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 Th