone must be an active member, not having been lapsed > for non-payment of dues. > >2. We must have a valid mailing address for the member. (Otherwise > a mailing label will be generated but not sent out.) > >3. The member must not be in the prisoner category. (Prisoners > get reduced dues, but don't vote or get "The American > Theosophist.") > >4. The member must have been a member in good standing for > the past two continuous years. This means the member must > have joined at least two years ago, and not have let their > dues lapse for four-or-more months during that period > before being reinstated. > >> It has come to my attention that members who have not been TSA >> members for two years as of January 1996 have not received their >> ballots. > >This should not happen except for one of the above reasons. >Such members should contact the membership department and >ask why they were excluded from the mailing. The membership >department can look at the reason(s) from the eligible-voters >report. > >>These include the members who voted in the last ballot to >>change the bylaws of TSA. > >Since the two-years continuous membership rule was not in effect >at that point, you're probably right about this. > >>By excluding those who have not been members for two >>years but who voted in the bylaws change, in effect the two >>year voting rule is being applied retroactively. It is >>common knowledge that this kind of retroactive application >>is considered serious disenfranchisement of the voting >>rights of the members. I hope this above non mailing of the >>ballots to the above class of members is an oversight. > >This is a matter of interpretation of the new bylaws. That would >be up to the TSA Board to decide. If you want to make a case >that people having been members for less than two years but >who have already voted be excluded from the new rules, it would >have to be quickly made. > >Based upon the report that was run, it is possible to determine >who was excluded from receiving a ballot *solely* based upon >the two-year rule. And it would be further possible to narrow >them down to those that had joined soon enough to have voted >for/against the bylaws earlier in the year. From that list, a >second set of labels *could* be generated, if that is what is >decided. > >I'm not, though, involved in the political side of things. My >support is simply in providing computer services to the >membership department. I *ask* what are the rules, and try to >clarify them so that I can accurately program to them. I don't >decide *what* they are. But being a database person, I can >come up with whatever is needed as people decide things or >change their minds. > >-- Eldon > From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 30 22:14:36 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 17:14:36 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: TSA Elections-2 Year Voting Requirement In-Reply-To: <960430112932_72724.413_FHP48-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ======================================================= Hi: The message posted by Sy is very informative in both on a policy level of disenfranchisement and its potential to affect election outcomes in more than one part of the country. Sy being a lawyer, I am confident that he has carefully looked into the whole range of issues involved. I do not know what the situation in various other lodges in the country whose members may be disenfranchised. Theosophist's are presumed to have a high sense of real *justice* no matter what it costs -- this is at least the ideal that you will find in much of the correspondence in ML to APS. To me it appears that it is a very serious issue which should not be treated in a cavalier way for any short term objectives. It can turn off a lot of new potential future leaders of TSA and can have a lasting effect on the future perception of the ethics of TSA and if such bad perception is formed, no amount of PR or appeal to higher values or mysteries is going to help. If any of the subscribers to theos-l and theos-buds who are members of TSA know of anyone, I would suggest that they should officially and immediately contact their district directors and national president to get votes sent to them. Due to the delay in delivery of ballots, it may also require extension of time for ballots to be returned to TSA, Wheaton. I am not a lawyer, but using common sense, it may require a non partisan legal advise, which of course may cost some money. Here, IMHO, lot more than money is at stake. It is my hope that things will be set right and is done quickly. MK Ramadoss Member TSA - San Antonio Lodge ======================================================================= On 30 Apr 1996, Sy Ginsburg wrote: > The following is the text of a letter sent by me, Sy Ginsburg, President of the > Theosophical Society in Miami, via Federal Express on April 29, 1996, to John > Algeo, President of the Theosophical Society in America. Your comments are > welcome. > > April 29, 1996 > Dr. John Algeo, President BY FEDERAL EXPRESS > The Theosophical Society in America > 1926 N. Main Street, Wheaton, IL. 60189 > > Dear John: > > In accordance with the resolution passed by The Theosophical Society in > Miami, at its business meeting on April 28, 1996, I have been delegated to write > this letter to you on behalf of all our members who are also members of The > Theosophical Society in America (TSA) for two years or longer. In addition to > my signature there is appended, the signatures of 2 other members of The > Theosophical Society in America as well as of The Theosophical Society in Miami > (TSM), and the signature of 1 other member of The Theosophical Society in > America who is a member of another Study Center. > > It has come to our attention that ballots to vote in the national > election of officers and directors of TSA were not sent to members of TSA who > have not been members for two years or longer, in application of bylaw change #8 > passed in referendum in January 1996, but applied retroactively to exclude > members who voted in the bylaw referendum. Because of this failure to send > ballots by the National Secretary under your instruction, 59 members of The > Theosophical Society in Miami have been disenfranchised from voting. A group of > these members are writing to you separately to demand their ballots. We are > writing on behalf of members who did receive ballots, and similarly urge that > you send ballots to these disenfranchised members so that they can vote, and > urge you to send ballots to other disenfranchised members of TSA throughout the > country. We call to your attention that the bylaw changes passed in January, > even if they had been adopted legally, were voted on by all members in good > standing of TSA at that time. It is a large group of these very same members, > 59 from The Theosophical Society in Miami alone, who voted on these bylaw > changes, to whom you now deny a ballot retroactively. It is our view that such > retroactive disenfranchisement is a serious violation of members rights. > > We would like to think that your retroactive disenfranchisement of > members' voting rights was an oversight. However, 2 of our members, Roxanne > Nadolsky (member since December, 1994) and Diana Alboum, both telephoned Nathan > Greer, National Secretary of TSA to request their ballots. Nathan told them, > after consulting with you, that they were not entitled to vote. We regard your > actions in this matter as objectionable and urge you to reconsider them. > > On a personal note, the fact has not gone unnoticed, that since I am a > candidate for Southeast District Director, your disenfranchisement of 59 members > of TSM, many of whom could be expected to vote for me as I am the President of > TSM, could change the election result. It is imperative that you act quickly to > rectify your action and send these members their ballots. > Yours very truly > > THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY > IN MIAMI > > > Seymour B. (Sy) Ginsburg, > President > copy: Nathan Greer, National Secretary > copy: will be posted to the INTERNET Theos-L Discussion Group to reach other TSA > members > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue Apr 30 02:12:35 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 22:12:35 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604300317.XAA25934@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Bee's comments Dear Rich, You'll be ok on the other list. They only insult CWL people. Liesel From eldon@theosophy.com Tue Apr 30 11:31:31 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 04:31:31 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960430113131.0073bfa8@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Bee's comments Liesel: [writing to Rich] >You'll be ok on the other list. They only insult CWL people. You're not getting drawn into the throwing of barbs? Before long this would get like a food fight on a slapstick movie, with complete pandemonium! Apart from the historic discussions, where the unpleasant aspects of people's lives might emerge and be examined by those interested in history, the only area where CWL's name might come up would be in comparative Theosophy, where we wanted to examine the different ideas being taught by the various theosophical writers over the years. This would include, for instance, the two Jerrys discussing the nature of the seven principles and bodies from the HPB and the CWL views. I hope you don't find this examination of the philosophy to be objectionable. -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Tue Apr 30 10:33:14 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 03:33:14 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960430103314.006fa2d0@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? Alexis: [writing to Chuck] >Somehow, it seems pathetically futile for me to sit here being >insulted by the inconsequential. I think that a cycle of anger and self-righteousness can only be broken when you, I, or others let the little words of others fall off us like water off a duck's back. It gets tiring after a while to respond to the negative, but the cycle only continues to feed itself when any of us reply with further barbs, like when you refer to your critics as insults by "the inconsequential". There is a certain pleasure in responding with clever, sharp words in response to someone's angry blast, but that pleasure is quickly buried as one get's one's feelings burned yet again! There is a greater pleasure, I've found, in setting aside all angry responses, and responding to others as though they've never said an unkind word. I usually find them glad too to leave the anger behind, and then it's possible to move forward -- with a great sense of relief! There's enough wonders in life to admire and share with people, that no one needs to look for the ugly side of life in people. Both sides of life exist, but which do we want to put our energy into? I'm trying to improve things with JRC. (and there is an occasional remark by you that would be tempting to respond to as well!) Even so, you may find me at times to be a pest, since I've got what I consider to be important views that need a proper hearing, along with everything else that is being said! -- Eldon From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 30 07:05:48 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 00:05:48 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960430070548.0068d598@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Eldon vis a vis CWL At 12:52 AM 4/30/96 -0400, you wrote: >Liesel: > >[writing to Rich] > >>You'll be ok on the other list. They only insult CWL people. > >You're not getting drawn into the throwing of barbs? Before >long this would get like a food fight on a slapstick movie, >with complete pandemonium! > >Apart from the historic discussions, where the unpleasant >aspects of people's lives might emerge and be examined by >those interested in history, the only area where CWL's >name might come up would be in comparative Theosophy, where >we wanted to examine the different ideas being taught by >the various theosophical writers over the years. This >would include, for instance, the two Jerrys discussing >the nature of the seven principles and bodies from the >HPB and the CWL views. I hope you don't find this examination >of the philosophy to be objectionable. > >-- Eldon > >Eldon: I thank you for the above. It is clearly impossible to study or discuss theosophy, from any point of view without mentioning certain people. They are part and parcel of the History and as such cannot be ignored. To discuss theosophy and to ignore WQJ is really terribly mistaken as his contributions were enormous. To discuss theosophy and refuse to countenance discussions of alice Bailey is a mistake because she was a Theosophist and her work is dependent on theosophy. To discuss theosophy and ignore G. de P. is just as big a mistake as to ignore Judge because his contributions too, were enormous. But it is also impossible to ignore a discussion of CWL (leaving all references to his personal life out) because the history of the Adyar Society post 1895 is inextricably tied up with him His work, and his writings must be open to comparative analysis and commentary. To make him and his work "tabu" because one person is emotionally blocked on the subject makes rational discussion impossible. As Jerry Hejka-Elkins commented recently:"Gregory Tillett's book, "Elder Brother" has completely discredited CWL and as a result the theosophical Publishing House is "drawing back from re-publishing his work" The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled (quite some time ago) that people in the public eye are "fair game" and no one I can think of was more gladly "in the public eye" than CWL. It is really impossible to have reasonable discussions if one person out of some 85 gets personally emotional over any negative references to a person who is a vital ingredient in why the T.S. is where it is today. Now, in my own discussions regarding theosophical history, I really need to refer occasionally to the information in "Elder brother", what do you suggest that we do? I avoided mentioning him for the longest time, to avoid irritating Liesel but then I realized that it was stupid on my part to do so. How can we talk at all if certain topics are verboten? Please comment: cordially alexis From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Tue Apr 30 05:07:22 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 23:07:22 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? In-Reply-To: <960429030823_480416105@emout17.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Say, wouldn't it be weird if everyone, instead of assigning blame to others while claiming themselves to be simply innocent propounders of "Theosophy", rather articulated precisely what they thought was wrong with the current list, and explained in detail their part in the problem? [I'd start, except of course I'm the only one that *is* blameless har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har.] Har, -JRC From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 30 05:53:35 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 22:53:35 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960430055335.0069598c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: violence At 06:10 PM 4/29/96 -0400, you wrote: >"You must get beyond any concept of right and wrong if you wish to accomplish >anything in this world or any other." Charles W. Cosimano > >Chuck, you rat. You stole my motto. > >Jerry S. >Member, TI > > >Oddly enough it's one of my own "prime concepts" as well. It's interesting, does it also ring true with the other two members of the "Gang"? My principle prime concept is: "The Power to Act, confers the absolute responsibility to do so, it carries with it the equally absolute responsibility for the results of the action". alexis member T.I. FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 30 12:46:24 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 08:46:24 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960430084623_283973968@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? Jerry, When I had my study center, we would get inquiries and the first question was always "What is Theosophy?" I would usually answer that Theosophy literally translated as Divine Wisdom, but as we were not divine we did not have the foggiest idea what it was. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "How the hell should I know!" King Solomon on a bad day. From jmeier@microfone.net Tue Apr 30 10:12:20 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 06:12:20 -0400 From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Message-Id: <199604301012.AB21534@vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: on Threads (Re: Bee,s comments...) ** comments at end >Jerry S. >>Kim, at one time we did keep the thread titles going. Someone >>complained, at some point, and so we changed. Now we try to title each >>post with a specific title. If you want to go back to the old way, just >say so. > >Jerry, > > I remember it well, it was a complaint by Jim Meier that several threads >kept the title which included the name "Bailey" or "AAB" long after the >subject of the discussion had changed into something else. > It is certainly not for me to decide, but I would suggest certain >changes. If we kept the thread title for replies, continuing discussions, >etc. and had short remarks, jokes with specific titles, everything would be >easier for someone like me. I do not have the time (and lately the wish) to >read 50 messages a day - every day, it would be nice for the titles to >convey some idea of the content of the post. Of course Jim was quite right >but (sigh!) could we not find a middle path? >In friendship, >Kim Hi guys-- More exactly, my post of 02/09 was a direct response to someone who asked "what is this thread business"; I used the AAB/AB example (then current) to show why just a little thought and courtesy can save time for a lot of theos-l readers who do use titles as a qualifier. As Kim points out, it is much easier to follow a thread if there is *something* in the title which keeps a continuity; the present thread on "bodies" is a good example. If Jerry H-E had titled his last post "No, you're wrong!!!" it might have been skipped over by someone trying to follow that particular discussion. At the same time, using the *exact* title for every reply soon becomes just as frustrating. Theos-l is relatively unstructured. So are most local TS branches, for that matter, and I don't think it's possible to make everyone in such a diverse group happy. Just speaking for myself, I don't understand what all the fuss about "filters" is about; I've been skipping chunks of theos-l posts for quite a while because, like Kim, I just don't have time to read each individual comment on every topic. "Snappy one-liners," I believe someone called them. At the same time, I recognize that a fair number of posters *like* that sort of thing, so odds are that's the way the board will stay. Jim PS: I'm not sure I'd like a steady diet of Sankrit scholarship either, but I do wish people who post here would spend a few seconds considering how their words will affect others before hitting the "send" key -- especially in a group which at least pretends to work towards Brotherhood. Nettiquette is just a cyberword for civility, with a couple of special case rules tossed in. The best guide (which would be required reading in a perfect world :) is http://rs6000.adm.fau.edu/rinaldi/net/dis.html From am455@lafn.org Tue Apr 30 15:09:34 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 08:09:34 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199604301509.AA27610@lafn.org> Subject: New Theosophy Video My wife & borrowed this new video with Ed Abdill teaching on "Foundations of the Ageless Wisdom," as it is titled. It is excellent. It is being sent by TSA to lodges & study centers. Individuals can buy it for $30 and the study guide that comes with it for $7.50. It is divided into five parts: 1. The Ultimate Real -- on the first proposition of the SD. 2. Meaningful Motion -- on the second proposition. 3. Sevenfold Human Nature -- both macro & micro 4. Progressive Evolution -- on the third proposition 5. The Path and the Spiritual Life. It is beautifully produced and inspiring. -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 30 12:46:07 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 08:46:07 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960430084607_283973863@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Wilting Alex, It's nice that we have a few eclectics like you around to check our quotes. Have you ever considered becoming and editor? :-) Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "And the waters turned to mud." The Book of Green Slime From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 30 12:46:22 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 08:46:22 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960430084621_283973950@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: violence Jerry, Don't applaud, just throw cheese. Port Salut is my favorite. Chuck the Barbaric Rat MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Okay you cheddarheads. This is a trap!" Drill instructor at basic rat training From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 30 12:46:34 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 08:46:34 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960430084633_283974035@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: This *is* a Theosophical List. Alan, Thank you for the nomination, but believe me, there are those who are not on this list who make me look nice by comparison and actually I had one of them in mind. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 30 12:46:40 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 08:46:40 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960430084639_283974081@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Membership in the Gang of Four Eldon, I thought it was funny. But then I don't insult very easily. Besides, it will great fun at the opening night of convention to bring greetings from the Gang of Five. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 30 12:45:17 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 08:45:17 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960430084516_283973497@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? Alex, Bob Dobbs is the "prophet" of the Church of the Sub-Genius. I doubt he is a real person. Please do not sign off the list. That is exactly what those who attack you hope you will do and if you go I will have to do all the fighting again. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Seek ye first the kingdom of Oz and the Wicked Witch of the West shall turn into a big puddle." The Book of Non-Existent Sayings From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue Apr 30 19:06:37 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 15:06:37 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604302011.QAA01273@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Eldon Re: Bee's comments Dear Eldon, What I find objectionable is that whenever I happen to have a courageous enough day to say something about CWL, 3 people are ready to jump on top of my message & say something nasty, but I mean nasty. I'm not the only Leadbeater fan on this list, as I know from talking privately to others, but I'm the only one who ever talks about him, & as I said it's got to be on a clear day when I can see forever. Why do you think others don't ever talk about him, when they'd like to as much as I do? The whole Adyar Section reveres Leadbeater, & they're in the majority everywhere except on this list. Does that answer your question? The others just don't want to get into a fight, so they shut up. Liesel rom: "Eldon B. Tucker" >To: theos-l@vnet.net >Subject: Re: Bee's comments >Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960430113131.0073bfa8@mail.deltanet.com> > From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue Apr 30 19:13:29 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 15:13:29 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199604302018.QAA02855@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Eldon re: CWL PS I forgot that the objectors include your wife, Brenda. She bowed out of theos-l a long time ago, because she didnt' like the hurtful remarks people were making. But to tell you the truth, I wouldn't join the other list anyway. I don't see any purpose served by going over long past & forgotten events & the lives of dead people, which don't matter any more to daily theosophical living. Liesel From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Apr 30 22:14:36 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 17:14:36 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: TSA Elections-2 Year Voting Requirement In-Reply-To: <960430112932_72724.413_FHP48-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ======================================================= Hi: The message posted by Sy is very informative in both on a policy level of disenfranchisement and its potential to affect election outcomes in more than one part of the country. Sy being a lawyer, I am confident that he has carefully looked into the whole range of issues involved. I do not know what the situation in various other lodges in the country whose members may be disenfranchised. Theosophist's are presumed to have a high sense of real *justice* no matter what it costs -- this is at least the ideal that you will find in much of the correspondence in ML to APS. To me it appears that it is a very serious issue which should not be treated in a cavalier way for any short term objectives. It can turn off a lot of new potential future leaders of TSA and can have a lasting effect on the future perception of the ethics of TSA and if such bad perception is formed, no amount of PR or appeal to higher values or mysteries is going to help. If any of the subscribers to theos-l and theos-buds who are members of TSA know of anyone, I would suggest that they should officially and immediately contact their district directors and national president to get votes sent to them. Due to the delay in delivery of ballots, it may also require extension of time for ballots to be returned to TSA, Wheaton. I am not a lawyer, but using common sense, it may require a non partisan legal advise, which of course may cost some money. Here, IMHO, lot more than money is at stake. It is my hope that things will be set right and is done quickly. MK Ramadoss Member TSA - San Antonio Lodge ======================================================================= On 30 Apr 1996, Sy Ginsburg wrote: > The following is the text of a letter sent by me, Sy Ginsburg, President of the > Theosophical Society in Miami, via Federal Express on April 29, 1996, to John > Algeo, President of the Theosophical Society in America. Your comments are > welcome. > > April 29, 1996 > Dr. John Algeo, President BY FEDERAL EXPRESS > The Theosophical Society in America > 1926 N. Main Street, Wheaton, IL. 60189 > > Dear John: > > In accordance with the resolution passed by The Theosophical Society in > Miami, at its business meeting on April 28, 1996, I have been delegated to write > this letter to you on behalf of all our members who are also members of The > Theosophical Society in America (TSA) for two years or longer. In addition to > my signature there is appended, the signatures of 2 other members of The > Theosophical Society in America as well as of The Theosophical Society in Miami > (TSM), and the signature of 1 other member of The Theosophical Society in > America who is a member of another Study Center. > > It has come to our attention that ballots to vote in the national > election of officers and directors of TSA were not sent to members of TSA who > have not been members for two years or longer, in application of bylaw change #8 > passed in referendum in January 1996, but applied retroactively to exclude > members who voted in the bylaw referendum. Because of this failure to send > ballots by the National Secretary under your instruction, 59 members of The > Theosophical Society in Miami have been disenfranchised from voting. A group of > these members are writing to you separately to demand their ballots. We are > writing on behalf of members who did receive ballots, and similarly urge that > you send ballots to these disenfranchised members so that they can vote, and > urge you to send ballots to other disenfranchised members of TSA throughout the > country. We call to your attention that the bylaw changes passed in January, > even if they had been adopted legally, were voted on by all members in good > standing of TSA at that time. It is a large group of these very same members, > 59 from The Theosophical Society in Miami alone, who voted on these bylaw > changes, to whom you now deny a ballot retroactively. It is our view that such > retroactive disenfranchisement is a serious violation of members rights. > > We would like to think that your retroactive disenfranchisement of > members' voting rights was an oversight. However, 2 of our members, Roxanne > Nadolsky (member since December, 1994) and Diana Alboum, both telephoned Nathan > Greer, National Secretary of TSA to request their ballots. Nathan told them, > after consulting with you, that they were not entitled to vote. We regard your > actions in this matter as objectionable and urge you to reconsider them. > > On a personal note, the fact has not gone unnoticed, that since I am a > candidate for Southeast District Director, your disenfranchisement of 59 members > of TSM, many of whom could be expected to vote for me as I am the President of > TSM, could change the election result. It is imperative that you act quickly to > rectify your action and send these members their ballots. > Yours very truly > > THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY > IN MIAMI > > > Seymour B. (Sy) Ginsburg, > President > copy: Nathan Greer, National Secretary > copy: will be posted to the INTERNET Theos-L Discussion Group to reach other TSA > members > > From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 30 06:25:31 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 23:25:31 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960430062531.00690904@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Lost? At 08:26 PM 4/29/96 -0400, you wrote: >My ancestors were kings of Scotland. Without wishing to cause you any >offence, or personal disrespect - so what? I understand that you are >proud of your heritage, as no doubt are several thousand "Bains" around >the world - most of whom have heard of the family history. > >Your own princely title receives a high profile in your writings on >theos-l, but in all honesty, I much prefer John's friend Alexis. I >sincerely hope this does not upset you, as I intend a compliment, not a >put down. > >Fondly, > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan my dear: I think you missed my point. I know you intend what you said as a very sincere compliment, and I accept it as such, and wish it could be my only reality. Yes, there's John's lover Alexis(Grady) who's an artist of some note, a writer of less note(yet), a gourmet cook, an animal lover, a long time very active social revolutionary, and human rights activist. BUT there is also the other Alexis, and he's the result of his upbringing and his genetics and the innermost portion of whom does't wish to be ignored. Some of my ancestors were Kings of Scotland too, in the 10th and 11th centuries, and that's far too long ago to matter, but my immediate ancestors were Czars, real one's, not imaginary Kings of Bythnia, and the last one was murdered a mere 16 years before my birth. 3200 members of my family were murdered, some of them cruelly tortured first, some of them merely children, others of them old men and women, and if you think one isn't effected by growing up listening to those horror stories, then you are far less astute than I know you to be. It's very simple for people not concerned, for people who haven't lived in dread and hiding, for people who don't really know what it means to be rejected by the whole world for something which was accidental on your part. Fashions go "out of style", social amusements "go out of style", do you have any real idea what it feels like to be a person who's "gone out of style"? Do you have any idea at all how terrifying it is to fear that one may go back INTO "style"? For months after the Soviet Government fell, every time I saw a limousine coming near the Yacht Harbor where I lived, I cringed. Do you know what it's like to fear having one's life, and independence, "snatched away" in the name of "duty"? Do you know how uncomfortable it is to be two persons, one of them private and the other not? Do you have any idea how it feels when, first as a little boy and then on into adulthood, you know that there is a good possibility that you will be murdered as a "symbol", the death is real, the act of killing merely symbolic? No matter how much I want to just be "John's Lover Alexis" it's not really possible because too many people in the Governments of both countries know about me, and I've always been terrified that my life would be useful to either of those Governments or both. Do you know what it's like to be a "symbol" and not a real person? You see Alan, I have never had the luxury of being an ordinary person, and I don't now, more so now that Russia's in turmoil than ever before. So you see, it's just not as simple as both you and I wish it was. The trouble is Blavatsky was my fourth Cousin but so is Elisabeth Windsor, it just never get's far enough away for me to be let go of. Strange Karma isn't it? As theosophists we kind of believe in reincarnation in one form or another, and we kind of believe in Karma in one form or another, and so, I imagine I was born in the situation that was right for me, but it sure hasn't been fun. I know why, and for what purpose, but it still isn't fun. alexis From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Tue Apr 30 23:17:45 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 16:17:45 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9604302317.AA04571@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL Hi Kim, KP >We should not confuse a religion with an esoteric treatise. It >would be the same as confusing the average view of theosophists >with the ideas contained in the Secret Doctrine. On the contrary >in my opinion religionists generally distorts the texts in one >or other direction - especially during translation. The bible is >the wellknown example of this, but permit me, as an example, to >quote from a private letter to Eldon written a few days ago JHE Yes, I agree. And your example illustrates the vulnerability of texts to human error. No matter how perfect or inspired a text may be, it still must be interpreted. Even on a more realistic level, there is always the question of copying errors and interpolations too. JHE >>Further, I would be inclined to think that the bringing in of >>outside authorities would just complicate things and run the >>discussion into tangents. KP >Hmm.. I had just started to examine the detailed exposition of >Asanga (the founder of the Yogacharya School) on tattva, >paramartha and the 7 skandhas in chapter 6 of the >Mahayanasutralamkara (the "Tattva" chapter). This would >solve several mysteries as to the relation between the 7 >principles and the 7 elements, which in the Chandogya Upanishad >6.8.7 takes the form of an identification TAT TVAm asi, "That >thou art", thus implying the term tattva. But I will refrain >from following this line of investigation (a great pity!). JHE Your investigation seems to have led you to a personal insight into the (in our case) the source texts: i.e. HPB and CWL. I don't think we can avoid drawing from our insights. It is just getting off into tangents that concerns me. KP >Instead I am left with the works of HPB and a few diagrams in "A >Treatise on Cosmic Fire" representing the view of CWL. JHE A student borrowed my only copy of ~Cosmic Fire~ and I just realized that he never returned it. So I have to go by memory concerning the charts in that book. However, if my memory is correct, the diagram concerning the principles is either copied or adapted from Besant's ~Study in Consciousness,~ therefore is more representative of Besant than CWL. That you don't have CWL's books puts you at a disadvantage. I do have some very inexpensive copies if you are interested. But they are Quest printings, and I don't know to what extent they have been tampered with. KP >As the various the explanations of HPB are as apparently >irreconcilable as the CWL-HPB differencies we will have to >resort to our own "esoteric" valuation of her writings - since a >dead-letter investigation will make them seem contradictory - >instead of relying on historical "authorities" to solve the true >meaning of the words. JHE Perhaps we might start by looking at those various "apparently irreconcilable" explanations of HPB. Actually, my experience has been that the apparent inconsistencies disappear when they are put back into their historical context. My experience with HPB is that she was building upon her explanations over time, as well as trying to answer the objections and comments of various members--particularly A.P. Sinnett and T. Subba Row--but others too. I discovered this when I started going through the early issues of ~The Theosophist~ page by page, where her early explanations are in their true context. This is all lost when HPB's writings are all lifted and put into a collection. Then the articles and letters that she was responding too are lost. KP >But you are quite right that the scope of our discussion would >be enormous. But as it is vital it can be as prolongued as you >wish. JHE Yes. Once before, I took up a more informal exploratory discussion with a person interested in Bailey. He considered himself an expert on Bailey (I am for from it), so through questions and explorations, I wanted to compare her ideas to HPB (more my home ground). The conversation lasted for six months, and I pumped out about two or three twelve page posting per week. It was a tremendous amount of work, because I had to both look up his references to HPB and follow up on his references to AAB. But we seemed to have a terrible language barrier (he was Indian, and his grammar suggested that he was still more in that culture than in a European one). I bring this up, because my investment of time was enormous and very little of value came out of it. I already know that your communication skills are far above my last correspondent. But even with the most ideal communication, unless the discussion remains carefully structured, it easily gets out of hand and becomes counter productive. KP >If your view was correct we all aught to abandon all the works >of not only CWL but also AB, AAB and many 20th century >theosophical writers instantly! A few mistakes would be >acceptable, but not a completely flawed understanding. JHE I try not to take such a hard line view. My basic concern is not to assume that one writer says the same thing as another. It could be so, but it is not necessarily so. If HPB and CWL are not compatible with each other, we still have two internally consistent systems to study. Some people might conclude that CWL was right and HPB mistaken. I don't of course, but I would not argue with someone who might come to this conclusion. In the end, it all becomes a matter of faith. Someone can say, well, HPB just made all of this up. Definitive proof otherwise does not exist. It reminds me of St Ireneas' argument that the fact that Mythraism is so similar to Christianity is proof that Mythraism is the false religion. He reasoned that the Devil anticipated God's plan to send Jesus to found Christianity, so the Devil got in there first and created a false religion that looks Christian so as to confuse everybody. As HPB on wrote, with this kind of logic, the only thing we can do is stand in open mouth silence. KP >Now when we have set up a set of rules for this discussion in >some length, I certainly hope you will make use of them and >defend your views - or we will both seem rather silly! If you >are busy, please reply at a later time. JHE OK. I will have to look for your earlier post. Best, Jerry ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Tue Apr 30 23:19:19 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 16:19:19 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9604302319.AA00928@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophist List? Rich Taylor writes: >My point is not tht Theosophy was ever FOR the few, but that >only the FEW are able to grasp what is being taught, and for >them HPB gave herself entirely. Sadly, I think there is far more truth here in Rich's statement than one might first suspect. Though theosophical ideas were given out to all who were able to grasp them, in the end, only a few are able to truly grasp and internalize these ideas. I think HPB makes this clear by the way she dedicates her books: HPB's first book ~Isis Unveiled~ was a popular exposition of Theosophy that hinted at Theosophical doctrines more than expounding upon them. Here, HPB dedicated this book to the Theosophical Society--a growing audience of seekers at the time. Her second book, ~The Secret Doctrine~ is a far more technical work and expounds upon those doctrines that are only hinted in ~Isis.~ HPB dedicated the SD to "all true Theosophists, in every country and every race, for they called it forth, and for them it was recorded." Considering HPB's off handed remark that she had personally known only about a "half dozen" Theosophists in her life time, it is clear that she made a distinction between members of the TS and Theosophists. So if the members of the TS make up a small audience, "Theosophists," or people who actually live a theosophical life, make up an even smaller one. In her third major book is the ~The Key to Theosophy~ The Theosophical doctrines. Here, HPB dedicates this book "to all her pupils, that they may learn and teach in their turn." The people that can be counted among HPB's personal pupils are only about a dozen. HPB's final book was, ~The Voice of the Silence.~ Here, we have what HPB called "the heart doctrine" of theosophy. It is purely concerned with ethics and the sacrifices required for discipleship. It is "dedicated to the few." Therefore, as each of her books went in turn more deeply and comprehensively into the true nature of theosophy and towards the heart doctrine, each was dedicated to a smaller and smaller audience. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 30 06:44:58 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 23:44:58 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960430064458.0069a0b4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Membership in the Gang of Four At 10:06 PM 4/29/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis: > >>We were Christened "The Gang of four", which is certainly not a >>compliment, by one of the group to which I referred. That we have >>chosen to flaunt the insult, I do not feel to be a bad thing. > >In a posting where you mentioned that you and three others on >the list where supporting a certain position, I coined the >term "gang of four" with intended humor. The four of your seemed >to like the term and you've already had one outsider join, making >five! > >Somehow you've decided to take it as an insult and carry it with >bitterness, when you only would have had to ask me what did I >mean by the term! It certainly was not as strongly worded as >a Chuck-ism... Eldon: Oh heaven knows it wasn't as strong as a "Chuckism" but when a term as commonly familiar as "Gang of four" is used, and when that term has never been perceived anywhere as anything but a pejorative, I don't think I, or any of the other four were remiss for not asking you what it meant. Your care, and aptitude with words is very well appreciated by me, and so I assumed you wouldn't be guilty of a "carelessness". > >Also, you seem to be putting me in a group with others with >different views and approaches to Theosophy. The only thing >that we may have in common is to believe that it might actually >be true. Should that be so remarkable on a list that would call itself theosophical? Eldon: I sincerely apologize for including you in a group to which you clearly don't belong. Please for give me, as my most recent messages both to you personally and to Daniel Caldwell should make clear I have the highest opinion of you even though I do not agree with many things regarding your views on Theosophy. But then that's what I think theosophy's all about. I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure the rest of the "Gang" would largely agree, but I do not have any less belief in the reality and validity of theosophy than you do, it's just that our points of view, or perspectives on that reality are completely different. But I think we are all, in our won ways, equally dedicated to the motto of the society and to it's three objects. It's regarding "what came after" that we disagree, and I may say, disagree strongly. I don't disbelieve in theosophy, I just don't believe in the same theosophy as you do. > >Why all the us-versus-them polarizations? I'm not taking sides nor >seeing battle lines drawn. I respond to various people and postings, >or make original postings of my own, as I feel an interest and >attraction to do so. I'm not operating out of some crusade to make >things a certain way. > >-- Eldon > >P.S. When I was trying a cut-and-paste in constructing this >message, it somehow escaped before it was fully edited... > Eldon, as I view it the "us and them" polarization was instituted when I, and some other people were referred to as heretics, and blasphemers, and disrespectful of HPB. Believe me, no one at all is more respectful of, and fond of, HPB than I. I believe I, at least, may have over reacted to that polarization and added to it. But then I am Russian, and I do try to control the volcano, but I don't always succeed.I've had things snatched into limbo during "cut and paste" too. The other day, I carefully saved a long and very interesting message from you so I could answer it at my leisure, only to discover that the computer ate it! Very cordially: alexis From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 30 22:37:17 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 23:37:17 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Gang In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960430055335.0069598c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960430055335.0069598c@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >>Oddly enough it's one of my own "prime concepts" as well. It's >interesting, does it also ring true with the other two members of the "Gang"? I keep seeing references to a gang of 4 or 5 - but no idea of who they are supposed to be - maybe I missed some mail on this? Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 30 22:39:37 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 23:39:37 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Theosophical List In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960430103314.006fa2d0@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960430103314.006fa2d0@mail.deltanet.com>, "Eldon B. Tucker" writes >you may find me at times to be a pest, >since I've got what I consider to be important views that need >a proper hearing, along with everything else that is being said! > >-- Eldon Keep saying your piece, Eldon! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 30 17:19:45 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 10:19:45 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960430171945.00688760@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Wicca???? At 11:24 PM 4/29/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >It could be you a have a Crowley book that I don't have, because the only >context I ever saw it in was the Wiccan one and I'm feuding with them after >they tried to kill me last summer. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"You take one pound of master and three pounds of curry powder..." The >Theosophical Cannibal Cookbook > >You have brought up some very interesting things. I.E. you know that Wicca is the least monolithic of all "groups", it is certainly not unified or organized in any way, every little "High Priestess" considers herself "The Boss". So then, I ask which Wiccans are feuding with you? If they tried to kill you, it makes them highly unorthodox Wiccans indeed, because the Wiccans in particular constantly emphasize the benevolent nature of their beliefs and practices. They present themselves as benevolent harmless folk who've been persecuted by Christianity over the centuries and rely on "The Law Of Threefold Return" to "square" things with folks who are harmful. If there is a Wiccan Group that practices harmful magic, I need to know more about them. They will be unhappy with their next attempt. alexis From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 30 17:24:40 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 10:24:40 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960430172440.00689550@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: your signature to Danny Boy At 11:25 PM 4/29/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Very interesting. The quote is usually attributed to Simon himself in >response to a knight asking what to with the civilians after the battle was >over since the Xtians and the Alibgensians all looked alike. >I wonder if liked the T-shirts paraphrasing him that were so popular about 15 >years ago. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"And Simon sayeth unto the Bishop of Beauvais, ' Oh Goodie!'" The Chronicle >of St. Hildebrand of the Gout > >Well, as I have it, it was Simon de Montfort himself (he was the militarty commander of the crusade) went to the Papal Legate (The Bishop of Beauvais) just immediately to the fall of the city and asked him how they were to seperate the Cathars or Albigensians from the many good Catholics who lived in the City..the Bishop then made the famous reply: "Kill them all, God will know his own". This is one of the immense multitude of anecdotes which condemn Catholicism. Simon de Montfort was, due to almost boundless ambition (a hereditory trait it seems, as it led his son and grandson to bad deaths) not a "nive" man, but he was better by far than any Catholic Bishop in his age. alexis From 76400.1474@compuserve.com Tue Apr 30 17:14:54 1996 Date: 30 Apr 96 13:14:54 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Having Bodies Message-Id: <960430171454_76400.1474_HHL96-1@CompuServe.COM> >These principles apply to our seven-principled existence here >on Globe D earth. In the after-death states, we drop our lower >principles, and are no longer connected to an external, objective >world. We then exist in the spheres of effects, that follow our >earth, a sphere of causes. These "places" are called spheres of >effects because of their entirely subjective nature. Some are >hell worlds, like kamaloka, others are heaven worlds, like >devachan (dewachan in Tibetan). Eldon, we simply will have to agree to disagree. My own honest feeling is that you and JHE have sadly muddled up HPBs teachings. But, if it works for you, who am I to argue? BTW, for me to say that I think you have muddled her teachings, is no worse than for you to say that I have confused HPBs model with that of CWLs. I like CWLs terminology, but do not care for large chunks of his model. I have seen nothing in HPB's model that I don't agree with, insofar as I understand it and use it. Perhaps we can just leave all of this with the thought that we each have our own interpretations of what HPB had to teach us? OK? The very best way to understand the "sphere of effects" is to consider our dreams. We dream on the astral or mental planes, in a dream body, in dream worlds that are usually, but not necessarily, in the sphere of effects. I can usually tell, after I wake and think about the dream that I had, whether it was in a sphere or effects or not. In such a sphere we have little or no conscious control over our environment and seem a helpless victim to the dream and its karmic contents. In a sphere of effects, we are blown about by the winds of our own karma. While in a sphere of causes we create new karma as well. These "spheres" have little to do with subjectivity or objectivity except insofar as they are viewed/autopsied during the waking state. There is lots of objectivity in our dreams while we are dreaming. To say that spheres of effects are entirely subjective and that spheres of causes are entirely objective is a bit naive, and at least to me, is meaningless. >Until or unless we have an actual birth on Globe E, we cannot >be said to have a body on a higher plane, in the normal manner >of having bodies. This sentence flys in the face of traditional occultism and magic. It may be Theosophy, but it certainly is not theosophy. Even your caveat "in the normal manner of having bodies" doesn't hold, because there is no such thing--the "normal" manner differs on each plane. You are equating "body" with the seventh principle only (which I feel is true only for living physical beings on Globe D). I prefer to view "body" as G de P talks about it--as a vehicle through which consciousness can function/focus on any of the cosmic planes. Still friends though, I hope. Jerry S. Member, TI From eldon@theosophy.com Tue Apr 30 11:25:05 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 04:25:05 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960430112505.007066f4@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Little Theosophies Alexis: >By "Little Theosophies" i refer to groups whose feelings about their >group lead them to exclude anyone that doesn't match their paradigm. This is possible in any group or approach to the spiritual. People can be so focused upon the dead-letter of their approach that they fail to see the same life behind different words and forms held by others. A very good example of this was with Daniel H., a Christian Fundamentalist, that was writing on theos-l last Autumn. He would never agree that there could be a valid experience of the spiritual except in and through his biblical approach. >I am explicitly referring to th ULT which I consider to be the >most "Hasidic" of Theosophical groups in the exclusivity. They tend to stick to the strictest intellectual standards of study and research of the theosophical literature. Because of this, their members tend to be the most knowledgable of the three theosophical groups. On the other hand, they therefore run the greatest risk of being *only intellectual*. This is a danger, but I know many ULT members that I would personally consider as good people, awake and alive to the spiritual, and eager to help the world. One such member was a co-member of the Point Loma Publications Board, and worked with me for a number of years to help that organization do as much good as it could. And in places like Santa Barbara, there are many active members of college age, not just old folks, or middle-aged, like Adyar T.S. members and many on theos-l. >On both this list, and in Theosophy International, people from these >groups are not in a position to enforce ther exclusivity. True. Not any more than any other view can dominate the list. There are perhaps half-a-dozen distinct views of Theosophy and the world on theos-l, and these views sometimes directly contradict one another. Pity the poor beginner to Theosophy, wanting to learn about it for the first time! >They have every right to be as exclusive as they please within their >own paradigm but they have no right to impose their ideas on others. Yes. Some of us may quote HPB or "The Mahatma Letters" and use that as our proof to others that accept Theosophy the way that we do. Others would ignore that proof as unconvincing, not accepting Theosophy to be that way. Some would talk of spirits and of their out of the body experiences, and use that as proof to others that accept the world the way that they do. And some people would ignore that proof as unconvincing to them. This situation is quite apparent to us, as we participate in the discussions. The only question is how peacefully can we co-exist? Can we carry on parallel discussions without having to "set the record straight" and blow away someone else's views? I'm not sure that the views will converge. That leaves us with either *conflict* or *mutual tolerance*. I prefer the latter, although I'll admit that there would be times where I'd feel called to respond to something, if too much of what I disagree with has been said. But when I do reply, I try to be civil and not blast the intelligence or character of the writers of the ideas I don't like. >They have every right to express their ideas of course, but >no right to accuse others of "heresy" or "blasphemy" when they >are disagreed with. The terms "heresy" and "blasphemy" may have arose out of a discussion that was had earlier, where I was mentioning that I thought that one should respect the sense of the sacred in the hearts of others, even if one did not like their ideas and the words that they expressed them in. Someone disagreed with me and the discussion started to diverge. >>[TI] ... sounds like a good idea to me too. Especially as over >>the generations the various variants of the original >>Theosophy get wider apart in what they teach! >Eldon, do you grant that I am a sincere person, as sincere in my beliefs and >perceptions as anyone else? Well if you do, and I hope you do, then you must >have learned by now that I consider my view of theosophy as possibly the >most traditional as it is based upon my perceptions of theosophy of the 1875 >- 1880 variety, with no influences from later on. I grant that you are a sincere person, but think that at times you could pick the words you express yourself in with greater care. You can get your ideas across better if you don't start off by getting people mad at what you say. If you want to bring someone to another way of thinking, it's much better to paint your ideas in beautiful colors and dazzle someone with their beauty. That's much better an approach than to simply tell people how sorry a state that they're in and how their ideas are totally worthless. It's much more effective to seduce with beauty than it is to shame and cower people with your wrath! You can give a historic context to your views. I like to think of my ideas as tapping into a *living tradition* that is rooted in Mahat or the universal mind. That is, I picture my best thinking as soaring far above what I could come up with in my ordinary thinking, a visit to greater realms of thought that I'm enabled to do because of my thought life being rooted in the theosophical doctrines. I don't associate my viewpoint or stance as based upon a particular organization or time period, but rather upon an inner, living process that I nurture within. >My "cut-off" is particularly intense in 1891 when HPB died. From then >on I think there has been nothing but variance and revisionism. It >may be rigid, it may even be limited, but it's hardly heretical. Okay. You're happy with the particular presentation of Theosophy as it stood up to that time. For me, the high point would have been the years when Purucker was actively teaching and writing, since I feel I've received the greatest spiritual benefit from him, although he doesn't have the quantity of materials or vastness of depth that can be found in HPB's works. >It may interest you to know that while I totally reject CWL, I don't >reject G de P at all, while i don't agree with everything he says, I >own, and have read a great many of his books. Here is one point where you agree with Bee. She also likes de Purucker, as does Jerry Schueler and a number of others on the list. I find Purucker as complimenting HPB in a way that is useful to me. Others may not, and may be satisfied with the works of other writers and students after HPB's time. >I do reject the ULT as I find their actions and attitude too >fundamentalist for me. But that does not mean I reject WQJ, his books >are some of the best written on later Theosophy. I've even got two >copies of Robert Crosbie's book and he makes a lot of sense even if >those who followed him don't. Each theosophical group has a personality of its own, and appeal to different temperaments. Not everyone would like the ULT, the Point Loma T.S., the Adyar T.S., or a theosophical group in general. Judge was good in the sense that he dealed with very practical matters, rather than the deeper metaphysics, and was helpful to people in turning the philosophy into something that could change their lives. In "Letters that Have Helped Me," for instance, there are a series of letters where he is corresponding with and helping Jasper N. (if I remember the name right -- I don't have the book before me). >I'm a Shaman, and a Healer, and a Psychic, but first and foremost I'm an >intellectual, I too started with "book learning" but i've moved on. But as you realize, life is not linear. We may *think* that we have moved on from a particular thing, only to find ourselves to return to it years later. When I was in my teens, I was heavily into reading and studying Theosophy, but soon it lost energy in my life. I went through perhaps 10 or 15 years of a "dry period" with an interest in things like Jungian Psychology and Zen Buddhism, and then came back again, with renewed vigor and inspiration. This time around, I feel a deep sense of the *genuine* that I can sense was missing in my first approach to Theosophy, I can feel *something happening* inside myself, rather than simply *wanting something to happen*, which was my experience when I was far younger. >To make what I'm saying totally unequivocal, I will say that I >believe that everything HPB wrote about attitude and goals is valid, >about the rest I am totally uncomfortable with some of it, and more >than a little unsure about much of it. That is all. As to the literal, dead-letter of the texts, I also feel that something is lacking. But then I feel I've had the experience of "going beyond the words" and finding something that really makes sense and is very special. The words were true, it was just that there are deeper meanings to them. And with some doctrines I've noticed several layers of meaning, each one building upon the last, all of them true but each newer one a bit *more true* than the last. >I also, as I'm sure you know, think that each person must develop his >or her own version of any existential philosophy, relying on trust or >faith in the perceptions of others is, I believe, a very dangerous >"rubber crutch". likely to fail the person in extremity. I would agree that each person has to take on the challenge by themselves. Wisdom is self-acquired, it is not a gift. The words and initial ideas in the books are only the starting point, a springboard off of which we can dive to realize truly great insights! They are not the one-and-only-way to Truth, but I've found them to work wonders in their application in my life, and feel obligated to work on sharing what I feel I've been blessed to see and understand. Best wishes, -- Eldon From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 30 23:31:03 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 00:31:03 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <5vFUxJA3KqhxEwRz@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Har! In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , JRC writes >Say, wouldn't it be weird if everyone, instead of assigning blame to >others while claiming themselves to be simply innocent propounders of >"Theosophy", rather articulated precisely what they thought was wrong >with the current list, and explained in detail their part in the problem? >[I'd start, except of course I'm the only one that *is* blameless Of course, of course. [You left a couple of "hars" out of your posting]. Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Wed May 1 00:16:32 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 17:16:32 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <3186AD60.24D@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Lost? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > Your own princely title receives a high profile in your writings on > theos-l, but in all honesty, I much prefer John's friend Alexis. I > sincerely hope this does not upset you, as I intend a compliment, not a > put down. > > Fondly, > > Alan I agree very much. I too prefer John's friend, he can be a neat guy when he wants to be. Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed May 1 00:22:19 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 20:22:19 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605010126.VAA23024@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: scuttling theos-l Dear folks, For a while there, I was thinking that, since we were talking so unfavorably about the ES, the ES had planted a few people to write on theos-l, to at least get us off the subject, if not destroy our well going conversations all together. Then I thought "Noooo, that's too cloak & dagger". Today & yesterday I came back to the thought, because Chuck & Alexis turned up around that time, & they *have* managed for the time being to destroy much of our conversation. Chuck at times talks about the habits of people in Wheaton, including John Algeo's, habits he wouldn't know about unless he hung around Olcott a lot. Maybe strange things are happening? If you disenfranchise members to keep them from voting against you, you might try that kind of a Chuck trick as well. Ho ho! ho ho! Liesel TI From rdon@garlic.com Wed May 1 01:36:45 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 18:36:45 -0700 From: rdon@garlic.com (Rodolfo Don) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Web Page >In message , Rodolfo Don > writes >>The reason that I included those quotes from the M.L. was because it was >>inconceivable to me (and still is), that "Universal Brotherhood" is not >>mentioned on the TI statement nor in its objects. As a matter of fact could >>you answer that question to me: *Why isn't Universal Brotherhood mentioned >>on the TI's objects?* I would like to know. > >Because of the changes in people's understanding of language since the >19th century. The rising generation seem to regard "brotherhood" as a >strictly masculine or male-oriented term which, by definition, excludes >women, or at least marginalizes them. Younger women especially do not >like this. Others see "Brotherhood" as relating to arcane rites >conducted by male-only freemasons, and so forth. I don't have any problem with "Universal Brotherhood", are you implying that there could be some people that think that "Universal Brotherhood" applies only to men and not women? That's ridiculous, Alan. That is taking semantics to the level of the absurd. What is mankind? What is love? What is compassion? No, I don't happen to agree with you on this! > >When the objects were first set out, these viewpoints did not obtain, >and people had no problems with the language as it is still expressed in >the 1896 objects. In an attempt to overcome the difficulty, when TI was >developed, it was agreed to opt for the idea of us all being members of >a universal human family, and approach the "brotherhood" ideal from >there. As I mentioned before, there is still work to be done on this, >and I have tried to do this in my "personal view" which is linked on the >Web page. As modern language stands at present, we have not been able >to find an inclusive term to cover all individuals which exactly matches >the original ideal of "brotherhood" - and the T.S. worldwide is losing >many potential members because of its retaining old and *outdated* >language. It doesn't show up in the membership statistics, for the >people concerned *are repelled by the language and go elsewhere!* I >have been told this so many times by so many people, most of whom are in >some kind of "new age" movement which in all probability owes its own >existence to the T.S. in the first place - but it has moved with the >times, and the T.S. has not, and gets smaller with every passing year. >Sadly, it does not seem to want to listen to those of us who advise it >of this particular problem, and it is not for want of trying, as John >Crocker will bear witness. If you read Theosophy International first object, the way it stands on the web now (the revised version), it could apply to any of the criminal gangs that we have here in California and elsewhere. "To form a nucleus within the universal human family, without distinction of sex, sexual orientation, creed, class, or color." This is very sad, and I refuse to be part of it. >All that said, the problem of restating the ideal remains, hence my >suggestions to you. I am anxious that a Web page, which is, as it were, >a front door to other rooms, should be as inviting as possible to people >who know nothing of Theosophy, Mahatmas, or H.P.B. We are still trying to define Theosophy International, what its purpose for existence is. As I said before, the way you are explaining it to me, it seems that TI is not the place for me. Rudy >Once they are able to start following links from the Web page, then all >theosophical possibilities can, in time, be open to them. > >Let me know what you think. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From eldon@theosophy.com Wed May 1 09:53:09 1996 Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 02:53:09 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960501095309.00688ac4@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Eldon vis a vis CWL Alexis: >It is clearly impossible to study or >discuss theosophy, from any point of view without mentioning certain people. >They are part and parcel of the History and as such cannot be ignored. ... >it is also impossible to ignore a discussion of CWL >(leaving all references to his personal life out) because the history of the >Adyar Society post 1895 is inextricably tied up with him His work, and his >writings must be open to comparative analysis and commentary. To make him >and his work "tabu" because one person is emotionally blocked on the subject >makes rational discussion impossible. I think that Liesel's concern is not that Leadbeater's ideas about Theosophy be discussed and reviewed, along with the ideas of other theosophical writers and students. Her concern, if I correctly understand it, is that however mistaken he may have been at times, he did spend his life in service to the theosophical movement, and deserves some respect in that regard, even if we might dispute some of his ideas about Theosophy. People that are happy to read, study, and benefit in some way from his writings should be allowed to do so, until they are ready for something more. That was my personal experience, having initially read most of his books as a teenager, until at an older age, I was introduced to Purucker. A positive way to encourage people to broaden their reading is to continue to offer useful insights and ideas from the books and sources that we admire. People that come to appreciate what we say will be attracted to read and study them. Those not interested, happy with what they've got, should be allowed to remain just that: happy with that they've got. >As Jerry Hejka-Ekins commented >recently:"Gregory Tillett's book, "Elder Brother" has completely >discredited CWL and as a result the theosophical Publishing House is >"drawing back from re-publishing his work" I was on the Board of Point Loma Publications when the book was remaindered. We picked up the remaining stock and became its publisher. The remaining inventory is likely in the garage at the home of the Small's in San Diego. (It was picked up, by the way, to keep it in print and accessible to scholars, and not because Point Loma Publications wanted to get into the business of historic works.) >The Supreme Court of the United >States has ruled (quite some time ago) that people in the public eye are >"fair game" and no one I can think of was more gladly "in the public eye" >than CWL. Because some people were sensitive to historic discussions, there was a thread on theos-l that concluded that they move to theos-roots, where people not wishing to read them could simply "unsubscribe", still remaining active participants on theos-l. >It is really impossible to have reasonable discussions if one >person out of some 85 gets personally emotional over any negative references >to a person who is a vital ingredient in why the T.S. is where it is today. This should be possible in the right context. In a list where history was discussed, history could be discussed. Where comparative Theosophy is studied, his version could be contrasted with the other versions. We should remember, though, that he still has a following, and those people are sincere, good people, that won't be led to better things simply by having CWL discredited in their eyes. And who he was does not really matter for living people, since we no longer either need to refer people to him nor warn people to stay away. TPH is trying, I assume, to continue to make the best of his books by purging the most unscientific materials, like the stuff about people living on Mars, with canals, etc. The books get a bit smaller with later reprints. They apparently still find value in the remaining content, and the books remain in print. >Now, in my own discussions regarding theosophical history, I really need to >refer occasionally to the information in "Elder brother", what do you >suggest that we do? The earlier idea was to keep the historic discussions on theos-roots and people not wanting to read it could avoid that particular list. >I avoided mentioning him for the longest time, to avoid >irritating Liesel but then I realized that it was stupid on my part to do >so. How can we talk at all if certain topics are verboten? You may know two people. With one person, you can talk about certain things. With another, there are entirely different things you can talk about. With each person, you know from personal experience that certain topics are not productive, that they only elicit anger and should be avoided. The same is true of meetings, groups, and various mailing lists. There are places where certain topics are eagerly engaged in and appreciated. There are other places where the same topics are considered awful and enrage everyone! On 'theos-l' everything has been fair game, meaning that there will always be some people happy to read someone's words, and others that are outraged. It cannot be avoided. In the case of theosophical history, though, the amount of sensitivity seemed to be greater than in other topics, so people were going to voluntarily move the threads to 'theos-roots'. I can appreciate Liesel's reaction to negative comments about Leadbeater, since at one point in my life I would have had the same reaction. I had and read all of his books, and considered him my best and favorite theosophical writer. But then I had gone through his books and was left with the big question: "and now what?" And I feel fortunate to have found something to fill my need to learn something more. -- Eldon From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Wed May 1 03:02:23 1996 Date: 30 Apr 96 23:02:23 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: More on World Service-Wesak Message-Id: <960501030223_74024.3352_BHT209-1@CompuServe.COM> The full moon opposition in Taurus (sun) - Scorpio moon will be sometimes this Wednesday. At that time many people in various groups will meditate in expactation of the appearance of the Buddha (mystically accroding to CWL or only mythically to others) in Shamballa to the assembled Masters and by proxy to chelas, aspirants, adepts and all who connect with the in-pouring of energy from the higher planes to our globe. As far as I'm concerned, I ready for a little in-pouring of light, love and wisdom and the power of the higher self on the buddhic and atmic levels. I have somewhat self-pityingly posted of my individual suffering, but I have thus opened to the hope that the direct experience of human suffering links one to the archetypes of compassion. Someone said when great suffering is combined with great love and compassion something of importance may take place in the death of the ego and the rebirth as world server. May all feel the energies! Keith Price From ramadoss@eden.com Wed May 1 03:06:54 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 22:06:54 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: To: Eldon re: CWL In-Reply-To: <199604302018.QAA02855@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > PS I forgot that the objectors include your wife, Brenda. She bowed out of > theos-l a long time ago, because she didnt' like the hurtful remarks people > were making. > > But to tell you the truth, I wouldn't join the other list anyway. I don't > see any purpose served by going over long past & forgotten events & the > lives of dead people, which don't matter any more to daily theosophical ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >living. ^^^^^^^ Liesel: I am 1000% with you. The bottom line is how I apply any Theosophical knowledge to my life - no matter from where or from whom it was received. Just talking does not get anywhere. Secondly, "Ingratitude is not one of our vices" as one of the Adepts told AP Sinnett. I am just grateful for any idea or inspiration or any help any one has given me - no matter who it is - the lowest savage to highest Adepts. IMHO the world will be better if we can get more and more people responsible and thus be grateful for any help they get from anywhere. No one from outside force this attitude. It has to come from within. ...doss > > Liesel > > From ramadoss@eden.com Wed May 1 03:21:17 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 22:21:17 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: To Eldon vis a vis CWL In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960501095309.00688ac4@mail.deltanet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I did not know that TPH even had an idea of publishing Tillett's book on CWL. The original publication was by Routledge, Kegan and Paul and large number of copies were langushing in half price books stores due to lack of demand. It would have been a business disaster for TPH to have considered publishing a book which they may not be able to sell. ....doss On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > Alexis: > > >It is clearly impossible to study or > >discuss theosophy, from any point of view without mentioning certain people. > >They are part and parcel of the History and as such cannot be ignored. ... > >it is also impossible to ignore a discussion of CWL > >(leaving all references to his personal life out) because the history of the > >Adyar Society post 1895 is inextricably tied up with him His work, and his > >writings must be open to comparative analysis and commentary. To make him > >and his work "tabu" because one person is emotionally blocked on the subject > >makes rational discussion impossible. > > I think that Liesel's concern is not that Leadbeater's ideas about Theosophy > be discussed and reviewed, along with the ideas of other theosophical > writers and students. Her concern, if I correctly understand it, is that > however mistaken he may have been at times, he did spend his life in > service to the theosophical movement, and deserves some respect in that > regard, even if we might dispute some of his ideas about Theosophy. > > People that are happy to read, study, and benefit in some way from his > writings should be allowed to do so, until they are ready for something > more. That was my personal experience, having initially read most of his > books as a teenager, until at an older age, I was introduced to Purucker. > > A positive way to encourage people to broaden their reading is to continue > to offer useful insights and ideas from the books and sources that we > admire. People that come to appreciate what we say will be attracted to > read and study them. Those not interested, happy with what they've got, > should be allowed to remain just that: happy with that they've got. > > >As Jerry Hejka-Ekins commented > >recently:"Gregory Tillett's book, "Elder Brother" has completely > >discredited CWL and as a result the theosophical Publishing House is > >"drawing back from re-publishing his work" > > I was on the Board of Point Loma Publications when the book was remaindered. > We picked up the remaining stock and became its publisher. The remaining > inventory is likely in the garage at the home of the Small's in San Diego. > (It was picked up, by the way, to keep it in print and accessible to scholars, > and not because Point Loma Publications wanted to get into the business of > historic works.) > > >The Supreme Court of the United > >States has ruled (quite some time ago) that people in the public eye are > >"fair game" and no one I can think of was more gladly "in the public eye" > >than CWL. > > Because some people were sensitive to historic discussions, there was a > thread on theos-l that concluded that they move to theos-roots, where people > not wishing to read them could simply "unsubscribe", still remaining active > participants on theos-l. > > >It is really impossible to have reasonable discussions if one > >person out of some 85 gets personally emotional over any negative references > >to a person who is a vital ingredient in why the T.S. is where it is today. > > This should be possible in the right context. In a list where history > was discussed, history could be discussed. Where comparative Theosophy is > studied, his version could be contrasted with the other versions. > > We should remember, though, that he still has a following, and those > people are sincere, good people, that won't be led to better things simply > by having CWL discredited in their eyes. And who he was does not really > matter for living people, since we no longer either need to refer people > to him nor warn people to stay away. > > TPH is trying, I assume, to continue to make the best of his books by > purging the most unscientific materials, like the stuff about people living > on Mars, with canals, etc. The books get a bit smaller with later reprints. > They apparently still find value in the remaining content, and the books > remain in print. > > >Now, in my own discussions regarding theosophical history, I really need to > >refer occasionally to the information in "Elder brother", what do you > >suggest that we do? > > The earlier idea was to keep the historic discussions on theos-roots and > people not wanting to read it could avoid that particular list. > > >I avoided mentioning him for the longest time, to avoid > >irritating Liesel but then I realized that it was stupid on my part to do > >so. How can we talk at all if certain topics are verboten? > > You may know two people. With one person, you can talk about certain things. > With another, there are entirely different things you can talk about. With > each person, you know from personal experience that certain topics are not > productive, that they only elicit anger and should be avoided. > > The same is true of meetings, groups, and various mailing lists. There are > places where certain topics are eagerly engaged in and appreciated. There > are other places where the same topics are considered awful and enrage everyone! > > On 'theos-l' everything has been fair game, meaning that there will always > be some people happy to read someone's words, and others that are outraged. > It cannot be avoided. In the case of theosophical history, though, the amount > of sensitivity seemed to be greater than in other topics, so people were > going to voluntarily move the threads to 'theos-roots'. > > I can appreciate Liesel's reaction to negative comments about Leadbeater, > since at one point in my life I would have had the same reaction. I had > and read all of his books, and considered him my best and favorite theosophical > writer. But then I had gone through his books and was left with the big > question: "and now what?" And I feel fortunate to have found something to > fill my need to learn something more. > > -- Eldon > From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed May 1 02:22:55 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 22:22:55 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605010327.XAA28724@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: 2 quotes from HH which fit in with this list I'm reading, slowly, "Violence & Compassion" by HH The Dalai Lama and Jean-Claude Carriere a screen writer. They're talking about religious traditions. JCC "Reflecting from an ancient point of view can help us. Apart from experience, this supplies us with both doctrine & distance. Very often we go astray in the chaos of present-day life. If we look at our world from too close up, we can't see it anymore. It's good to start out again, every day, from far away." HH "But can that permanent recourse to tradition also close our eyes?" JCC "Naturally. It can paralyze us. We must above all remain open & sensitive. Then, if we have the means, we have to show others what must be done. It's certain that the old religious prohibitions sometimes harm us. But how to bend them? With what weapons?" ................... JCC "For centuriess Westerners have been telling themselves that they are the crown of creation, made in the very image of God. They have wound up believing it. Our efforts to extricate ourselves from this myth which Buddhism has never known, are slow and hard, and they always have to begin over again. Only 20 years ago people in the West who felt themselves an inseparable part of the wheel were very rare." HHM "On the contrary, the majority - and this is still true - took themselves to be the ones who made the wheel turn." JCC Sure. You were speaking of some groups of businessmen who are here to make a retreat and who ask your advice. What are they by comparison with the milllions of organized "executives" whose only project is to exploit and further overwhelm Bhumi?" (the earth) HH "It's true that the West is fascinated by efficiency. If the problem of survival is not taken care of, there will be nobody left even to discuss the problem. And Buddhism can help here. First of all, as I said, with the enormous attention it pays to the notion of interdependence. That can never be repeated often enough. Then with the attitude that it adopts towards dogmatic truth. "Anyway, the identity of the doctor and the rememdy he prescribes are of little importance. The Buddha cited the famous example of the man struck by a poisoned arrow: he doesn't want to let himself be treated until he learns the name of the man who shot him, until he knows what caste he belongs to, to what family, if he is tall or short, in what forest the arrow was cut. And so he dies before he can be cared for." Aren't they nice? Liesel TI From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed May 1 02:23:14 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 22:23:14 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605010327.XAA28752@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List Rich and JRC I just sent an article copy to Bee Brown, which maybe contains an answer to your discussion. It's called "Doctrine & Dogma" (something like that) by Shirley Nicholson. It makes sense to me. So let's you try it on. First off, she points out that we *do* have a doctrine "The Secret Doctrine". Then she goes into a discussion of the difference between doctrine & dogma. The gist is that whatever belief system one adopts, it should be pliable & dynamic, & of the sort that will admit a new Truth, if one should happen across one. One that will roll with the punches of life, & adapt.. Dogma, to Shirley is something very rigid & unmoveable, about to die. I think of it as boxed in ideas, because her writing made me think of the German word "Kastengeist", which has really something to do with "caste spirit", but which could also mean boxed in spirit. I think our SD fits the idea of a doctrine. It's purposely written in such a way that it can be interpreted various ways, and at diffenrent levels. ie the reader isn't told "this is what you must believe BOOM", but rather "now, why don't you try out this idea, or does that one suit you better?" "Do you think this might be true?" it's meant to be but the finger pointing at the moon. Best wishes Liesel TI From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed May 1 02:23:10 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 22:23:10 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605010327.XAA28734@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: How do we broadcast theosophy nowadays Dear Doss, Glad to find someone on this list who finds *some* good in CWL. Thanks for saying so. That man spent his life being of service. "Harry" is Harry van Gelder, who was one of CWL's pupils and my Teacher. He passed over March a year ago. We miss him. I know you like Krishnamurti. When I was Lodge President, we did part of "The Flight of the Eagle". I got a lot out of it. But Krishnamurti is not my favorite thinker. But, being a good theosophist, I think you have the right to choose whatever Path suits you best. Liesel From ramadoss@eden.com Wed May 1 03:30:35 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 22:30:35 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: More on World Service-Wesak In-Reply-To: <960501030223_74024.3352_BHT209-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Keith: Glad to see your post and remind us of the Wesak. Most full moon days are generally considered important by Hindus also. In addition Wesak is considered more important. I am sure those who started the tradition should have known something about the unseen influences. Years ago my dad used to invite all the TS members to our home on the Wesak evening for a dinner followed by a brief meditation and discussion. At that time I was too young to follow what was going on except that all of us in the family were excited about the visit of all the members of TS. It was a very good and friendly brotherly feeling that everybody felt when they left. So let each who believes can do what they want on Wesak evening. Do you know the exact time CST of the full moon? ....doss On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Keith Price wrote: > The full moon opposition in Taurus (sun) - Scorpio moon will be sometimes this > Wednesday. At that time many people in various groups will meditate in > expactation of the appearance of the Buddha (mystically accroding to CWL or only > mythically to others) in Shamballa to the assembled Masters and by proxy to > chelas, aspirants, adepts and all who connect with the in-pouring of energy from > the higher planes to our globe. > > As far as I'm concerned, I ready for a little in-pouring of light, love and > wisdom and the power of the higher self on the buddhic and atmic levels. I > have somewhat self-pityingly posted of my individual suffering, but I have thus > opened to the hope that the direct experience of human suffering links one to > the archetypes of compassion. Someone said when great suffering is combined > with great love and compassion something of importance may take place in the > death of the ego and the rebirth as world server. > > > > May all feel the energies! > > Keith Price > > From ramadoss@eden.com Wed May 1 03:53:25 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 22:53:25 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: How do we broadcast theosophy nowadays In-Reply-To: <199605010327.XAA28734@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear Liesel: Glad to see your message. What JK's books and videos have done is to more clearly understand the fundamental Theosophy - especially as it relates to the First Object. If you see some of his lectures, they echo what HPB had stated in Key to Theosophy. From that point of view I think he is talking about Theosophy without discussing all the details about the unseen world and the past historical details of man and the universe. ....doss On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > Dear Doss, > > Glad to find someone on this list who finds *some* good in CWL. Thanks for > saying so. That man spent his life being of service. "Harry" is Harry van > Gelder, who was one of CWL's pupils and my Teacher. He passed over March a > year ago. We miss him. > > I know you like Krishnamurti. When I was Lodge President, we did part of > "The Flight of the Eagle". I got a lot out of it. But Krishnamurti is not my > favorite thinker. But, being a good theosophist, I think you have the right > to choose whatever Path suits you best. > > Liesel