From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed May 1 00:08:19 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 01:08:19 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Clarification In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , Rodolfo Don writes (privately, but see below): TI members: I wrote some fairly obvious (to me) comments to Rudy on his use of quotes on the TI Web page he so generously provided. To save time, I hope you will be able to infer what I was getting at from his reply below - and check out the Web page as well! >Alan, > >I think that I have to clarify my last message to you. I honestly don't >know if this is the right discussion list for me. When you and the rest of >the list decided to change the objects of TI I accepted the new objects >even though no mention of Universal Brotherhood was mentioned in the new >objects nor in the rest of the document. That was inconceivable to me at >that time, and I wrote it to you, and it is still inconceivable to me. > >Without Universal Brotherhood, TI is nothing else than people comparing >different theosophical doctrines. Or different religions. To compete on who >is right and who is wrong. > >On the other hand, to work for Universal Brotherhood it is something >totally different. That was the reason that I decided to do something about >it, by creating that window with those quotes from the M.L. and from >H.P.B.'s last message to the American Convention. > >I have to accept the fact that I was very upset when I read your message. >You wanted me to create another document, with another point of view on >something that is as fundamental as TI's own identity. This is no opinion, >or view on my part. It is a fact: that the reason of forming the >Theosophical Society was to establish a real brotherhood of humanity. This >has nothing to do with having or not having a hierarchy at TI. If I was >forced to put in a window those 2 quotes from M.L. and 1 from H.P.B., it is >because I was denied to put it in the objects. > >This is where we stand. You are welcome to bring this discussion on the >list if you feel it could help. > >Sincerely, > >Rudy > > --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 30 23:56:39 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 00:56:39 +0100 From: Alan Subject: 2 Year Rule Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 From the International (ADYAR) Rules, Rule 29 (e) for information: (e) Without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 10, no member in good standing for less than two years shall have the right to vote in elections and other matters pertaining to Lodges, Federations, Regional Associations, National Societies or other duly constituted bodies of the Theosophical Society. In the case of newly formed Lodges (Branches), or where the civil code or corporate law prohibits restrictions on voting rights, the General Secretary, or National Council or Committee, or the International Secretary, as the case may be, shall have the power to waive the requirements of this rule. Where such waiver becomes necessary, alternative safeguards shall be provided to ensure that the character of the Society is preserved in all its duly constituted bodies, and properties safeguarded. Not being a member of TSA, the dispute over by-laws does not directly affect me (except emotionally, where I am upset by what seems to be a double standard). Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed May 1 00:26:16 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 01:26:16 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: TI membership list - May 1996 Mime-Version: 1.0 THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises men and women who, of their own free choice, subscribe to the spirit of the three objects first formulated by the Theosophical Society, but in a more up-to-date form based on suggestions by members of the internet community, and expressed thus: 1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family, without distinction of sex, sexual orientation, creed, class, or color. 2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative religion, theosophy, philosophy, and the scientific method, according to individual ability and inclination. 3. To investigate mysteries of nature and unrealized human potential and abilities, with an underlying respect for all life. THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is a voluntary network, whereby it is sufficient to declare one's sympathy and/or allegiance to the three objects, and to be registered as having done so. No belief system is required - nor assumed to be held - by any member. All have the right to choose, without trace of coercion, the path by which they seek understanding. There are no fees, no subscriptions, although voluntary donations and/or contributions could be made to specific projects or even individuals for particular and specified purposes. As THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not need rules, whether anyone participates in or supports any such activity is an entirely personal matter. We hope to be of service, and to share what we have in amity with other theosophical, occult, and esoteric organizations, as also with like-minded individuals. ------------------------------- To join Theosophy International, send an e-mail message asking to be registered to TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk or give your name and other details you wish to share to whoever introduced you. ---------------------------------------------------------------- "TI" has members in nine countries. ----------------------------------- List of current members: Contact and affiliation information is provided for some members who have expressed a wish to be identified further as a means of promoting our work, and who will be pleased to provide details of "what's on offer" either from the member personally, or within the local area, where specified. Members outside the U.S.A. are also identified by country. Albert ADALSTEINSSON (Iceland) E-mail: alberta@centrum.is Dr. Frederic ANDRES (Japan) E-mail: andres@rd.nacsis.ac.jp John ASHBY (UK) Alan BAIN, D.D. (UK): Member, TSE (Unattached). Former member, American Academy of Religion, Society of Biblical Literature (retired). E-mail: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Gregg BARTLE: TSA E-mail: currently offline at old address Virginia BEHRENS: TSA E-mail: SeussInUse@gnn.com Mrs. Geraldine BESKIN (UK): One House Lodge, Onehouse, Stowmarket, Suffolk. Francois BERTRAND, Paris, France. Bee BROWN (NZ): Theosophical Society in New Zealand (Whanganui) E-mail: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Charles W. COSIMANO E-mail: Drpsionic@aol.com John R. CROCKER E-mail: jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Liesel F. DEUTSCH E-mail: liesel@dreamscape.com Rodolfo DON E-mail: Rdon@garlic.com Alexis A. DOLGORUKII: TSA E-mail: [Address in theos-l postings] born july 16th 1935 16-A Henry Street, San Francisco, California 94114-1215 Artist, Sculptor, Writer, Singer, raises wolves as a hobby (real ones not astral), founder of "The Cubic Circle - Center for Experimental Shamanism" Mark A. FOSTER, Ph.D. * Sociologist of Religion * Full-Time College Faculty Sociology, JCCC, 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210 * 913/768-4244 Dir., Reality Sciences Inst. * Acad. Dir., Found. for the Science of Reality Staff, 4 Compuserve & AOL Forums * Owner, 4 EMail Lists * List Co-Moderator Board of Dirs./Exec. V.P./Talent, Tektite Films * BBS Sysop (913/768-1113) E-mail: mfoster@qni.com R.A. GILBERT (UK): Member, TSE (Bristol). Bookseller, Occult, Masonic and Theological. E-mail: Robert@nellie2.demon.co.uk Paul GILLINGWATER: Life member of HPB Lodge, Auckland, New Zealand Currently residing in Vienna, Austria E-mail: paul@actrix.co.at Robert HOLMSTROM: Theosophical Society in Canada E-mail: rholmstrom@voyageur.ca Sy GINSBURG: Theosophical Society in Miami, TSA. E-mail: 72724.413@compuserve.com Joanne GREIG (NZ): Member of Wellington Branch of the T.S. E-mail: astrea@actrix.co.at) Michael GRENIER: Member-at-large, TSA E-mail: mike@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com Jerry HEJKA-EKINS E-mail: jhe:toto.csustan.edu K. Paul JOHNSON E-mail: pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Lewis LUCAS E-mail: llucas@mercury.gc.peachnut.edu John E. MEAD E-mail: jem@vnet.net Anne PICKER E-mail: picker@utkvx.utcc.utk.edu Kim POULSEN (DK): Member of Teosofisk Forening (Theosophical Union), formerly TS Danish Section. [Denmark]. E-mail: poulsen@dk-online.dk Keith PRICE E-mail: 74024.3352@compuserve.com Jerry SCHUELER E-mail: 76400.1474@compuserve.com Zach SPILLER zas5431@prin.edu Murray STENTIFORD (NZ): Theosophical Society in New Zealand (Auckland) E-mail: mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz A. Tabitha SYNGE-PERRIN (UK) Gerda J. THOMPSON (USA) Eldon B. TUCKER E-mail: eldon@theosophy.com Peter WALSTRA (NL): Member, Theosophical Society in the Netherlands (Adyar). World Theosophical Youth Federation. Agni Yoga Society. Database administrator national theosophical library/ E-mail: pwalstra@pi.net Abbreviations: TSA: Theosophical Society in America (Adyar). ULT: United Lodge of Theosophists. TSP: Theosophical Society, Pasadena TSE: Theosophical Society in England Total signed up to date: 35 --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From ramadoss@eden.com Wed May 1 00:57:31 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 19:57:31 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: TSA Elections-2 Year Voting Requirement In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >>On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, m.k. ramadoss wrote: > To: Theos-l, Theos-buds, theos@netcom,com > ======================================================= > Hi: > > The message posted by Sy is very informative in both on a policy level of > disenfranchisement and its potential to affect election outcomes in more > than one part of the country. Sy being a lawyer, I am confident that he > has carefully looked into the whole range of issues involved. > > I do not know what the situation in various other lodges in the country > whose members may be disenfranchised. Theosophist's are presumed to have > a high sense of real *justice* no matter what it costs -- this is at least > the ideal that you will find in much of the correspondence in ML to APS. > > To me it appears that it is a very serious issue which should not be > treated in a cavalier way for any short term objectives. It can turn off > a lot of new potential future leaders of TSA and can have a lasting > effect on the future perception of the ethics of TSA and if such bad > perception is formed, no amount of PR or appeal to higher values or > mysteries is going to help. > > If any of the subscribers to theos-l and theos-buds who are members of > TSA know of anyone, I would suggest that they should officially and > immediately contact their district directors and national president to > get votes sent to them. Due to the delay in delivery of ballots, it may > also require extension of time for ballots to be returned to TSA, > Wheaton. I am not a lawyer, but using common sense, it may require a non > partisan legal advise, which of course may cost some money. Here, IMHO, > lot more than money is at stake. > > It is my hope that things will be set right and is done quickly. > > MK Ramadoss > Member TSA - San Antonio Lodge > > > > > > ======================================================================= > > On 30 Apr 1996, Sy Ginsburg wrote: > > > The following is the text of a letter sent by me, Sy Ginsburg, President of the > > Theosophical Society in Miami, via Federal Express on April 29, 1996, to John > > Algeo, President of the Theosophical Society in America. Your comments are > > welcome. > > > > April 29, 1996 > > Dr. John Algeo, President BY FEDERAL EXPRESS > > The Theosophical Society in America > > 1926 N. Main Street, Wheaton, IL. 60189 > > > > Dear John: > > > > In accordance with the resolution passed by The Theosophical Society in > > Miami, at its business meeting on April 28, 1996, I have been delegated to write > > this letter to you on behalf of all our members who are also members of The > > Theosophical Society in America (TSA) for two years or longer. In addition to > > my signature there is appended, the signatures of 2 other members of The > > Theosophical Society in America as well as of The Theosophical Society in Miami > > (TSM), and the signature of 1 other member of The Theosophical Society in > > America who is a member of another Study Center. > > > > It has come to our attention that ballots to vote in the national > > election of officers and directors of TSA were not sent to members of TSA who > > have not been members for two years or longer, in application of bylaw change #8 > > passed in referendum in January 1996, but applied retroactively to exclude > > members who voted in the bylaw referendum. Because of this failure to send > > ballots by the National Secretary under your instruction, 59 members of The > > Theosophical Society in Miami have been disenfranchised from voting. A group of > > these members are writing to you separately to demand their ballots. We are > > writing on behalf of members who did receive ballots, and similarly urge that > > you send ballots to these disenfranchised members so that they can vote, and > > urge you to send ballots to other disenfranchised members of TSA throughout the > > country. We call to your attention that the bylaw changes passed in January, > > even if they had been adopted legally, were voted on by all members in good > > standing of TSA at that time. It is a large group of these very same members, > > 59 from The Theosophical Society in Miami alone, who voted on these bylaw > > changes, to whom you now deny a ballot retroactively. It is our view that such > > retroactive disenfranchisement is a serious violation of members rights. > > > > We would like to think that your retroactive disenfranchisement of > > members' voting rights was an oversight. However, 2 of our members, Roxanne > > Nadolsky (member since December, 1994) and Diana Alboum, both telephoned Nathan > > Greer, National Secretary of TSA to request their ballots. Nathan told them, > > after consulting with you, that they were not entitled to vote. We regard your > > actions in this matter as objectionable and urge you to reconsider them. > > > > On a personal note, the fact has not gone unnoticed, that since I am a > > candidate for Southeast District Director, your disenfranchisement of 59 members > > of TSM, many of whom could be expected to vote for me as I am the President of > > TSM, could change the election result. It is imperative that you act quickly to > > rectify your action and send these members their ballots. > > Yours very truly > > > > THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY > > IN MIAMI > > > > > > Seymour B. (Sy) Ginsburg, > > President > > copy: Nathan Greer, National Secretary > > copy: will be posted to the INTERNET Theos-L Discussion Group to reach other TSA > > members > > > > From poulsen@dk-online.dk Wed May 1 21:26:25 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 19:26:25 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3794.4D1C2C00@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: re: clarification Encoding: 28 TEXT Rudy: >When you and the rest of >the list decided to change the objects of TI I accepted the new objects >even though no mention of Universal Brotherhood was mentioned in the new >objects nor in the rest of the document. That was inconceivable to me at >that time, and I wrote it to you, and it is still inconceivable to me. Rudy and Alan, I must have slept in class. I am very partial to the idea contained in the word "universal brotherhood" - even if the wording are a bit unhappy. The new text only mentions a nucleous (a germ!!!), etc. - without any of the beauty of the original - as an IDEA. An idea which often makes me happy when contemplating it, perhaps the grandest concept of theosophy. Despite all the minds involved in creating the new text, I feel that it is rather inferior to the original. Perhaps it cannot be done completely satisfactory in english. More brain-storming needed! But Rudy?s post raises an interesting objection: can these objects really be changed after people have signed up? Many of us may have signed on to quite different things. I remember raising the eyebrow of the mere postuation of such a thing as hidden objects behind the objects of the TS some time ago. I may of course have voted in favor of these changes to the TI revised objects, thinking I voted for Murray?s objection against the word "free" (blush). In friendship, Kim From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed May 1 21:40:13 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 22:40:13 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: WELCOME! Mime-Version: 1.0 Theosophy International Welcomes Ann E. Bermingham! 36 members in nine countries ... Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 30 12:46:29 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 08:46:29 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960430084628_283974017@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Wilting Alan, Just thought it would be nice to offer. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 30 12:46:27 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 08:46:27 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960430084626_283973995@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Bee's comments, and everything else Alan, You will notice that I have been staying out of things. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 30 12:46:33 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 08:46:33 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960430084631_283974028@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Basic scholarship Alan, I agree with your interpretation. We lack sufficient hard data to know the entire story and it is not sufficient to say that we are told something is true. That is argument by authority, which as all logicians know is fallacious. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "He who would live a holy life, let him meditate upon the swiss cheese" unknown Swiss adept. From alexei@slip.net Wed May 1 06:08:26 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 23:08:26 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Subject: Re: TSA Elections-2 Year Voting Requirement Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960501060826.006971dc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Doss: I entirely agree with you that this is not a very happy situation, and, as one of the disenfranchised, I am horrified. As you surely know, i\on the day one is accepted as an American Citizen, provided one is old enough, one is free to exercised the franchise. This particular By Law change is unnecessary for the good running of any organization and creates an atmosphere of manipulation and power grabbing. Now, my question is this, I'm sure Sy Ginsburg must, as a Lawyer, have carefully checked the relevant Laws and so I must assume that this, while it would be unconstitutional for a state or city to do it, is nevertheless legal for the T.S. I would very much appreciate it if someone could give me the reasons for so doing, and if anyone has any ideas to end this kind of thing. I just don't think such a rule is fair, and as someone who has been involved in politics for most of his adult life, I think it's purpose gives the appearance of being reprehensible. Any organization in The United States of America must be run on fully Democratic principle, this is not Democratic. My primary question is does anyone have any ideas as to what can be done about it? alexis From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 30 23:16:06 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 00:16:06 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? In-Reply-To: <960429212224_76400.1474_HHL125-3@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960429212224_76400.1474_HHL125-3@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >Perhaps Alan can form a committee... Arrrrrrgh! [Exits screaming ...] Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Richtay@aol.com Wed May 1 06:37:36 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 02:37:36 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960501023735_387489153@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List Liesel wrote, > Rich and JRC > > I just sent an article copy to Bee Brown, which maybe contains an answer to > your discussion. It's called "Doctrine & Dogma" (something like that) by > Shirley Nicholson. It makes sense to me. So let's you try it on. > > First off, she points out that we *do* have a doctrine "The Secret > Doctrine". Then she goes into a discussion of the difference between > doctrine & dogma. Liesel-- I think it is a fine distinction, particularly the part about being open to new insights and -- GASP -- new truths. HPB was sent out, it seems, to provide a foundation for us to stand on, not a little army of believers. Her "doctrine" opens a ton of doors, and all later writers (yes, EVEN Mr. Judge) rely upon her work. All REPUTABLE writers acknowledge HPB's influence, while those like Elizabeth Clare Prophet just borrow without acknowledgement. No matter. The ideas are getting out there. For whatever reason -- probably because of having attended a really wonderful meeting tonight with lots of different kinds of spiritual seekers -- I am re-claiming that part of myself which knows that all students of Theosophy (whether CWL, AAB, Judge, Tingley, Purucker, Steiner, whatever) have been growing out of the same foundation, and each deserve respect for what they've tried to accomplish. Maybe that makes me wishy-washy. But I've decided tonight it's more important to support people wherever they are than to point out how far they've gone in my opinion from the source. After we are all dead, what is really going to matter? Which version of the planes of existence one held to? I doubt it. Rather, quoting a favorite line from the Buddhist tradition, "In the end, these things matter most: How well did you love? How fully did you live? How deeply did you let go?" From alexei@slip.net Wed May 1 06:48:28 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 23:48:28 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Subject: Re: Membership in the Gang of Four Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960501064828.0068e088@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:50 PM 4/30/96 -0400, you wrote: >Eldon, >I thought it was funny. But then I don't insult very easily. >Besides, it will great fun at the opening night of convention to bring >greetings from the Gang of Five. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Oh will you! That's wonderful. I won't be there of course, I'm going to be newly installed in my house and doing "finishing touches" on the Library-study. There's another reason though that I won't be there. I am sure that I'm not welcome. My letters to John Algeo and Nathan Greer go as unanswered as if I had neither written or sent them, I am ignored as completely as if I were an imaginary being. I'm pretty sure I know why, they are hoping the old hair trigger temper will prompt a final resignation. They're wrong, I'm older now, and far, far meaner. I tell you that something has to be done about this disenfranchisement of members. I'll bet the next disenfranchisement will be something like "only vegetarians can vote" and that will be followed by what I think they're really aiming at. And that is "only E.S. Members can vote and everyone else isn't a member at all only some kind of subsidiary and entirely subservient "associate". I do hope that by the conventions there 'll be more of us. I know one I'll bring in as soon as possible. alexis From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Apr 30 12:46:37 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 08:46:37 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960430084636_283974051@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Heresy and Blasphemy Rich, This is one I may be responsible for without intending it. I have been called a heretic by lots of people since I was in grad school and found myself involved (laughter is permitted) with a group of what we called Jesus Freaks. (The girls were cute and no one was on drugs, which in the early 70's was a matter of some importance.) Well, being me, I naturally got into a fight with the elders and came up with the Ministry of the Heretic. Blasphemy is another word that causes a certain amount of mirth because of my upbringing. So when I saw those words I just sort of naturally started laughing because they are two concepts that by my very nature I cannot take seriously. On the contrary, I consider them to be signs of independence, qualities that one should aspire to. Unfortunately, my friend Alex does take them very seriously and so words that I consider to be social archaisms he took as personal insults. And believe it or not, I find the acrimony that all this has led to to be quite distressing. It is very difficult to talk about brotherhood (or my personal choice, siblinghood) while we are verbally trying to do each other in. The Gang of Five thing is fun, because it has a lot of truth to it. We do act like a gang at times, even though we fight among ourselves as much as we fight everyone else. My friend Alex, for example, takes a great deal of pleasure in tweaking me. And Alan, who is supposed to be my friend, mind you, just nominated me as the biggest asshole in the TS, but then possibly he has never heard Horatio Costa, so I can forgive him. What I am getting at is that we all have our idiosyncracies and even outright idiocies and often they will come out on this list. We all bring our backgrounds to this field of honor and we all grate on each other. You are getting picked on for your PhD because most of us know people with one and it's just sort of a natural thing we lesser beings do. And there is the matter of personal contact. For example, I have met quite a few people on this list and have talked to a few of them on the phone if I have not met them. Hell, I was at Eldon's wedding. So I bring a personal knowledge to this list that others may not have and that will influence my behavior. When I read Alex's comments, for example, I hear the inflection in his voice, so things that may seem terribly insulting just by the words are actually amusing. And the same is true for some of the things I write to him. These things make a difference. And there are a couple of people on this list that I would not wish to be in the same room with, because I have had that misfortune. Some of us are thinner skinned, some, like me, have the hide of a rhinosceros. But all of us are of value, to this list and to the theosophical world and it is important to remember that, no matter how mad we may get at times. Peace Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue Apr 30 18:52:14 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 14:52:14 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: to Doss re TD Message-Id: <199604301956.PAA21783@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Liesel: > >What each member and each Lodge has can do is something that each individual >and each lodge should ponder. What works for one lodge may not work in >another lodge. > >One of the areas I personally would like to see members active in any local >activity that will help the local people. > > ...doss Dear Doss, I agree. I was making suggestions as to what could be done, where nothing at all is being done now. Of course it has to fit into the scheme of the various Lodges. The theosophical principle that each one must follow their own Path pertains to Lodges as well. Liesel, TI From alexei@slip.net Wed May 1 07:30:47 1996 Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 00:30:47 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Subject: Re: To Eldon vis a vis CWL Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960501073047.006a5be4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:03 PM 4/30/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis: > >>>>>cut<<<<<< > >I think that Liesel's concern is not that Leadbeater's ideas about Theosophy >be discussed and reviewed, along with the ideas of other theosophical >writers and students. Her concern, if I correctly understand it, is that >however mistaken he may have been at times, he did spend his life in >service to the theosophical movement, and deserves some respect in that >regard, even if we might dispute some of his ideas about Theosophy. I'm afraid my own question here is did he? Or did he spend his life in service to himself? Which was it? All that business about appointing himself a Bishop and regarding Christ's circle of disciples, is that anything at all in the line of "service to theosophy"? I think Eldon, my problem is that, as I've grown older and learned a lot more, I have come to be certain that, no matter how popular CWL's works were, they in fact did an enormous disservice to theosophy. > >People that are happy to read, study, and benefit in some way from his >writings should be allowed to do so, until they are ready for something >more. That was my personal experience, having initially read most of his >books as a teenager, until at an older age, I was introduced to Purucker. Eldon, the first two theosophical books I ever read were "The Master's and The Path" and "The Inner Life", they in fact are what brought me to theosophy, Though I must admit I was fascinated by an organization founded by a relative. I own, and have read every single book he ever wrote. In fact, my repugnance for the uLT began when I innocently walked into their San Francisco Meeting Place and announced "I've just read some wonderful books by Charles Leadbeater". Well, you can imagine the reception I was given. I went away thinking "what impossible bigots". I certainly have no idea at all in my head that his books should be banned, or burned, or even mildly censored. But I do hope to be able to warn new people not to make my mistake and take them for gospel so they won't feel as badly as I felt when I learned the truth about him. > >A positive way to encourage people to broaden their reading is to continue >to offer useful insights and ideas from the books and sources that we >admire. People that come to appreciate what we say will be attracted to >read and study them. Those not interested, happy with what they've got, >should be allowed to remain just that: happy with that they've got. You're right of course, but I do have to say that stasis, i.e "being happy with what you've got", is the most negative of all conditions. Theosophy is strongly concerned with non-material evolution. Evolution means unending change, therefor stasis is antithetic to theosophy. > >>>>>>cut<<<<<< > >Because some people were sensitive to historic discussions, there was a >thread on theos-l that concluded that they move to theos-roots, where people >not wishing to read them could simply "unsubscribe", still remaining active >participants on theos-l. > >>It is really impossible to have reasonable discussions if one >>person out of some 85 gets personally emotional over any negative references >>to a person who is a vital ingredient in why the T.S. is where it is today. > >This should be possible in the right context. In a list where history >was discussed, history could be discussed. Where comparative Theosophy is >studied, his version could be contrasted with the other versions. If "historical discussions" were all that is involved that would be an ideal solution. I for one would be glad to switch to Theos-roots for purely historical discussions. However, I have to say that most of the discussions on this list are inherently doctrinal, and in the course of those discussions on the meaning and purpose of theosophy, I fail to see any way that CWL cannot be avoided, any more than Annie Besant can be avoided and that is because of their immense effect on the ideology, goals, and purposes, of the theosophical movement. I am, among other things a student and proponent of philosophy, and within that contest, admittedly an idealogue. I see the philosophy and teaching of CWL to be antithetical to the basic philosophy that is the theosophical movement. To me he's no better than all those new age channelers that many members of the T.S. view with such antipathy. The question that I have for you then, is this: If CWL is intrinsic to all that I think is doctrinally wrong with theosophy today, it's his philosophy I want to talk about not his personality and therefore it's not really an appropriate discussion for an entirely "Historical" list, so what's the proper thing to do? >We should remember, though, that he still has a following, and those >people are sincere, good people, that won't be led to better things simply >by having CWL discredited in their eyes. And who he was does not really >matter for living people, since we no longer either need to refer people >to him nor warn people to stay away. That is quite true, WHO he was, and WHAT he was, is entirely irrelevant to people today. BUT, what he taught, and what he promulgated as theosophy, is relec\vant today as it colours the whole theosophical movement. Many dead folks still have a following and usually those followers are tremendously sincere and at least view themselves as good people, but having a post mortem following doesn't speak to any particular quality beyond charisma.It certainly doesn't guarantee the validity of the persons teachings, or that of the person themselves. > >TPH is trying, I assume, to continue to make the best of his books by >purging the most unscientific materials, like the stuff about people living >on Mars, with canals, etc. The books get a bit smaller with later reprints. >They apparently still find value in the remaining content, and the books >remain in print. Could it not just be that they're embarrassed to pull them off entirely? > cut<<<<< > >You may know two people. With one person, you can talk about certain things. >With another, there are entirely different things you can talk about. With >each person, you know from personal experience that certain topics are not >productive, that they only elicit anger and should be avoided. How does one going to go about doing this when every posting is open to everyone to read? It's very hard to be "all things to all people" when you're talking to all of them at once. > >>>>cut<<<<<< >On 'theos-l' everything has been fair game, meaning that there will always >be some people happy to read someone's words, and others that are outraged. >It cannot be avoided. I like the everything is fair game concept. The other smacks a bit of censorship and neither you nor I approve of that. > >I can appreciate Liesel's reaction to negative comments about Leadbeater, >since at one point in my life I would have had the same reaction. I had >and read all of his books, and considered him my best and favorite theosophical >writer. But then I had gone through his books and was left with the big >question: "and now what?" And I feel fortunate to have found something to >fill my need to learn something more. I could have written that paragraph myself, word for word, except I'd have had more to say regarding third object aspects of my Life. I too have found something that more than fulfills my needs and those of my many students. But on a board like this is it right for one person to impose a subject that is not permissible for discussion? I don't think so. > >-- Eldon > alexis> From 72724.413@CompuServe.COM Tue Apr 30 11:29:32 1996 Date: 30 Apr 96 07:29:32 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@CompuServe.COM> Subject: TSA Elections-2 Year Voting Requirement Message-Id: <960430112932_72724.413_FHP48-1@CompuServe.COM> The following is the text of a letter sent by me, Sy Ginsburg, President of the Theosophical Society in Miami, via Federal Express on April 29, 1996, to John Algeo, President of the Theosophical Society in America. Your comments are welcome. April 29, 1996 Dr. John Algeo, President BY FEDERAL EXPRESS The Theosophical Society in America 1926 N. Main Street, Wheaton, IL. 60189 Dear John: In accordance with the resolution passed by The Theosophical Society in Miami, at its business meeting on April 28, 1996, I have been delegated to write this letter to you on behalf of all our members who are also members of The Theosophical Society in America (TSA) for two years or longer. In addition to my signature there is appended, the signatures of 2 other members of The Theosophical Society in America as well as of The Theosophical Society in Miami (TSM), and the signature of 1 other member of The Theosophical Society in America who is a member of another Study Center. It has come to our attention that ballots to vote in the national election of officers and directors of TSA were not sent to members of TSA who have not been members for two years or longer, in application of bylaw change #8 passed in referendum in January 1996, but applied retroactively to exclude members who voted in the bylaw referendum. Because of this failure to send ballots by the National Secretary under your instruction, 59 members of The Theosophical Society in Miami have been disenfranchised from voting. A group of these members are writing to you separately to demand their ballots. We are writing on behalf of members who did receive ballots, and similarly urge that you send ballots to these disenfranchised members so that they can vote, and urge you to send ballots to other disenfranchised members of TSA throughout the country. We call to your attention that the bylaw changes passed in January, even if they had been adopted legally, were voted on by all members in good standing of TSA at that time. It is a large group of these very same members, 59 from The Theosophical Society in Miami alone, who voted on these bylaw changes, to whom you now deny a ballot retroactively. It is our view that such retroactive disenfranchisement is a serious violation of members rights. We would like to think that your retroactive disenfranchisement of members' voting rights was an oversight. However, 2 of our members, Roxanne Nadolsky (member since December, 1994) and Diana Alboum, both telephoned Nathan Greer, National Secretary of TSA to request their ballots. Nathan told them, after consulting with you, that they were not entitled to vote. We regard your actions in this matter as objectionable and urge you to reconsider them. On a personal note, the fact has not gone unnoticed, that since I am a candidate for Southeast District Director, your disenfranchisement of 59 members of TSM, many of whom could be expected to vote for me as I am the President of TSM, could change the election result. It is imperative that you act quickly to rectify your action and send these members their ballots. Yours very truly THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IN MIAMI Seymour B. (Sy) Ginsburg, President copy: Nathan Greer, National Secretary copy: will be posted to the INTERNET Theos-L Discussion Group to reach other TSA members From 76400.1474@compuserve.com Tue Apr 30 17:15:00 1996 Date: 30 Apr 96 13:15:00 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Food Fight! Message-Id: <960430171459_76400.1474_HHL96-4@CompuServe.COM> Eldon to Liesel: >You're not getting drawn into the throwing of barbs? Before >long this would get like a food fight on a slapstick movie, >with complete pandemonium! Duck Rich, here comes my mashed potatoes. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@compuserve.com Tue Apr 30 17:15:04 1996 Date: 30 Apr 96 13:15:04 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: violence Message-Id: <960430171503_76400.1474_HHL96-6@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: >My principle prime concept is: "The Power to Act, confers the absolute >responsibility to do so, it carries with it the equally absolute >responsibility for the results of the action". This is pretty much how I view karma. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@compuserve.com Tue Apr 30 17:15:02 1996 Date: 30 Apr 96 13:15:02 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? Message-Id: <960430171501_76400.1474_HHL96-5@CompuServe.COM> >Say, wouldn't it be weird if everyone, instead of assigning blame to >others while claiming themselves to be simply innocent propounders of >"Theosophy", rather articulated precisely what they thought was wrong >with the current list... Actually, JRC, most of us are still trying to articulate what the heck Theosophy is. As soon as we have tackled that one, we can start in on what the heck this list is. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@compuserve.com Tue Apr 30 17:14:56 1996 Date: 30 Apr 96 13:14:56 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Forgot something ??? Message-Id: <960430171456_76400.1474_HHL96-3@CompuServe.COM> >It could be you a have a Crowley book that I don't have, because the only >context I ever saw it in was the Wiccan one and I'm feuding with them after >they tried to kill me last summer. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 Whoa! This sounds like a good story--wiccans vs magicians! As far as I know, the "An' it hurt none" is pure wiccan. However, Gardner got a lot of his material from AC, so who knows? AC always figured the "An it hurt none" part went without saying. Jerry S. Member, TI From ramadoss@eden.com Wed May 1 11:06:10 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 06:06:10 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Messages Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I find sometimes some messages get distributed very quickly and some others take time. As a consequence you will find that the order in which the messages received may not be the same as the order in which they are posted. So when reading messages, keeping this in mind will help the message thread in order. ---doss From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Tue Apr 30 23:21:09 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 16:21:09 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9604302321.AA03174@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: To Eldon vis a vis CWL Alexis writes: >It is really impossible to have reasonable discussions if one >person out of some 85 gets personally emotional over any >negative references to a person who is a vital ingredient in why >the T.S. is where it is today. Now, in my own discussions >regarding theosophical history, I really need to refer >occasionally to the information in "Elder brother", what do you >suggest that we do? I avoided mentioning him for the longest >time, to avoid irritating Liesel but then I realized that it was >stupid on my part to do so. How can we talk at all if certain >topics are verboten? > > >Please comment: >cordially >alexis JHE Hi Alexis. It seems that Liesel is not the only one who objects to anything being said about CWL that might be taken in a negative light. In the past, two or three theos-l members protested when I and others have discussed forbidden subjects. There were still others who did not like us having these discussions, and in some cases informed me privately of this. Then there were others, who just quietly disapproved. In my opinion however, I much prefer Liesel's expression of hostility (though it be passive aggressive) over the political black- balling games played by the powerful few in Adyar and Wheaton. But it is not theosophical ideals that get in the way, but their institutional application. The ideals of the TS concerning the freedom of members are: 1. The freedom of opinion. Members are allowed to express whatever opinion they wish, as long as they do not limit the rights of other members to also express their opinions. 2. Members cannot have their rights and privileges as a member abridged for simply expressing minority opinions. 3. Members are not bound to accept the teachings or opinions of any theosophical leaders, from HPB downwards. On the other hand, how these ideals have been actually carried out has IMO created a pathological double standard within the TS. I think the classical example in theosophical history was in 1914 when many TS members protested against Annie Besant for building Liberal Catholic churches on theosophical property, publishing the ~Herald of the Star~, and promoting Krishnamurti as the returned Christ, and for promoting co-masonry in the TS. Besant answered in her own defense that her actions and decisions were within her rights as a member of the TS, because she was exercising her freedom of expression of her religion. She believed that K. was the returned Christ, and she was doing everything in her power to promote this. She did not require any TS members who did not agree with her to support her efforts. A few years later, the Sydney Lodge decided to exercise their freedom of opinion, and would not permit CWL to lecture at their Lodge. Based upon the Australian police investigation of Leadbeater, the members came to believe that CWL was an immoral man, and did not wish to be associated with him. Keep in mind that CWL was not a member of the Sydney Lodge, and there were other local lodges that did allow him to speak. Also, CWL was acting as an international lecturer at the time. But Besant did not see the issue of lodges deciding upon which international lecturers they wished or did not wish to host as a legitimate exercise of opinion, but rather as an act of unbrotherliness. Therefore she canceled the charter for the entire 800 member Sydney Lodge. The above kind of thinking is still in effect today. Therefore, the three ideals stated above are implemented in the following form: All members are free to express whatever opinion they wish, as long as those opinions are in harmony with the opinions and policies of the leadership of the TS. When an opinion is not in harmony with the opinions and policies of the leadership of the TS, then the expression of those opinions is an act of unbrotherliness. Therefore, members expressing such undesirable opinions are subject to censorship and/or expulsion. Therefore Alexis, as a member of the TS, you are mistaken to think that you have the right to say anything negative about CWL. You also do not have the right to critically discuss theosophical history. These are not among your freedoms. If you persist, Liesel and others have the right to go after you and to punish you in any way that they can. You are only free to make statements in support of the status quo (which Liesel represents in this case). Criticism of, or acting outside the interests of the status quo is an act of unbrotherliness, and an abuse of those freedoms granted to you by the TS. If you persist in this abuse, you will be marginalized--as I was twelve years ago. However, after I was marginalized, I discovered that there is only so much that they can do to you. In my case, Olcott stopped publishing our Lodge activities in the AT, and withdrew all support from our Lodge. For several years, I was not mailed a copy of the AT. They also stopped asking me to participate in any activities at a national level. I remember just before I became persona non grata, they had asked us to go on tour holding classes for their outreach program. We accepted the invitation. Then a few months later, we received a letter expressing their regret that we had declined to participate. As for voting, this is also the second election in a row where I have not received a ballot. I have found out that other than spreading false information about undesirable members, the above is about all they can do to any member. In post modern terminology, it is called "marginalization." In my case, it no longer matters what they do to me. We continue to hold our theosophical activities. Members of all of the theosophical organizations as well as independents continue to come to them. Of course there are a few members who have told us that they cannot come to these activities or publicly associate with us for fear that "Olcott will close the doors on them," but that is their issue. Personally, I feel sorry for these people, because as I see it, they have been "bought." And the price they pay for being "in favor" with Olcott is their personal freedom of expression. In the end, Olcott's marginalization of April and I has worked out very well for both Olcott and for us. We don't interfere with the power elite, and they don't interfere with us. We are free to continue promulgating theosophy and work for the TM without having to follow Olcott's rules, and without having to be embarrassed by their history and reputation. Yet, we remain as members. Therefore we still have a vote (when they send us a ballot). Though we cannot use their resources, we discovered that we don't need them anyway, and have developed considerable resources of our own. In the long run, I believe that our marginalization has turned out to be more of a loss for them than for us. So, Alexis, if you don't fear the consequences of having complete freedom to speak according to your own conscience, then jump in--the water is fine. JHE The disinherited ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ramadoss@eden.com Wed May 1 12:33:49 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:33:49 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960501073614.27cf62bc@mail.eden.com> Subject: Brotherhood and TS Membership May 1, 1996 To: 1. Theos-l 2. Theos@netcom.com Hi: I received the following message from a member of TSA in a private message. For various reasons, I have deleted the member's name and this is posted here with the express written permission of the member for which I am thankful. I am also sending this message to theos@netcom.com so that if TSA wants to respond, it can. MK Ramadoss Member, San Antonio Lodge PS: I am *not* a newbee to TS. I have been around TS for quite some time. ======================Message ================================== Dear Mr Ramadoss: I have seen you state repeatedly on this list that "agreement with the *first object* is the *only* requirement for joining the TS (I presume you mean TS Adyar). I believe you are incorrect in this. I also have been around for several decades, including involvement in lodge and federation work, and in that experience I recall that the requirement is to be in agreement with *the three objects of the Society*. The TSA membership application form states it as follows: "Having considered the three objects of the Society, and being in sympathy therewith, I hereby apply for admission as a member of the Society." The three objects are listed above this declaration. If you have any questions on this matter, you may wish to ask Dr Algeo or the National Secretary (William Greer) for clarification. I just feel that you are spreading misinformation and want to call your attention to it. Sincerely, -------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, M K Ramadoss wrote: > > 2. Three Objects of TS: The objects were not put together in great haste. > It evolved over a period of time. From what I have read, one need not > agree with the second and third objects. Just if one is in *sympathy* > with the First Object - Universal Brotherhood is all that is required of > any one who wants to join the Society. From blafoun@azstarnet.com Wed May 1 14:35:43 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:35:43 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199605011435.HAA14979@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Spiritualism or Spirtism as written about in The New Catholic Ency. 1913 ed. I am doing an indepth study of the early days of Spiritualism (1848-1874). I thought that this article which is to be found on the WWW might be of some interest to those on Theos-l (especially those who have written and= debated Theosophy's view of psychism). See the end of the article for the source on the WWW. Daniel > [THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA] [1913 edition] >=20 > Spiritism >=20 > Spiritism is the name properly given to the belief that the living can > and do communicate with the spirits of the departed, and to the > various practices by which such communication is attempted. It should > be carefully distinguished from Spiritualism, the philosophical > doctrine which holds, in general, that there is a spiritual order of > beings no less real than the material and, in particular, that the > soul of man is a spiritual substance. Spiritism, moreover, has taken > on a religious character. It claims to prove the preamble of all > religions, i. e., the existence of a spiritual world, and to establish > a world-wide religion in which the adherents of the various > traditional faiths, setting their dogmas aside, can unite. If it has > formulated no definite creed, and if its representatives differ in > their attitudes toward the beliefs of Christianity, this is simply > because Spiritism is expected to supply a new and fuller revelation > which will either substantiate on a rational basis the essential > Christian dogmas or show that they are utterly unfounded. The > knowledge thus acquired will naturally affect conduct, the more so > because it is hoped that the discarnate spirits, in making known their > condition, will also indicate the means of attaining to salvation or > rather of progressing, by a continuous evolution in the other world, > to a higher plane of existence and happiness. >=20 > THE PHENOMENA >=20 > These are classified as physical and psychical. The former include: > production of raps and other sounds; movements of objects (tables, > chairs) without contact or with contact insufficient to explain the > movement: "apports" i. e., apparitions of visible agency to convey > them; moulds, i. e., impressions made upon paraffin and similar > substances; luminous appearances, i. e., vague glimmerings or light or > faces more or less defines; levitation, i. e., raising of objects from > the ground by supposed supernormal means; materialization or > appearance of a spirit in visible human form; spirit-photography, in > which the feature or forms of deceased persons appear on the plate > along with the likeness of a living photographed subject. The > psychical, or significative, phenomena are those which express ideas > or contain messages. To this class belong: table-rapping in answer to > questions; automatic writing; slate-writing; trance-speaking; > clairvoyance; descriptions of the spirit-world; and communications > from the dead. >=20 > HISTORY >=20 > For an account of Spiritistic practices in antiquity see NECROMANCY. > The modern phase was ushered in by the exhibitions of mesmerism and > clairvoyance. In its actual form, however, Spiritism dates from the > year 1848 and from the experiences of the Fox family at Hydesville, > and later at Rochester, in New York State. Strange "knockings" were > heard in the house, pieces of furniture were moved about as though by > invisible hands, and the noises became so troublesome that sleep was > impossible. At length the "rapper" began to answer questions, and a > code of signals was arranged to facilitate communication. It was also > found that to receive messages special qualifications were needed; > these were possessed by Catherine and Margaret Fox, who are therefore > regarded as the first "mediums" of modern times. Similar disturbances > occurred in other parts of the country, notably at Stratford, > Connecticut, in the house of Rev. Dr. Phelps, a Presbyterian minister, > where the manifestations (1850-51) were often violent and the > spirit-answers blasphemous. In 1851 the Fox girls were visited in > Buffalo by three physicians who were professors in the university of > that city. As a result of their examination the doctors declared that > the "raps" were simply "crackings" of the knee-joints. But this > statement did not lessen either the popular enthusiasm or the interest > of more serious persons. The subject was taken up by men like Horace > Greeley, Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Robert Hare, professor of chemistry in > the University of Pennsylvania, and John Worth Edmonds, a judge of the > Supreme Court of New York State. Conspicuous among the Spiritists was > Andrew Jackson Davis, whose work, "The Principles of Nature" (1847), > dictated by him in trance, contained a theory of the universe, closely > resembling the Swedenborgian. Spiritism also found earnest advocates > among clergymen of various denominations, especially the > Universalists; it appealed strongly to many people who had lost all > religious belief in a future life; and it was welcomed by those who > were then agitating the question of a new social organization--the > pioneers of modern Socialism. So widespread was the belief in > Spiritism that in 1854 Congress was petitioned to appoint a scientific > commission for the investigation of the phenomena. The petition, which > bore some 13,000 signatures, was laid on the table, and no action was > taken. >=20 > In Europe the way had been prepared for Spiritism by the Swedenborgian > movement and by an epidemic of table-turning which spread from the > Continent to England and invaded all classes of society. It was still > a fashionable diversion when, in 1852, two mediums, Mrs. Hayden and > Mrs. Roberts, came from America to London, and held s=E9ances which > attracted the attention of scientists as well as popular interest. > Faraday, indeed, in 1853 showed that the table movements were due to > muscular action, and Dr. Carpenter gave the same explanation; but many > thoughtful persons, notably among the clergy, held to the Spiritistic > interpretation. This was accepted also by Robert Owen, the socialist, > while Professor De Morgan, the mathematician, in his account of a > sitting with Mrs. Hayden, was satisfied that "somebody or some spirit > was reading his thoughts". The later development in England was > furthered by mediums who came from America: Daniel Dunglas Home (Hume) > in 1855, the Davenport Brothers in 1864, and Henry Slade in 1876. > Among the native mediums, Rev. William Stainton Moses became prominent > in 1872, Miss Florence Cook in the same year, and William Eglinton in > 1886. Spiritism was advocated by various periodical publications, and > defended in numerous works some of which were said to have been > dictated by the spirits themselves, e. g., the "Spirit Teachings" of > Stainton Moses, which purport to give an account of conditions in the > other world and form a sort of Spiritistic theology. During this > period also, scientific opinion on the subject was divided. While > Professors Huxley and Tyndall sharply denounced Spiritism in practice > and theory, Mr. (later Sir Wm.) Crookes and Dr. Alfred Russell Wallace > regarded the phenomena as worthy of serious investigation. The same > view was expressed in the report which the Dialectical Society > published in 1871 after an inquiry extending over eighteen months, and > at the Glasgow meeting of the British Association in 1876 Professor > Barrett, F.R.S., concluded his account of the phenomena he had > observed by urging the appointment of a committee of scientific men > for the systematic investigation of such phenomena. >=20 > The growth of Spiritism on the Continent was marked by similar > transitions from popular curiosity to serious inquiry. As far back as > 1787, the Exegetic and Philanthropic Society of Stockholm, adhering to > the Swedenborgian view, had interpreted the utterances of "magnetized" > subjects as messages from the spirit world. This interpretation > gradually won favour in France and Germany; but it was not until 1848 > that Cahagnet published at Paris the first volume of his "Arcanes de > la vie future d=E9voil=E9es", containing what purported to be > communications from the dead. The excitement aroused in Paris by > table-turning and rapping led to an investigation by Count Ag=E9nor de > Gasparin, whose conclusion ("Des Tables tournantes", (Paris, 1854) was > that the phenomena originated in some physical force of the human > body. Professor Thury of Geneva ("Les Tables tournantes", 1855) > concurred in this explanation. Baron de Guldenstubbe ("La R=E9alit=E9 des > Esprits" Paris, 1857), on the contrary, declared his belief in the > reality of spirit intervention, and M. Rivail, known later as Allan > Kardec, published the "spiritualistic philosophy" in "Le Livre des > Esprits" (Paris, 1853), which became a guide-book to the whole > subject. >=20 > In Germany also Spiritism was an outgrowth from "animal magnetism". J. > H. Jung in his "Theorie der Geisterkunde" declared that in the state > of trance the soul is freed from the body, but he regarded the trance > itself as a diseased condition. Among the earliest German clairvoyants > was Frau Frederica Hauffe, the "Seeress of Prevorst", whose > experiences were related by Justinus Kerner in "Die Seherin von > Prevorst" (Stuttgart, 1829). In its later development Spiritism was > represented in scientific and philosophical circles by men of > prominence, e. g., Ulrici, Fichte, Z=FCllner, Fechner, and Wm. Weber. > The last-named three conducted (1877-8) a series of experiments with > the American medium Slade at Leipzig. The results were published in > Z=FCllner's "Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen" (cf. Massey, > "Transcendental Physics", London, 1880, in which the portions relating > to spiritism are translated). Though considered important at the time, > this investigation, owing to lack of caution and accuracy, cannot be > regarded as a satisfactory test. (Cf. "Report of the Seybert > Commission", Philadelphia, 1887--, which also contains an account of > an investigation conducted at the University of Pennsylvania with > Slade and other mediums.) >=20 > The foregoing outline shows that modern Spiritism within a generation > had passed beyond the limits of a merely popular movement and had > challenged the attention of the scientific world. It had, moreover, > brought about serious divisions among men of science. For those who > denied the existence of a soul distinct from the organism it was a > foregone conclusion that there could be no such communications as the > Spiritists claimed. This negative view, of course, is still taken by > all who accept the fundamental ideas of Materialism. But apart from > any such a priori considerations, the opponents of Spiritism justified > their position by pointing to innumerable cases of fraud which were > brought to light either through closer examination of the methods > employed or through the admissions of the mediums themselves. >=20 > In spite, however, of repeated exposure, there occurred phenomena > which apparently could not be ascribed to trickery of any sort. The > inexplicable character of these the sceptics attributed to faulty > observation. The Spiritistic practices were simply set down as a new > chapter in the long history of occultism, magic, and popular > superstition. On the other hand, a certain number of thinkers felt > obliged to confess that, after making due allowances for the element > of fraud, there remained some facts which called for a more systematic > investigation. In 1869 the London Dialectical Society appointed a > committee of thirty-three members "to investigate the phenomena > alleged to be spiritual manifestations, and to report thereon". The > committee's report (1871) declares that "motion may be produced in > solid bodies without material contact, by some hitherto unrecognized > force operating within an undefined distance from the human organism, > an beyond the range of muscular action"; and that "this force is > frequently directed by intelligence". In 1882 there was organized in > London the "Society for Psychical Research" for the scientific > examination of what its prospectus terms "debatable phenomena". A > motive for investigation was supplied by the history of hypnotism, > which had been repeatedly ascribed to quackery and deception. > Nevertheless, patient research conducted by rigorous methods had shown > that beneath the error and imposture there lay a real influence which > was to be accounted for, and which finally was explained on the theory > of suggestion. The progress of Spiritism, it was thought, might > likewise yield a residuum of fact deserving scientific explanation. >=20 > The Society for Psychical Research soon counted among its members > distinguished representatives of science and philosophy in England and > America; numerous associations with similar aims and methods were > organized in various countries. The "Proceedings" of the Society > contain detailed reports of investigations in Spiritism and allied > subjects, and a voluminous literature, expository and critical, has > been created. Among the most notable works are: "Phantasms of the > Living" by Gurney, Myers, and Podmore (London, 1886); F.W.H. Myers, > "Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death" (London, 1903); > and Sir Oliver Lodge, F.R.S., "The Survival of Man" (New York, 1909). > In recent publications prominence is given to experiments with the > mediums Mrs. Piper of Boston and Eusapia Palladino of Italy; and > important contributions to the literature have been made by Professor > Wm. James of Harvard, Dr. Richard Hodgson of Boston, Professor Charles > Richet (University of Paris), Professor Henry Sidgwick (Cambridge > University), Professor Th. Flournoy (University of Geneva), Professor > Morselli (University of Genoa), Professor Cesare Lombroso (University > of Turin), Professor James H. Hyslop (Columbia University), Professor > Wm. R. Newbold (University of Pennsylvania). While some of these > writers maintain a critical attitude, others are outspoken in favour > of Spiritism, and a few (Myers, James), lately deceased, arranged > before death to establish communication with their surviving > associates. >=20 > HYPOTHESES >=20 > To explain the phenomena which after careful investigation and > exclusion of fraud are regarded as authentic, three hypotheses have > been proposed. The telepathic hypothesis takes as its starting-point > the so-called subliminal consciousness. This, it is claimed, is > subject to disintegration in such wise that segments of it may impress > another mind (the percipient) even at a distance. The personality is > liberated, so to speak, from the organism and invades the soul of > another. A medium, on this hypothesis, would obtain information by > thought-transference either from the minds of persons present at the > s=E9ance or from other minds concerning whom the sitters know nothing. > This view, it is held, would accord with the recognized facts of > hypnosis and with the results of experimental telepathy; and it would > explain what appear to be cases of possession. Similar to this is the > hypothesis of psychical radiations which distinguishes in man the > material body, the soul, and an intermediate principle, the > "perispirit". This is a subtle fluid, or astral body, which in certain > persons (mediums) can escape from the material organism and thus form > a "double". It also accompanied the soul after death and it is the > means by which communication is established with the peri-spirit of > the mediums. The Spiritistic hypothesis maintains that the > communications are received from disembodied spirits. Its advocates > declare that telepathy is insufficient to account for all the facts, > that its sphere of influence would have to be enlarged so as to > include all the mental states and memories of living persons, and that > even with such extension it would not explain the selective character > of the phenomena by which facts relevant for establishing the personal > identity of the departed are discriminated from those that are > irrelevant. Telepathy at most may be the means by which discarnate > spirits act upon the minds of living persons. >=20 > For those who admit that the manifestations proceed from intelligences > other than that of the medium, the next question in order is whether > these intelligences are the spirits of the departed or beings that > have never been embodied in human forms. The reply had often been > found difficult even by avowed believers in Spiritism, and some of > these have been forced to admit the action of extraneous or non-human > intelligences. This conclusion is based on several sorts of evidence: > the difficulty of establishing spirit-identity, i. e., of ascertaining > whether the communicator is actually the personality he or it purports > to be; the love of personation on the part of the spirits which leads > them to introduce themselves as celebrities who once lived on earth, > although on closer questioning they show themselves quite ignorant of > those whom they personate; the trivial character of the > communications, so radically opposed to what would be expected from > those who have passed into the other world and who naturally should be > concerned to impart information on the most serious subjects; the > contradictory statements which the spirits make regarding their own > condition, the relations of God and man, the fundamental precepts of > morality; finally the low moral tone which often pervades these > messages from spirits who pretend to enlighten mankind. These > deceptions and inconsistencies have been attributed by some authors to > the subliminal consciousness (Flournoy), by others to spirits of a > lower order, i. e., below the plane of humanity (Stainton Moses), > while a third explanation refers them quite frankly to demonic > intervention (Raupert, "Modern Spiritism", St. Louis, 1904; cf. > Grasset, "The Marvels beyond Science," tr. Tubeuf, New York, 1910). > For the Christian believer this third view acquired special > significance from the fact that the alleged communications antagonize > the essential truths of religion, such as the Divinity of Christ, > atonement and redemption, judgment and future retribution, while they > encourage agnosticism, pantheism, and a belief in reincarnation. >=20 > Spiritism indeed claims that it alone furnishes an incontestable proof > of immortality, a scientific demonstration of the future life that far > surpasses any philosophical deduction of Spiritualism, while it gives > the death-blow to Materialism. This claim, however, rests upon the > validity of the hypothesis that the communications come from > disembodied spirits; it gets no support from the telepathic hypothesis > or from that of demonic intervention. If either of the latter should > be verified the phenomena would be explained without solving or even > raising the problem of human immortality. If, again, it were shown > that the argument based on the data of normal consciousness and the > nature of the soul cannot stand the test of criticism, the same test > would certainly be fatal to a theory drawn from the mediumistic > utterances which are not only the outcome of abnormal conditions, but > are also open to widely different interpretations. Even where all > suspicion of fraud or collusion is removed--and this is seldom the > case--a critical investigator will cling to the idea that phenomena > which now seem inexplicable may eventually, like so many other > marvels, be accounted for without having recourse to the Spiritistic > hypothesis. Those who are convinced, on philosophical grounds, of the > soul's immortality may say that communications from the spirit world, > if any such there be, go to strengthen their conviction; but to > abandon their philosophy and stake all on Spiritism would be more than > hazardous; it would, indirectly at least, afford a pretext for a more > complete rejection of soul and immortality. In other words, if > Spiritism were the sole argument for a future life, Materialism, > instead of being crushed, would triumph anew as the only possible > theory for science and common sense. >=20 > DANGERS >=20 > To this risk of philosophical error must be added the dangers, mental > and moral, which Spiritistic practices involve. Whatever the > explanations offered for the medium's "powers", their exercise sooner > or later brings about a state of passivity which cannot but injure the > mind. This is readily intelligible in the hypothesis of an invasion by > extraneous spirits, since such a possession must weaken and tend to > efface the normal personality. But similar results may be expected if, > as the alternate hypothesis maintains, a disintegration of the one > personality takes place. In either case, it is not surprising that the > mental balance should be disturbed, and self-control impaired or > destroyed. Recourse to Spiritism frequently produces hallucinations > and other aberrations, especially in subjects who are predisposed to > insanity; and even those who are otherwise normal expose themselves to > severe physical and mental strain (cf. Viollet, "Le spiritisme dans > ses rapports avec la folie", Paris, 1908). More serious still is the > danger of moral perversion. If to practise or encourage deception of > any sort is reprehensible, the evil is certainly greater when fraud is > resorted to in the inquiry concerning the future life. But apart from > any intention to deceive, the methods employed would undermine the > foundations of morality, either by producing a disintegration of > personality or by inviting the invasion of an extraneous intelligence. > It may be that the medium "yields, perhaps, innocently at first to the > promptings of an impulse which may come to him as from a higher power, > or that he is moved by an instinctive compulsion to aid in the > development of his automatic romance--in any case, if he continues to > abet and encourage this automatic prompting, it is not likely that he > can long retain both honesty and sanity unimpaired. The man who looks > on at his hand doing a thing, but acquits himself of responsibility > for the thing done, can hardly claim to be considered as a moral > agent; and the step is short to instigating and repeating a like > action in the future, without the excuse of an overmastering impulse . > . . To attend the s=E9ances of a professional medium is perhaps at worst > to countenance a swindle; to watch the gradual development of innocent > automatism into physical mediumship may be to assist at a process of > moral degeneration" (Podmore, "Modern Spiritualism", II, 326 sqq.). >=20 > ACTION OF THE CHURCH >=20 > As Spiritism has been closely allied with the practices of "animal > magnetism" and hypnotism, these several classes of phenomena have also > been treated under the same general head in the discussions of > theologians and in the decisions of ecclesiastical authority. The > Congregation of the Inquisition, 25 June, 1840, decreed: "Where all > error, sorcery, and invocation of the demon, implicit or explicit, is > excluded, the mere use of physical means which are otherwise lawful, > is not morally forbidden, provided it does not aim at unlawful or evil > results. But the application of purely physical principles and means > to things or effects that are really supernatural, in order to explain > these on physical grounds, is nothing else than unlawful and heretical > deception". This decision was reiterated on 28 July, 1847, and a > further decree was issued on 30 July, 1856, which, after mentioning > discourses about religion, evocation of departed spirits and "other > superstitious practices: of Spiritism, exhorts the bishops to put > forth every effort for the suppression of these abuses "in order that > the flock of the Lord may be protected against the enemy, the deposit > of faith safeguarded, and the faithful preserved from moral > corruption". The Second Plenary Council o Baltimore (1866), while > making due allowance for fraudulent practice in Spiritism, declares > that some at least of the manifestations are to be ascribed to Satanic > intervention, and warns the faithful against lending any support to > Spiritism or eve, out of curiosity, attending s=E9ances (Decreta, nn. > 33-41). The council points out, in particular, the anti-Christian > character of Spiritistic teachings concerning religion, and > characterizes them as an attempt to revive paganism and magic. A > decree of the Holy Office, 30 March, 1898, condemns Spiritistic > practices, even though intercourse with the demon be excluded and > communication sought with good spirits only. In all these documents > the distinction is clearly drawn between legitimate scientific > investigation and superstitious abuses. What the Church condemns in > Spiritism is superstition with its evil consequences for religion and > morality. >=20 > EDWARD A. PACE > Transcribed by Janet Grayson >=20 > [New Advent Catholic Website] > http://www.knight.org/advent =20 > What is the Catholic Encyclopedia? >=20 > The Catholic Encyclopedia is a fifteen-volume encyclopedia covering a > broad range of topics, secular and religious, from a Catholic > perspective. The version being used for this project was published in > 1913. >=20 > What is the Catholic Encyclopedia Project? >=20 > It is an effort aimed at placing the entire work on the World Wide > Web. >=20 > Who is coordinating this effort, and how can I contact him? >=20 > The coordinator is Kevin Knight, editor of the New Advent Catholic > Website. You can contact him by e-mail at (knight@knight.org). >=20 From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed May 1 15:09:50 1996 Date: 01 May 96 11:09:50 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: The Ol Toad Spell Message-Id: <960501150949_76400.1474_HHL35-1@CompuServe.COM> >Jerry, >Try blaming Alan. No one has picked on him for a few days. > >Chuck Good idea. Alan did it! Alan did it! Jerry S. Member, TI From eldon@theosophy.com Wed May 1 06:41:25 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 23:41:25 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: Re: Rigidity/Flexibility Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960501064125.006aff44@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" JRC: [writing to Richard Ihle] >... the >vision of our final harmony is *not* that of the whole lot of us blending >into some sort of homogeneous collective mush, but rather of a *galaxy of >brilliantly shining stars* - "brotherhood", then, *not* meaning some >final agreement on a single "correct orbit", but a condition in which >every being shines with their own light, *and has discovered their own >orbit*. This sounds like, in a certain way, what I'd refer to as the goal of brotherhood or unity. Life is moving towards increased individualization and self-expression yet at the same time seeks to regain the essential unity that it once possessed. How is this obtained? By moving towards *heterogeneous* unity, not *homogeneous* unity. Life moves towards a unity based upon diversity and individual, unique self-expression, not upon standardization and the disappearance of individual differences. Like a fractal undergoing an endless series of iterations, life does not go half-way and then start "uniterating", reversing itself towards disappearance in its original first interation. It presses forward, until its material elements disappear in a cloud of cantor dust (become infinitely fine and small, to the point of non-existence, for all practical purposes). How then does life reattain unity as this differentiation progress? By phase-locking, by harmonization, by continual readjustments made by us and everyone around us as we grow and change and become different. Each change in us requires new adjustments in life, but having made those adjustments, the world is a better place. How does this tie in with the theosophical scheme of evolution and involution? We have, I think, a descend into matter followed by a reascend into spiritual realms. This happens over vast periods of time. Our experience of lower, darker, material planes is followed by one of higher, lighter, spiritual planes. And then we, humanity, descends yet again into the dark realms of the lower planes (down the Descending Arc along the way to Globe D again). Each cycle through the planes, over many, many millions of years, constitutes a complete sequence of interations for the "human fractal". In another sense, the world and everything in it is at a completely different level with each such Round through the planes. As the Rounds proceed, the focus of differentiation shifts from the physical side of things, where differences flower, to inner principles, like feelings and thought, which then flower in their turn. Attention shifts away from the outer, physical forms to what is going on in the minds and hearts of people, and then in future ages yet deeper, to our spiritual-divine natures, Atma-Buddhi. The homogeneous unity that we start with is the unity found on a blank canvas. The discord in the world, the problems and shortcomings of life, comes from the awkward and sometimes ugly-looking appearance of portions of the canvas where the first few paint strokes don't yet look right. And the completion and final unity of life is the completed work of art, with a overall meaning and beauty to the painting in its entirety, a beauty that can only exist because everything fits together just right. -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Wed May 1 06:42:41 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 23:42:41 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: Re: Little Theosophies Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960501064241.006b3ce4@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" This hasn't come back in about a day, so I'm resending it. -- Eldon ---- Alexis: >By "Little Theosophies" i refer to groups whose feelings about their >group lead them to exclude anyone that doesn't match their paradigm. This is possible in any group or approach to the spiritual. People can be so focused upon the dead-letter of their approach that they fail to see the same life behind different words and forms held by others. A very good example of this was with Daniel H., a Christian Fundamentalist, that was writing on theos-l last Autumn. He would never agree that there could be a valid experience of the spiritual except in and through his biblical approach. >I am explicitly referring to th ULT which I consider to be the >most "Hasidic" of Theosophical groups in the exclusivity. They tend to stick to the strictest intellectual standards of study and research of the theosophical literature. Because of this, their members tend to be the most knowledgable of the three theosophical groups. On the other hand, they therefore run the greatest risk of being *only intellectual*. This is a danger, but I know many ULT members that I would personally consider as good people, awake and alive to the spiritual, and eager to help the world. One such member was a co-member of the Point Loma Publications Board, and worked with me for a number of years to help that organization do as much good as it could. And in places like Santa Barbara, there are many active members of college age, not just old folks, or middle-aged, like Adyar T.S. members and many on theos-l. >On both this list, and in Theosophy International, people from these >groups are not in a position to enforce ther exclusivity. True. Not any more than any other view can dominate the list. There are perhaps half-a-dozen distinct views of Theosophy and the world on theos-l, and these views sometimes directly contradict one another. Pity the poor beginner to Theosophy, wanting to learn about it for the first time! >They have every right to be as exclusive as they please within their >own paradigm but they have no right to impose their ideas on others. Yes. Some of us may quote HPB or "The Mahatma Letters" and use that as our proof to others that accept Theosophy the way that we do. Others would ignore that proof as unconvincing, not accepting Theosophy to be that way. Some would talk of spirits and of their out of the body experiences, and use that as proof to others that accept the world the way that they do. And some people would ignore that proof as unconvincing to them. This situation is quite apparent to us, as we participate in the discussions. The only question is how peacefully can we co-exist? Can we carry on parallel discussions without having to "set the record straight" and blow away someone else's views? I'm not sure that the views will converge. That leaves us with either *conflict* or *mutual tolerance*. I prefer the latter, although I'll admit that there would be times where I'd feel called to respond to something, if too much of what I disagree with has been said. But when I do reply, I try to be civil and not blast the intelligence or character of the writers of the ideas I don't like. >They have every right to express their ideas of course, but >no right to accuse others of "heresy" or "blasphemy" when they >are disagreed with. The terms "heresy" and "blasphemy" may have arose out of a discussion that was had earlier, where I was mentioning that I thought that one should respect the sense of the sacred in the hearts of others, even if one did not like their ideas and the words that they expressed them in. Someone disagreed with me and the discussion started to diverge. >>[TI] ... sounds like a good idea to me too. Especially as over >>the generations the various variants of the original >>Theosophy get wider apart in what they teach! >Eldon, do you grant that I am a sincere person, as sincere in my beliefs and >perceptions as anyone else? Well if you do, and I hope you do, then you must >have learned by now that I consider my view of theosophy as possibly the >most traditional as it is based upon my perceptions of theosophy of the 1875 >- 1880 variety, with no influences from later on. I grant that you are a sincere person, but think that at times you could pick the words you express yourself in with greater care. You can get your ideas across better if you don't start off by getting people mad at what you say. If you want to bring someone to another way of thinking, it's much better to paint your ideas in beautiful colors and dazzle someone with their beauty. That's much better an approach than to simply tell people how sorry a state that they're in and how their ideas are totally worthless. It's much more effective to seduce with beauty than it is to shame and cower people with your wrath! You can give a historic context to your views. I like to think of my ideas as tapping into a *living tradition* that is rooted in Mahat or the universal mind. That is, I picture my best thinking as soaring far above what I could come up with in my ordinary thinking, a visit to greater realms of thought that I'm enabled to do because of my thought life being rooted in the theosophical doctrines. I don't associate my viewpoint or stance as based upon a particular organization or time period, but rather upon an inner, living process that I nurture within. >My "cut-off" is particularly intense in 1891 when HPB died. From then >on I think there has been nothing but variance and revisionism. It >may be rigid, it may even be limited, but it's hardly heretical. Okay. You're happy with the particular presentation of Theosophy as it stood up to that time. For me, the high point would have been the years when Purucker was actively teaching and writing, since I feel I've received the greatest spiritual benefit from him, although he doesn't have the quantity of materials or vastness of depth that can be found in HPB's works. >It may interest you to know that while I totally reject CWL, I don't >reject G de P at all, while i don't agree with everything he says, I >own, and have read a great many of his books. Here is one point where you agree with Bee. She also likes de Purucker, as does Jerry Schueler and a number of others on the list. I find Purucker as complimenting HPB in a way that is useful to me. Others may not, and may be satisfied with the works of other writers and students after HPB's time. >I do reject the ULT as I find their actions and attitude too >fundamentalist for me. But that does not mean I reject WQJ, his books >are some of the best written on later Theosophy. I've even got two >copies of Robert Crosbie's book and he makes a lot of sense even if >those who followed him don't. Each theosophical group has a personality of its own, and appeal to different temperaments. Not everyone would like the ULT, the Point Loma T.S., the Adyar T.S., or a theosophical group in general. Judge was good in the sense that he dealed with very practical matters, rather than the deeper metaphysics, and was helpful to people in turning the philosophy into something that could change their lives. In "Letters that Have Helped Me," for instance, there are a series of letters where he is corresponding with and helping Jasper N. (if I remember the name right -- I don't have the book before me). >I'm a Shaman, and a Healer, and a Psychic, but first and foremost I'm an >intellectual, I too started with "book learning" but i've moved on. But as you realize, life is not linear. We may *think* that we have moved on from a particular thing, only to find ourselves to return to it years later. When I was in my teens, I was heavily into reading and studying Theosophy, but soon it lost energy in my life. I went through perhaps 10 or 15 years of a "dry period" with an interest in things like Jungian Psychology and Zen Buddhism, and then came back again, with renewed vigor and inspiration. This time around, I feel a deep sense of the *genuine* that I can sense was missing in my first approach to Theosophy, I can feel *something happening* inside myself, rather than simply *wanting something to happen*, which was my experience when I was far younger. >To make what I'm saying totally unequivocal, I will say that I >believe that everything HPB wrote about attitude and goals is valid, >about the rest I am totally uncomfortable with some of it, and more >than a little unsure about much of it. That is all. As to the literal, dead-letter of the texts, I also feel that something is lacking. But then I feel I've had the experience of "going beyond the words" and finding something that really makes sense and is very special. The words were true, it was just that there are deeper meanings to them. And with some doctrines I've noticed several layers of meaning, each one building upon the last, all of them true but each newer one a bit *more true* than the last. >I also, as I'm sure you know, think that each person must develop his >or her own version of any existential philosophy, relying on trust or >faith in the perceptions of others is, I believe, a very dangerous >"rubber crutch". likely to fail the person in extremity. I would agree that each person has to take on the challenge by themselves. Wisdom is self-acquired, it is not a gift. The words and initial ideas in the books are only the starting point, a springboard off of which we can dive to realize truly great insights! They are not the one-and-only-way to Truth, but I've found them to work wonders in their application in my life, and feel obligated to work on sharing what I feel I've been blessed to see and understand. Best wishes, -- Eldon From am455@lafn.org Wed May 1 15:59:24 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 08:59:24 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199605011559.AA14324@lafn.org> Subject: New Theosophy Video Ed Abdill's teachings on the first 3 propositions of *The Secret Doctrine* is highly recommended. "Foundations of the Ageless Wisdom" it is called. It comes with a study guide. For individuals it is $30 for the video & $7.50 for the study guide. The video also has 2 parts (out of five) on the 7 principles & the spiritual path. -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed May 1 16:51:21 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 12:51:21 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960501125120_387740404@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Gang Alan, I hope you see this, the list is doing some very strange things lately. The Gang of 5 is as follows: Alex, Jerry Schueler, JRC, you and me. You didn't have to join, you got drafted like the rest of us. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA , M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From alexei@slip.net Wed May 1 17:09:32 1996 Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 10:09:32 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960501170932.00695ebc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: violence At 06:34 AM 5/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis: >>My principle prime concept is: "The Power to Act, confers the absolute >>responsibility to do so, it carries with it the equally absolute >>responsibility for the results of the action". > > This is pretty much how I view karma. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Mine too. But I have immense problems with "Karmic Boards" etc. Karma, such as it is, is reactive not retributive. The cybernetic version is "garbage in garbage out" and that too is a good definition of "Karma". alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed May 1 17:26:17 1996 Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 10:26:17 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960501172617.0069a8f8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? At 07:46 PM 4/30/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Bob Dobbs is the "prophet" of the Church of the Sub-Genius. I doubt he is a >real person. >Please do not sign off the list. That is exactly what those who attack you >hope you will do and if you go I will have to do all the fighting again. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"Seek ye first the kingdom of Oz and the Wicked Witch of the West shall turn >into a big puddle." The Book of Non-Existent Sayings > >O.K. I won't. alexis From poulsen@dk-online.dk Wed May 1 21:26:30 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 19:26:30 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3794.522710C0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: Is this a thesophical list Encoding: 27 TEXT Rich: >For whatever reason -- probably because of having attended a really wonderful >meeting tonight with lots of different kinds of spiritual seekers -- I am >re-claiming that part of myself which knows that all students of Theosophy >(whether CWL, AAB, Judge, Tingley, Purucker, Steiner, whatever) have been >growing out of the same foundation, and each deserve respect for what >they've tried to accomplish. Very well put, Rich. I am sorry to answer you with (almost) an one-liner :-) , but this attitude seems very important with only possibly 50.000 theosophists in all. Of course an idea can always be contested, but (to stay out of sensitive theosophical subjects) to hold the opinion that Nagarjuna was mistaken in his views about everythings dependence upon svabhavat (as HPB did), is certainly not the same as refuting the fact that he was a magnificent philosopher. You seem to have surfaced from the fogs of war in a greatly positive spirit! In friendship, Kim In friendship, Kim From alexei@slip.net Wed May 1 17:38:17 1996 Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 10:38:17 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960501173817.006a7474@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophist List? Jerry: I would like to present to you this hypothesis: Might it not be that the increasingly limited dedications represent H.P.B.s decreasing hope that what she/he was trying to say would ever be fully comprehended? When she observed the membership totally fascinated by "parlour tricks" and totally disinterested in the explanation of those tricks, when she viewed Theosophists jockying for power and influence instead of putting their influence and energies into actual service to humanity? When she realized that many prominent theosophists regarded her as detrimental to the society? H.P.B. started out full of hope and optimism as time went by those hopes and that optimism began to wear very thin indeed. Perhaps that is why the extent of her dedications got more and more limited. She felt more and more limited. alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed May 1 17:49:05 1996 Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 10:49:05 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960501174905.006ab5ac@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Wilting At 07:53 PM 4/30/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >It's nice that we have a few eclectics like you around to check our quotes. >Have you ever considered becoming and editor? :-) > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"And the waters turned to mud." The Book of Green Slime > >Th Eidetic Memory helps. Considering I have always placed reading first among my enjoyments, It might be fun. alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed May 1 17:54:43 1996 Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 10:54:43 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960501175443.00686a80@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Gang At 07:57 PM 4/30/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960430055335.0069598c@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>>Oddly enough it's one of my own "prime concepts" as well. It's >>interesting, does it also ring true with the other two members of the "Gang"? > >I keep seeing references to a gang of 4 or 5 - but no idea of who they >are supposed to be - maybe I missed some mail on this? > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > > well Alan, considering that your are assumed to be a member by all and sundry, I guess I'd best fill you in. Someone, I think it may have been Chuck, made a comment on the list that some Theosophists consider the T.S. to be the nucleus of the new world religion, etc. and that this list was to be used for that purpose. I commented that oh no, it wouldn't be, because as I put it to Chuck: You and I and Alan and Jerry S, and JRC won't let it" then Eldon commented that we were the "Gang of Four" and, of course, Chuck and I "grabbed the ball and ran with it"! And that my boy, is how the Rt. Rev. Dr. Alan Bain became a gangster! alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed May 1 17:25:19 1996 Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 10:25:19 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960501172519.006b6ea8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Eldon vis a vis CWL At 07:29 AM 5/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>>>cut<<<<<<< > >JHE > Hi Alexis. It seems that Liesel is not the only one who >objects to anything being said about CWL that might be taken in a >negative light. In the past, two or three theos-l members >protested when I and others have discussed forbidden subjects. >There were still others who did not like us having these >discussions, and in some cases informed me privately of this. >Then there were others, who just quietly disapproved. In my >opinion however, I much prefer Liesel's expression of hostility >(though it be passive aggressive) over the political black- >balling games played by the powerful few in Adyar and Wheaton. >But it is not theosophical ideals that get in the way, but their >institutional application. The ideals of the TS concerning the >freedom of members are: > >1. The freedom of opinion. Members are allowed to express >whatever opinion they wish, as long as they do not limit the >rights of other members to also express their opinions. > >2. Members cannot have their rights and privileges as a member >abridged for simply expressing minority opinions. > >3. Members are not bound to accept the teachings or opinions of >any theosophical leaders, from HPB downwards. > > So, Alexis, if you don't fear the consequences of having >complete freedom to speak according to your own conscience, then >jump in--the water is fine. > >JHE >The disinherited > >------------------------------------------ > |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | > |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | > |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | > |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | > ------------------------------------------ > > > >Jerry: I thank you for that most interesting and educational message. Move over in the pool..here I come! I cannot, in honour, do otherwise. If you, or I, or anyone, doesn't have absolute freedom of conscience and expression than I must devote myself to making sure that we do. To paraphrase Judy Holliday in "Born Yesterday".."If your house is one fire and you don't call the fire department...who are you spiting..the fire???" The T.S. is sinking (has sunk) slowly but inexorably into the much of power politics I should hate anyone to be able to say they weren't adequately warned! I really don't think it matters what I do I have already been more than "marginalized" and being disenfranchised just "tops it off". The T.S. is dying (dead) but that doesn't mean theosophy is. alexis From Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Wed May 1 18:06:45 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 96 11:06:45 PDT From: Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Message-Id: <9605011822.AA04912@orchid.tc.pw.com> Subject: Retrograde Mayhem I understand from a very reliable source that there will be six planets in retrograde during the month of May -- I'll set them forth to all and say "hold on to your shorts"! Mercury Retrograde in Taurus May 4 through the 28th Venus Retrograde in Gemini May 21-31 Jupiter Retrograde in Capricorn May 4-31 Uranus Retrograde in Aquarius May 9-31 Neptune Retrograde in Capricorn All month long Pluto Retrograde in Saggitarius All month long (did I spell Sag right?) From alexei@slip.net Wed May 1 18:23:08 1996 Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 11:23:08 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960501182308.006cfd6c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Little Theosophies At 12:27 PM 5/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >This hasn't come back in about a day, so I'm resending it. > >-- Eldon > Eldon: this is the one I saved to disk, but WHERE on the disk appears to be one of the "greater mysteries". >---- > >>I am explicitly referring to th ULT which I consider to be the >>most "Hasidic" of Theosophical groups in the exclusivity. > >They tend to stick to the strictest intellectual standards of study >and research of the theosophical literature. Because of this, their >members tend to be the most knowledgable of the three theosophical >groups. On the other hand, they therefore run the greatest risk of >being *only intellectual*. They run a greater rsik than that. For they have so encysted themselves in one or two authors and their works, that the rest of the world and many really important ideas and concepts are lost to them. This is a danger, but I know many ULT >members that I would personally consider as good people, awake and >alive to the spiritual, and eager to help the world. One such member >was a co-member of the Point Loma Publications Board, and worked with >me for a number of years to help that organization do as much good as >it could. And in places like Santa Barbara, there are many active >members of college age, not just old folks, or middle-aged, like Adyar T.S. members and many on theos-l. Eldon, I know many fundamentalist Christians (John's sister for one) who are truly wonderful people, "alive to the spiritual and eager to help the world" but their doctrines are self-limiting and they would, with the best of intentions, inflict those limitations on everyone. > >>On both this list, and in Theosophy International, people from these >>groups are not in a position to enforce ther exclusivity. > >True. Not any more than any other view can dominate the list. There >are perhaps half-a-dozen distinct views of Theosophy and the world >on theos-l, and these views sometimes directly contradict one another. >Pity the poor beginner to Theosophy, wanting to learn about it for >the first time! Well then perhaps we should (somehow) post a warning that this list is distinctly not for beginners, except for those who enjoy intellectual challenges. > >>They have every right to be as exclusive as they please within their >>own paradigm but they have no right to impose their ideas on others. > >Yes. Some of us may quote HPB or "The Mahatma Letters" and use that >as our proof to others that accept Theosophy the way that we do. Others >would ignore that proof as unconvincing, not accepting Theosophy to be >that way. Some would talk of spirits and of their out of the body >experiences, and use that as proof to others that accept the world the >way that they do. And some people would ignore that proof as unconvincing >to them. Ihave two things to say here. Relying on Quotations as one's proof is what I call hypothetical belief and is really only a "desre to believe". As to "advetures in spirit", your position on this is well known, and of course, without experience, it is totally "unconvincing" as you put it. But, believe, me Eldon, if we ever meet, and if you should choose to consent to it, I will make it expereintial for you, and then you'll have to re-think. > > > >I grant that you are a sincere person, but think that at times you >could pick the words you express yourself in with greater care. You >can get your ideas across better if you don't start off by getting >people mad at what you say. If you want to bring someone to another >way of thinking, it's much better to paint your ideas in beautiful >colors and dazzle someone with their beauty. That's much better an >approach than to simply tell people how sorry a state that they're >in and how their ideas are totally worthless. It's much more effective >to seduce with beauty than it is to shame and cower people with your >wrath! Eldon: I think I'll leave the "beauty" to my art, which expresses theosophy in its own way, and stick to clarity of thought in my speech (both written and spoken)..this all reminds me of poor old Hrry Truman who said: "Give me hell? I don't give hell, I just tell them the truth and it feels like hell!". I don't think that (with one possible exception) I have ever told anyone on this borad that thy're in a sorry state, or that their ideas are totally worthless. What I have done is state my ideas and compare them with theirs. If the result is that they feel I've said that, then perhaps they'd best look at their ideas. > >You can give a historic context to your views. I like to think of >my ideas as tapping into a *living tradition* that is rooted in >Mahat or the universal mind. That is, I picture my best thinking >as soaring far above what I could come up with in my ordinary >thinking, a visit to greater realms of thought that I'm enabled >to do because of my thought life being rooted in the theosophical >doctrines. I don't associate my viewpoint or stance as based upon >a particular organization or time period, but rather upon an inner, >living process that I nurture within. > >>My "cut-off" is particularly intense in 1891 when HPB died. From then >>on I think there has been nothing but variance and revisionism. It >>may be rigid, it may even be limited, but it's hardly heretical. > >Okay. You're happy with the particular presentation of Theosophy >as it stood up to that time. For me, the high point would have been >the years when Purucker was actively teaching and writing, since I >feel I've received the greatest spiritual benefit from him, although >he doesn't have the quantity of materials or vastness of depth that >can be found in HPB's works. > >>It may interest you to know that while I totally reject CWL, I don't >>reject G de P at all, while i don't agree with everything he says, I >>own, and have read a great many of his books. > >Here is one point where you agree with Bee. She also likes de Purucker, >as does Jerry Schueler and a number of others on the list. I find >Purucker as complimenting HPB in a way that is useful to me. Others >may not, and may be satisfied with the works of other writers and >students after HPB's time. > >>I do reject the ULT as I find their actions and attitude too >>fundamentalist for me. But that does not mean I reject WQJ, his books >>are some of the best written on later Theosophy. I've even got two >>copies of Robert Crosbie's book and he makes a lot of sense even if >>those who followed him don't. > >>To make what I'm saying totally unequivocal, I will say that I >>believe that everything HPB wrote about attitude and goals is valid, >>about the rest I am totally uncomfortable with some of it, and more >>than a little unsure about much of it. That is all. > >As to the literal, dead-letter of the texts, I also feel that something >is lacking. But then I feel I've had the experience of "going beyond >the words" and finding something that really makes sense and is very >special. The words were true, it was just that there are deeper meanings >to them. And with some doctrines I've noticed several layers of meaning, >each one building upon the last, all of them true but each newer one >a bit *more true* than the last. That Eldon is what one is supposed to garner from the teachings of theosophy, but I submit to far too many people it's all "dead letter theosophy". > >>I also, as I'm sure you know, think that each person must develop his >>or her own version of any existential philosophy, relying on trust or >>faith in the perceptions of others is, I believe, a very dangerous >>"rubber crutch". likely to fail the person in extremity. > >I would agree that each person has to take on the challenge by >themselves. Wisdom is self-acquired, it is not a gift. The words >and initial ideas in the books are only the starting point, a >springboard off of which we can dive to realize truly great insights! >They are not the one-and-only-way to Truth, but I've found them to work >wonders in their application in my life, and feel obligated to work on >sharing what I feel I've been blessed to see and understand. > >Best wishes, > >-- Eldon Equally best wishes alexis > > > From eldon@theosophy.com Wed May 1 09:10:17 1996 Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 02:10:17 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960501091017.006841dc@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: scuttling theos-l Liesel: >For a while there, I was thinking that, since we were talking so unfavorably >about the ES, the ES had planted a few people to write on theos-l, to at >least get us off the subject, if not destroy our well going conversations >all together. Then I thought "Noooo, that's too cloak & dagger". Yes, I don't think that people do things like that. At least I wouldn't suspect such a thing without substantial evidence, since I'm inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt. >Today & yesterday I came back to the thought, because Chuck & Alexis turned up >around that time, & they *have* managed for the time being to destroy much >of our conversation. Chuck at times talks about the habits of people in >Wheaton, including John Algeo's, habits he wouldn't know about unless he >hung around Olcott a lot. Maybe strange things are happening? If you >disenfranchise members to keep them from voting against you, you might try >that kind of a Chuck trick as well. Ho ho! ho ho! You're joking, I hope!!! Seriously, I don't think that the negative side of things manifests itself very often in people as self-conscious intent to do harm. Rather, I think that it's the dark suspicions, angry reactions to people, and general negativity that catches us unaware, and clouds our minds and hearts. If there's a dark side to life, it would get its way through "divide and conquer," through catching people and subtly changing them, slyly changing them without them being aware. -- Eldon From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Wed May 1 19:25:09 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 12:25:09 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9605011925.AA04483@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: Brotherhood and TS Membership >Dear Mr Ramadoss: > >I have seen you state repeatedly on this list that "agreement >with the *first object* is the *only* requirement for joining >the TS (I presume you mean TS Adyar). I believe you are >incorrect in this. I also have been around for several decades, >including involvement in lodge and federation work, and in that >experience I recall that the requirement is to be in agreement >with *the three objects of the Society*. > >The TSA membership application form states it as follows: >"Having considered the three objects of the Society, and being >in sympathy therewith, I hereby apply for admission as a member >of the Society." The three objects are listed above this >declaration. In 1889 HPB wrote: "No member is obliged to feel in sympathy with all three objects; suffice that he should be in sympathy with one of the three, and be willing not to oppose the two others, to render him eligible to membership of the T.S." (B:CW XI, 335). It would be interesting if someone took the time to find out when the rule was changed and under what circumstances. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Wed May 1 19:26:28 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 12:26:28 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9605011926.AA01902@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? >Jerry, >When I had my study center, we would get inquiries and the first >question was always "What is Theosophy?" >I would usually answer that Theosophy literally translated as >Divine Wisdom, but as we were not divine we did not have the >foggiest idea what it was. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker Chuck, That is a great line. I think I'll steal it :-) JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Wed May 1 19:28:22 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 12:28:22 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9605011928.AA09267@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: vis a vis CWL (to Doss) >I did not know that TPH even had an idea of publishing Tillett's >book on CWL. The original publication was by Routledge, Kegan >and Paul and large number of copies were langushing in half >price books stores due to lack of demand. It would have been a >business disaster for TPH to have considered publishing a book >which they may not be able to sell. > > ....doss Hi Doss, Just to put a little perspective on this, I would like to add in some details. I had a conversation with Gregory Tillett concerning TPH's offer of publishing the book. Sometime before the mss was committed to a publisher, word had gotten out that he was going to publish CWL's biography and that it would not put him in a good light. You might remember that Hugh Sherman around that time published a pamphlet that tried to counter the issues that were rumored to be in Tillett's mss. Now according to Greg, he received a letter from TPH offering to purchase the mss. But the way the letter was worded, and in consideration of the timing, Greg understood that it was not TPH's intention to publish the book, but by owning the rights to it, to assure that no one else would. This is of course second hand information now, but it is in perfect accord with my own experiences with Wheaton. Regarding the monetary wisdom of publishing Tillett's book, My guess is that Routledge has people on their staff that are at least as capable of deciding the marketability of a book, as the staff at TPH. However, in the case of Tillett's book, and unforseen event took place. Routledge changed ownership. The old Routledge had a small but growing line of books on occult subjects and was working their way into this market. The new owners of Routledge had no interest in occult books, and dumped the entire line. My understanding was that the new owners had decided to destroy the stock on hand rather than go through the trouble of distributing them to half price stores. So I'm surprised that you have seen them there. I have not, and as a book dealer, it is my business to watch for those things. In the case of Tillett's book, Point Loma Publications received notice of Routledge's intention to destroy the remaining stock, and decided to purchase it so that it would still be available. JHE JHE@TOTO.CSUSTAN.EDU From jmeier@microfone.net Thu May 2 00:11:53 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 20:11:53 -0400 From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Message-Id: <199605020011.UAA11748@ginger.vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Wesak & Group Opportunity Wesak is the Festival of the Buddha. It is a celebration of His enlightenment, as the expression of the Wisdom of God, the Embodiment of Light and the Indicator of divine purpose. It is held annually in relation to the full moon of Taurus and besides the esoteric significance, it is also a secular holiday in many Eastern regions. Taurus is the 2nd of the labors of Hercules: after crossing the waters to the island of Crete, Hercules passes through the maze and subdues the bull (or Minotaur, in some versions). The bull is not slaughtered, but is brought back across the waters and delivered to the Cyclops waiting onshore ["If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light"]. Hercules finds the bull from its LIGHT, the radiance of the third eye, the "bull's eye". The animal nature symbolism is obvious in this labor, and after Hercules begins his spiritual journey in Aires by taming the restless mind, his next step on the path is to subdue the lower, animal nature in Taurus. It is LIGHT that leads Hercules to the answer of this problem, and it is the accomplishment of the Buddha -- the Enlightened One -- that is remembered and celebrated at the Wesak Festival. Jim note: there is a group meditation on the theme of illumination that takes place at 7:00pm, EST on Thursday May 2nd, and again at the actual time of the full moon which is 7:49am EST on Friday, May 3rd (11:49am GMT). The title of this post, "Wesak and Group Opportunity" is taken from this month's Cycles, which is a monthly publication of the Agni Yoga folks down in Arlington, Texas. There is a community there grown up around the Agni Yoga/Alice Bailey texts, and a kindergarten through highschool system based upon Theosophy and the Robert Muller curriculum teachings (UN). "The members of the School are experimenting with rejoining astrology and astronomy. The experiment is called Astrochemistry and involves using astronomical calculations to determine cyclic energy patterns and the works of Alice A. Bailey and the Agni Yoga series as aids in determining the meaning and significance of these cycles. This information is intended to be useful in the daily life." School of Ancient Wisdom (a truly hokey name, IMO, but nice folks) 6005 Royal Oak Drive Arlington, Texas 76016 From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed May 1 16:38:07 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 17:38:07 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: The Ol Toad Spell In-Reply-To: <960501150949_76400.1474_HHL35-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960501150949_76400.1474_HHL35-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >>Jerry, >>Try blaming Alan. No one has picked on him for a few days. >> >>Chuck > > Good idea. Alan did it! Alan did it! > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > Did what? When? I deny it! I'm entitled to a phone call! It was Jerry! It was Chuck! I was out of the country, and have seventeen paid witnesses! On the other hand, if it was something praiseworthy ... Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From ramadoss@eden.com Wed May 1 11:06:10 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 06:06:10 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Messages Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I find sometimes some messages get distributed very quickly and some others take time. As a consequence you will find that the order in which the messages received may not be the same as the order in which they are posted. So when reading messages, keeping this in mind will help the message thread in order. ---doss From malkin@gil.net Wed May 1 21:15:43 1996 Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 17:15:43 -0400 From: Ken Malkin Message-Id: <3187D47F.6CEF@gil.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Everyone is excluded Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good day to you all, Legitimate questions have been raised by the actions of the = personages (=91Wheatonists=92), entrusted with the public dissemination of = = Theosophical ideas. It appears reasonable to observe that the great = intellectual refinements Theosophy offers are being sabotaged. = In addition, the fiduciary responsibility, trust and corporate = veil may have been breached by the actions of the Board of Directors and = the individual officers of the Theosophical Society in America. Through = the exposure to law suits for cause (and the attendant expense), = individuals and members may be at legal risk. = More important once again, the reliability of our presentations = to man - kind of Theosophy as a whole and its inherent individual = creditability will be examined, questioned and doubted. = Perhaps the grandmother is better left as the soulless corpse = she appears to be. Can we expect a continuing rejuvenation that each new = member brings? Where is the reverberating of renewed thrill filled joy = full ness of energy to be found? I=92m sure that the =93Growth=94 in our = organization for the past one hundred years will attest to our value... = Further, the argument can be made that the long term effort = by/for stability of our current administration has been shown to be = attuned to the working of what is generally called a Cabal. I see no, = nor do I feel a =93Master=94 vibration at work from Wheaton at now. It is obvious the =91Wheatonists=92 have =91circled their wagons=92. = Threatening and cajoling those they can (arise ES people, look to Alice = Bailey et.al. for what is hidden from you and only handed out like some = work house porridge, The SUN shines for everyone), ignoring the balance = of the members opinions by silence. Who amongst us has heard from the = =91Wheatonists=92 when we have cared enough to have voiced opinion (see = below). These are the actions of fear filled people. = Is, at the root of this apprehension, avariciousness and/or = greed disguised? Their current direction and actions by any measure have = been far afield of unity and harmony with the three declared objects of = the Theosophical Society. = Amongst the questionable activities the =91Wheatonists=92 have = promulgated have been; by-laws created in secret and shamelessly = presented as accomplished fact. This seen when they are finally made = public in passing presentation. Gross and obvious electioneering that = has been both immoral and illegal. Sub-rosa disenfranchisement of = members voting rights by interpretation made to order on the spot. Even = the presentation of an un-elected person as a factual officer (Bertha = Bland) as the current 1st Vice President prior to her public (might one = presume pre-determined, by the way does that mean that Bing is correct, = he has been brown balled?) election. = All of this conduct appears akin to a suit ordered by mail, = prepaid, from Hong Kong and delivered via Fed-Ex in 72 hours. Like or = not you own it. = The =91Wheotonists=92 actions deserve review. In fact, all of the = upset my indeed be a diversion for something else. While we bay like = hounds at the front door for our =93Just rights=94, the material masters = true agenda is carried on out of view. = To that point, why is accounting of revenues, expenses, = membership services, even membership lists requested for specific and = reasonable needs available to current office holders only and not to = other members? Why is everything so difficult to accomplish or obtain = from the on high? = Is there a plan to sell the Wheaton headquarters and operate = from another venue? What then of the resultant multi-millions of dollars = of capital. Who will control it? For what reason? What checks and = balances will be allowed to apply at the membership level and how? = Why are the =93Esoteric Society=94 members whose avowed aim is to = =93Only serve, never lead=94, =93Only=94 controlling the form of our public= = expression, action and nature from Adyar to Wheaton including individual = lodges? Where can one find the higher order of =93Master=94 vibration in = all this politics, material consolidation and accumulation, and the = continuing focus about form stuff, Form Stuff . FORM STUFF? = OK you Caesar=92s (=91Wheatonists=92) of need, we will render unto you = your desire minds wants. Your own fear and avaricious personal = self-serving-ness have unmasked you. The rapacious nature of those in = who the masters vibrations have been spent is seen and known. = I speak here not only to/of your continuing dis-regard for the = decent and general acceptance of democratic principles, but greater, = your suborning of a magnificently presented treatise on/for human- ness. = All of us are sullied and despoiled by any despotic addressment of the = gift. =91Wheatonists=92, give it a break, take what you will in the light = of day for all to see and understand the lesson. Depart now taking with = you all the baggage of your desires need. STOP adulterating the = magnificent value of The Theosophical movement by mixing up your view = of import and want/need (what many others refer to as a daily biological = action), with the purity of, and the mission of the three declared = objects so blessedly placed before man - kind. = You are unmasked now, your true master is form. Justify what you = are doing by whatever means you need. Take all the transitory goods you = can and by any name for justification, just STOP and DEPART! Please leave the Theosophical name as the only remnant of = human-ness you may be able to muster. There in may be found salvation = for us all. Gosh I=92m upset... Ken Malkin <><<<><><><><><><><><><><<><><<<><><><><><><<<><><><><><><><<><><><<><>< = For the consideration of all. The following is copy of a letter = forwarded by 54 arbitrarily and illegally disenfranchised voters of the = Miami lodge and unanswered as of this posting to: William N. Greer, National Secretary BY CERTIFIED MAIL The Theosophical Society in America = Copy to John Algeo, National President 1926 N. Main Street Wheaton, Illinois 60189 April 25, 1996 Dear Sir: We the undersigned, members in good standing of The Theosophical = Society in America, do hereby demand that you send to us ballots for the = election of national officers and directors. None of us has received = our ballots and it is our belief that you did not send them to us = because we have not been members for two years or more as would be = required under the proposed new national bylaws which were, adopted in = an illegal procedure tallied by you January 6, 1996, and which you, = therefore, have no authority to enforce. You were notified of the = illegality of the bylaw referendum procedure by the Ad Hoc Committee of = 7 Lodge Presidents on December 18, 1995, and again on February 16, 1996. = Furthermore, all of the undersigned have been members since before = January 6, 1996, and even if the bylaw referendum had been properly = conducted, it is our view that your applying the 2 year membership = requirement to us retroactively, is illegal. As you wish to have the = ballots returned to you by May 10, 1996, it is imperative that you act = immediately, and send us our ballots. Signature: Street Address, City, State, ------------------------------- From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu May 2 09:18:03 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 05:18:03 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605021022.GAA23413@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: TS Moscow >Theosophical Society of Moscow >Mr. Vladimir Popov, President >Trehgorny val Street 2, app.49 >123022 Moscow, Russsia >FAX 011-7-95-205-2228 > > May 1, 1996 > >Dear Theosophists, dear friends, > >Some of us who correspond on the Internet (theos-l@vnet.net and theos-buds@vnet.net) would like to establish some contact with you. You have been cut off for so long, and we would finally like to have an interchange of ideas and some ties of friendship with you. You must be as eager to find out about us, as we are to find out about you, after all this time of not being able to communicate. We'd also like to know what is happening to you just now, because the reports we get from our TV and our newspapers is that life in Russia is pretty difficult. > >Also, some theosophical friends have told us that the Theosophical Society Adyar is making it really difficult for you to join them. We can't remedy that, but if some of you would like to correspond with us, or join us, we've just started a very loose organization called Theosophy International. Perhaps, for now we should just try to communicate back & forth, & then, lateron, if some of you would like to join Theosophy International, you'd be welcome. We think that the most important thing right now is to have an interchange. > >Members of Theosophy International belong to The Theosophical Society, TS Pasadena, United Lodge, Alice Bailey enthusiasts, and our Danish & Canadian members have national unaffiliated Theosphical Societies. One only needs to agree to that one is in favor of the 3 theosophical objects, which we've modernized a little. We correspond via theos-buds@vnet.net, or by ordinary mail, which computer nerds call "snail mail". We don't have a chairman. We don't charge dues. We do have a statement of intent. We are so young that we haven't done anything much yet. Alan Bain, of Bristol, England, who dreamt up Theosophy International has been putting some of the theosophical classics on the computer; John Crocker is working on some introductory Theosophy for beginners, and Rodolfo Don has started a home page on the World Wide Web (that's a new part of the Internet). > >About a week ago, I received your Fax number and your address from Svetlana Bakanova. I sent it out to the theos-l list which has about 80 members, but I don't have any idea as to how many will respond, maybe only a few. A number of them expressed an interest. Most of the theosophists on our list live in the USA, but we also have a few in England, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Iceland, and Holland. > >I've also been in touch with Dick Slusser, who publishes the newsletter "High Country Theosophist" from, Boulder, Colorado. He's contacted another 30 people, some of whom are publishers of little Theosophical newsletters, and he's given them your address & FAX number. So now let's see what happens. > >I don't know whether you know that I've been corresponding with Sergei Belkovsky for 3 or 4 years now. I've also been sending him books he can use in his work. I'm hoping that some other members of this list will be willing to help you out with items you can use, but that's something I can't promise you. I don't know whether anyone else would, & I myself can't take on any more financial obligations. > >Svetlana and Daniel Entin, with whom I've so far had a brief exchange, both said that you have enough people who know English, so that we can correspond in that language. We've been able to discover 2 Russian speakers so far, if it becomes necessary. One is Dick Slusser's brother, and the other is Grady Austin's step son. Dick & Grady are both Theosophists, but their relatives, I think are not. It'd take a while for them to translate letters back & forth. So if we can stay in Englsih, it'd be much quicker, but I wanted you to know that we do have some people who know Russian. > >I'm going to give you my 2 addresses & the Fax number of the Summerfield office. They said they'd receive any Fax letters you would send me. > > Liesel F. Deutsch >214 Summerfield Village Lane >Syracuse, NY 13215 >USA > >liesel@dreamscape.com ( but theos-l@vnet.net, and theos-buds@vnet.net will reach me too, since I'm part of those mailing lists.) > >the local part of my Fax number is 315-492-3514 > >with sisterly Love > > > From SeussInUse@gnn.com Thu May 2 07:59:50 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 07:55:20 From: SeussInUse@gnn.com (Virginia Behrens) Message-Id: <199605021159.HAA18723@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: to follow through Hello Liesel, In your message of 29 Apr 1996 19:10:47 -0400 (liesel@dreamscape.com) - you asked: > And I'm wondering ... does the tenant reside there, or do >you think the monad is the tenant itself? I can't say for sure but my understanding to date would say it's the monad. >I think, in a way, one can borrow the scientific method to >investigate non-physical phenomena, dunno about substance. Yes, I'm sure of it. I hadn't thought of using this distinction by "phenomena" compared to "substance" when speaking of the non-physical. This is really helpful to me - thanks. >...Besant & Leadbeater did that while researching "Occult >Chemistry"....I've heard that modern scientific findings have >borne them out. Do you or anyone else know if these scientific findings have been recorded and, if so, can you give me a way to find this? I glanced at B&L's book sometime ago. I don't have but can borrow it. I'll look at it again. >When you look at the pictures of auras drawn from Leadbeater's >descriptions, they're quite different in some of the details from >the ones drawn from Dora's descriptions. And yet, I know that >Leadbeater taught Dora how to interpet more clearly what she >saw,... This is what I meant when I said that, so far, I hadn't found the contributions from people who see non-physical substance very helpful. (My own included.) I've participated in more classes, study groups, seminars, group discussions etc. than I care to remember where numerous people with this faculty were present. I'm sensitive in this way enough to understand what the others are saying yet all our descriptions of phenomenon happening, even in the momemt, varying wildly not just widely. I've done research that deals with human variability but these observations, for me, border on random chaos. I'm sure this is due to some limitation in me. But then who has told or will show how these observations fit into a coherent whole? >Well, in 1 of the books it mentions that in her younger years the >clairvoyant worked with a physician, & the clairvoyant diagnosis >was compared with what was found on the X-rays, or during a >subsequent operation. I didn't follow here who is the clairvoyant you mean - Dora? Also which book? (I may want to look this up.) > I've also read of an experiment where a modern yogi was able to >stop his heart for a while, & the result was confirmed, because he >was strapped to an electrocardiogram. Yes, from what I know this is proven and the methods of bio-feedback grew out of experiments like these. Bio-feedback, by the way, is being subjected to the scientific method as we speak. The very small part of the National Institutes for Health (US) that is funding research into methods of alternative medicine has funded some studies. But seems to me that these experiments show the ability of the more refined area of people, often the mind, to control the unrefined area, the physical body. Still doesn't tell about the make-up of the refined organism just what it can do. >I don't know what kind of experiments they're doing at Duke >University. Do You? Do you know anything about the experiments >the Russians did, are doing,... I haven't caught up on the latest with the Duke group but last I heard they were enmeshed in proving that ESP exists. I guess a necessary first step for sceptics. Yes, I've heard about the "Russian experiments" but I know of nothing that has been published and I would love to know what they have written up. If it's anything like "straight" research there is a problem getting translations out of the Russian - ah where are those good old days of "the one tongue" ..... >I understand some scientists are experimenting in this country as >well, but they don't very readily admit to it, because it's >frowned upon. They are but from what I know they are doing it "under the table" and it's difficult to find out about. Few will go to print and when they do they speak in very broad and blurry generalities. I heard a few days ago on public radio about how acupuncture needles had just received approval from the Food and Drug Administration as legit medical devices and how this would open up the way to insurance companies paying for accupuncture procedures. The report said now some medical researchers say they want to find out what *is* this "chi" (in Chinese medicine the subtle energy moved during acupuncture). This could be hopeful. Also reported the biggest Health Maintenance Organization in California now has an alternative medicine clinic with an 8 to 10 week waiting list. I'll bet it is in these clinics that the nut will be cracked - in a good 20 to 30 years, at least. >From some of the things my Teacher said, I suppose that etheric >material is made up of finer & finer vibes. I had come to this conclusion also and because of this probably the only way to know about a finer substance is to be "in" a still finer substance. People know physical substance with their mental selves. That is probably two or more levels apart. To know about etheric or astral substance probably have to be in a consciousness beyond the mental. Oh well - Patanjali or bust. Virginia From aprioripa@usa.pipeline.com Thu May 2 13:31:51 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 09:31:51 -0400 From: aprioripa@usa.pipeline.com Message-Id: <9605021331.AA18179@pipe9> Subject: Psychosophy (esoteric psychology and theosophy) www Content-Length: 371 Hello Friends, Psychosophy (esoteric psychology and theosophy) updated www pages are http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/esopsych.html http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/service.html Shanti, Patrick *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/esopsych.html *** From aprioripa@usa.pipeline.com Thu May 2 13:46:53 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 09:46:53 -0400 From: aprioripa@usa.pipeline.com Message-Id: <199605021346.JAA02215@pipe10.h1.usa.pipeline.com> Subject: Psychosophy (esoteric psychology and theosophy) updated www Psychosophy (esoteric psychology and theosophy) updated www pages are http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/esopsych.html http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/service.html Also, includes H.P.B., Alice Bailey, Agni Yoga. Shanti, Patrick *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/esopsych.html *** From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu May 2 01:11:11 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 02:11:11 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: WELCOME! Mime-Version: 1.0 THEOSOPHY WELCOMES KEN MALKIN of the TS in Miami! 37 & going up ... Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From SeussInUse@gnn.com Thu May 2 10:14:39 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 10:10:13 From: SeussInUse@gnn.com (Virginia Behrens) Message-Id: <199605021414.KAA31529@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: brotherhood vs. human family In response to messages about the wording of the first object of TI: I don't understand the essential difference intended in the meanings of the first object of TI: 1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family, without distinction of sex, sexual orientation, creed, class, or color. *and* the first object of TSA: 1. To form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color. Why is the loss of "brotherhood" of concern? To me universal=universal; brotherhood=family; and humanity=human. Is there concern about nucleus "within" rather than "of"? Personally, I'm delighted to see brotherhood dropped and a genderless word such as family used instead. If some feel the loss of brotherhood in the wording smacks of being exclusive then I should say that I've always felt left out by the writings and talk about brotherhood. Being in a body of female gender as I am, I can't name myself a brother. Virginia Behrens TI, TSA From aprioripa@usa.pipeline.com Thu May 2 14:27:19 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 10:27:19 -0400 From: aprioripa@usa.pipeline.com Message-Id: <9605021427.AA03746@pipe3> Subject: Theosophy Illustrations & Astronomy Content-Length: 349 Hello again, Theosophy Illustrations & Astronomy www pages are http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/images.html http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/onspace.html Best regards, Patrick *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/esopsych.html *** From alexei@slip.net Thu May 2 18:15:12 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 11:15:12 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960502181512.006b6c64@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Everyone is excluded At 04:35 AM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >Good day to you all, > Legitimate questions have been raised by the actions of the = > >personages (=91Wheatonists=92), entrusted with the public dissemination of = > = > >Theosophical ideas. It appears reasonable to observe that the great = > >intellectual refinements Theosophy offers are being sabotaged. = > > In addition, the fiduciary responsibility, trust and corporate = > >veil may have been breached by the actions of the Board of Directors and = > >the individual officers of the Theosophical Society in America. Through = > >the exposure to law suits for cause (and the attendant expense), = > >individuals and members may be at legal risk. = > > More important once again, the reliability of our presentations = > >to man - kind of Theosophy as a whole and its inherent individual = > >creditability will be examined, questioned and doubted. = > Ken Malkin is surely as upset as he says he is, and what's more he has a very good reason to be so. Despite his idiosyncratic writing style, he has much of value to present to us in this message. It would be a shame if any of us were to allow style to distract us from substance in an issue this important. Basically he's 100% correct in his estimation and condemnation of those he calls the Wheatonists. It is clearly apparent that laws, human decency, and everything the Theosophical Movement stands for is completely "tossed to the wayside" by a group of people who can only be seen as "running a scam" to gain the power and perhaps even the wealth that the various properties belonging to the Theosophical Society in America (Adyar) represent. I also do not believe these actions would be taking place if Adyar, and Radha Burnier, weren't behind the entire cabal. The disenfranchisement of so many members is patently immoral and unethical and I'll leave it to people like Sy Ginsburg to say if it's also illegal. Not being a Lawyer, that is something I cannot ascertain with surety, but being a long-time student of American Democratic norms, I must say that such an act of disenfranchisement goes clear against the sense of everything America is or hopes to be. The entire thrust of American Democracy has been the ever-broadening of enfranchisement. Supreme Court decision after supreme court decision over the last nearly 200years has consistently been on the side of extending enfranchisement not limiting it. There can be only one motivation behind this absolutely despicable move on the part of the administration, and that is that the so-called Esoteric Section has decided to make the Theosophical Society and all it's many real properties their own and don't want any of the rest of us interfering. From a reading of Theosophical History it's very clear that the E.S. has always been the "Eminence gris" of the T.S. ruling it with an iron hand from the cover of ther "esoteric status", but now, it is clear they've "come out of their esoteric closet" and want to rule the roost openly. Should they actually succeed in so doing (and I am afraid it's too late to stop them) the T.S. as presently constituted is a dead issue. It must then be replaced with a new organization that will continue the work of the Theosophical Movement without catering to the neurotic needs of a group like the E.S. The only way they could be stopped is by an actual revolution at the July convention and I, for one, do not think that will happen. As to the E.S. The E.S. had support from the Illuminatii during the Lifetime of H.P.B. it has had neither support nor influence from that source since. It's a fake! It's a fraud" And it's poor members horribly misled by it's leadership! What a sad and inglorious ending for such a noble experiment! alexis dolgorukii From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu May 2 17:01:47 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 18:01:47 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: clarification In-Reply-To: <01BB3794.4D1C2C00@x.dko.global-one.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <01BB3794.4D1C2C00@x.dko.global-one.dk>, Kim Poulsen writes >Rudy: >>When you and the rest of >>the list decided to change the objects of TI I accepted the new objects >>even though no mention of Universal Brotherhood was mentioned in the new >>objects nor in the rest of the document. That was inconceivable to me at >>that time, and I wrote it to you, and it is still inconceivable to me. The TI statement is *clear*: THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises men and women who, of their own free choice, subscribe to the spirit of the three objects first ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ formulated by the Theosophical Society, but in a more up-to-date ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ form based on suggestions by members of the internet community, ^^^^ and expressed thus: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family, without distinction of sex, sexual orientation, creed, class, or color. > >Rudy and Alan, > I must have slept in class. I am very partial to the idea contained in >the word "universal brotherhood" - even if the wording are a bit unhappy. >The new text only mentions a nucleous (a germ!!!), etc. - without any of >the beauty of the original - as an IDEA. An idea which often makes me happy >when contemplating it, perhaps the grandest concept of theosophy. Despite >all the minds involved in creating the new text, I feel that it is rather >inferior to the original. Perhaps it cannot be done completely satisfactory >in english. We *are* trying to update the *language* but we are *not* trying to change the intention of the founders to work towards human unity in its highest expression. > More brain-storming needed! But Rudy?s post raises an interesting >objection: can these objects really be changed after people have signed up? Yes, by consensus! Every TI member on the list was sent a copy of the revised statement as it now appears, AND it was posted to theos-buds. Every TI member was asked to vote "Yes" or "No" and most voted "Yes". It was stated clearly that the change would take place from May 1st, if members agreed, and that anyone NOT voting would be regarded as having voted "Yes." Not one "no" vote was received. >Many of us may have signed on to quite different things. I remember raising >the eyebrow of the mere postuation of such a thing as hidden objects behind >the objects of the TS some time ago. > I may of course have voted in favor of these changes to the TI revised >objects, thinking I voted for Murray?s objection against the word "free" >(blush). > >In friendship, > >Kim > So, we have not created NEW objects, we have simply EXPRESSED them in a different way, which we believe (as I understand it) to be more in keeping with the perceptions and use of the English language in the 21st century. Without the *original* objects we would have nothing to express! At the same time, TI is *not* the Theosophical Society (Adyar) *nor* the T.S. (Pasadena) *nor* is it the U.L.T. or *any other* theosophical organisation. TI is TI! I have written an introduction to TI in two parts, both of which were posted to the list, clearly indentified as my personal view. There is a link to part two of my introduction on Rudy's Web page, which *also* deals with the question of clarification you have raised. I am e- mailing you a copy of both. Clearly, the use of the 19th century language is one of the things that TI sees as an obstacle to attracting new people to theosophy - a known fact; I have spoken to many people who have been put off by it, and at least one woman who *resigned* in protest at being regarded as a "fellow" and a "brother." To suddenly find the outdated language appearing on putative TI Web page was quite alarming, and also depressing. Surely we do not have to debate all over again one of the reasons we came into being in the first place? Alan :-( --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Thu May 2 19:45:37 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:45:37 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960502194537.006b5130@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: brotherhood vs. human family At 10:18 AM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >In response to messages about the wording of the first object of >TI: > >I don't understand the essential difference intended in the >meanings of the first object of TI: > >1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family, without >distinction of sex, sexual orientation, creed, class, or color. > >*and* the first object of TSA: > >1. To form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity, >without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color. > > >Why is the loss of "brotherhood" of concern? To me >universal=universal; brotherhood=family; and >humanity=human. Is there concern about nucleus "within" rather >than "of"? > >Personally, I'm delighted to see brotherhood dropped and a >genderless word such as family used instead. If some feel the loss >of brotherhood in the wording smacks of being exclusive then I >should say that I've always felt left out by the writings and talk >about brotherhood. Being in a body of female gender as I am, I >can't name myself a brother. > >Virginia Behrens TI, TSA > > >What a delightfully reasonable and well-phrased presentation that is! Needless to say, I agree entirely with it and am having some trouble trying to find a reasonable basis in the arguments of those who disagree. Thank you Virginia, thank you very much. alexis d. From murdicrj@esvax.dnet.dupont.com Thu May 2 20:23:42 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 96 16:23:42 EDT From: murdicrj@esvax.dnet.dupont.com Subject: FYI - An interesting Symposium Message-Id: <9605022022.AA21203@esds01.es.dupont.com> RETURN TO THE SOURCE Rediscovering Lost Knowledge & Ancient Wisdom September 27-29, 1996 John M. Clayton Hall University of Delaware Newark, Delaware World myths all tell of high vanished civilizations in the distant, pre-historical past - civilizations that vanished in deluges, earthquakes, fire. Long dismissed as fictions or exaggerations by two centuries of modern scholars, these old legends have recently been infused with life as independent researchers in geology, astronomy, comparative mythology, mathematics, and ancient cartography uncover powerful new evidence supporting the ancient view. As materially based contemporary science reaches beyond its own self-imposed limits, its finds itself confronting the consciousness-based sacred science of the ancients. A picture now emerges of a magnificent global civilization that vanished in a series of cataclysms about 12,000 years ago. Human beings at least as "advanced" as ourselves (and perhaps wiser) may have inhabited the earth long before history, as we currently understand it, was ever recorded. This new evidence contradicts the prevailing view of a slow, steady, linear ascent of human civilization from "primitive" Neolithic beginnings to our modern technological society. RETURN To The SOURCE draws together leading-edge researchers and thinkers who have challenged the accepted paradigm to advance the frontiers of this new/old science. They share the conviction that any viable future civilization must combine the best of the new with a new understanding of the old. These researchers/authors are: LEE DAVIS Assistant Director for cultural resources with the National Museum of the American Indian. An anthropologist who lived and worked with the Hopa Indian people for twenty years, she has over twenty publications on Native American worldview, ethnogeography and precontact mapping. RAND & ROSE FLEM-ATH Rand and Rose Flem-Ath are librarians in Ladysmith, British Columbia and co-authors of When the Sky Fell: In Search of Atlantis ROBERT JAHN A professor of aerospace science and Dean Emeritus of Princeton University's School of Engineering and Applied Science, directs the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory and is co-author with Brenda Dunne, of Margins of Reality. PAUL WILLIAM ROBERTS Taught at Oxford University, studied Sanskrit at Benares University, and is author of three philosophical travel books: River in the Desert (Egypt), Empire of the Soul (India), and In Search of the Birth of Jesus (Middle East). JOHN ANTHONY WEST Author of Serpent in the Sky and The Traveler's Key to Ancient Egypt and holds an Emmy Award for the NBC documentary The Mystery of the Sphinx. ROBERT SCHOCH Geologist and associate professor of science and mathematics at Boston University, is author of many scientific papers and books, including Stratigraphy: Principles and Methods. ROBERT BAUVAL An Egyptian Belgian engineer and author of The Orion Mystery and with Graham Hancock, The Message of the Sphinx. PAUL DEVEREUX A cognitive archaeologist, director of The Dragon Project Trust, editor of The Ley Hunter, and the author of Symbolic Landscapes, Earth Lights Revelations, Shamanism and the Mystery Lines and other books. GRAHAM HANCOCK An investigative journalist, author of The Sign and the Seal, and Fingerprints of the Gods, and co-author, with Robert Bauval, of The Message of the Sphinx. JAY KAPPRAFF A professor of mathematics at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, is author of Connections: The Geometric Bridge Between Art and Science, numerous articles on fractals, design science and plasma physics and the forthcoming book Mathematics Beyond Measure. COLIN WILSON A philosopher and author of numerous books on a wide range of topics, including The Outsider, The Occult and most recently, From Atlantis to the Sphinx. This groundbreaking symposium, sponsored by the Society for Scientific Exploration, will examine the evidence for such lost civilizations, the extent of this knowledge, and its relevance for the millennium to come. For Further Information: Call Carole Seifred at (302) 831-2216 between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday. FAX (302) 831-2998; e-mail CAROLE.SEIFRED@MVS.UDEL.EDU Symposium organized by MetaMedia Communications, Inc. Contact MetaMedia President Barbara Keller at (609) 965-3657, FAX (800) 425-3118 or e-mail at MTAMEDIA@ ACY.DIGEX.NET From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu May 2 23:09:41 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 19:09:41 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960502190940_526777034@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: brotherhood vs. human family Virginia, I rather like siblinghood myself, but no one ever listens to me. Chuck the Barbarian From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu May 2 23:09:34 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 19:09:34 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960502190933_526776928@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: WELCOME! Goodie!!! What took her so long? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Scorpio" From 72724.413@CompuServe.COM Tue Apr 30 16:39:39 1996 Date: 30 Apr 96 12:39:39 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Copy of: TSA Elections-2 Year Voting Requirement Message-Id: <960430163938_72724.413_FHP65-2@CompuServe.COM> > From: Sy Ginsburg, 72724,413 > DATE: 4/30/96 6:26 AM RE: Copy of: TSA Elections-2 Year Voting Requirement The following is the text of a letter sent by me, Sy Ginsburg, President of the Theosophical Society in Miami, via Federal Express on April 29, 1996, to John Algeo, President of the Theosophical Society in America. Your comments are welcome. April 29, 1996 Dr. John Algeo, President BY FEDERAL EXPRESS The Theosophical Society in America 1926 N. Main Street, Wheaton, IL. 60189 Dear John: In accordance with the resolution passed by The Theosophical Society in Miami, at its business meeting on April 28, 1996, I have been delegated to write this letter to you on behalf of all our members who are also members of The Theosophical Society in America (TSA) for two years or longer. In addition to my signature there is appended, the signatures of 2 other members of The Theosophical Society in America as well as of The Theosophical Society in Miami (TSM), and the signature of 1 other member of The Theosophical Society in America who is a member of another Study Center. It has come to our attention that ballots to vote in the national election of officers and directors of TSA were not sent to members of TSA who have not been members for two years or longer, in application of bylaw change #8 passed in referendum in January 1996, but applied retroactively to exclude members who voted in the bylaw referendum. Because of this failure to send ballots by the National Secretary under your instruction, 59 members of The Theosophical Society in Miami have been disenfranchised from voting. A group of these members are writing to you separately to demand their ballots. We are writing on behalf of members who did receive ballots, and similarly urge that you send ballots to these disenfranchised members so that they can vote, and urge you to send ballots to other disenfranchised members of TSA throughout the country. We call to your attention that the bylaw changes passed in January, even if they had been adopted legally, were voted on by all members in good standing of TSA at that time. It is a large group of these very same members, 59 from The Theosophical Society in Miami alone, who voted on these bylaw changes, to whom you now deny a ballot retroactively. It is our view that such retroactive disenfranchisement is a serious violation of members rights. We would like to think that your retroactive disenfranchisement of members' voting rights was an oversight. However, 2 of our members, Roxanne Nadolsky (member since December, 1994) and Diana Alboum, both telephoned Nathan Greer, National Secretary of TSA to request their ballots. Nathan told them, after consulting with you, that they were not entitled to vote. We regard your actions in this matter as objectionable and urge you to reconsider them. On a personal note, the fact has not gone unnoticed, that since I am a candidate for Southeast District Director, your disenfranchisement of 59 members of TSM, many of whom could be expected to vote for me as I am the President of TSM, could change the election result. It is imperative that you act quickly to rectify your action and send these members their ballots. Yours very truly THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IN MIAMI Seymour B. (Sy) Ginsburg, President copy: Nathan Greer, National Secretary copy: will be posted to the INTERNET Theos-L Discussion Group to reach other TSA members From alexei@slip.net Tue Apr 30 18:00:55 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 11:00:55 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960430180055.0069b224@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? At 02:30 AM 4/30/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis: > >[writing to Chuck] > >>Somehow, it seems pathetically futile for me to sit here being >>insulted by the inconsequential. > >I think that a cycle of anger and self-righteousness can only >be broken when you, I, or others let the little words of others >fall off us like water off a duck's back. > >It gets tiring after a while to respond to the negative, but >the cycle only continues to feed itself when any of us reply >with further barbs, like when you refer to your critics as >insults by "the inconsequential". Actually Eldon, I think one of the problems is that I keep forgetting that no message on this list is personal and private. What I'm going to do henceforth is make certain communications private messages and not available to public perusal. In that note to Chuck I was referring to only one person and it certainly we neither yourself or Daniel Caldwell. You know Eldon, I have one hell of a "track record" when it comes to actual accomplishments in the field of service to others. I'm not speaking of service in the area of metaphysics, but in actual physical plane, political level service to the unfortunate and excluded. I think, that without fear of too much contradiction from those who know me, I can accuse the person I was talking about of being "inconsequential" because he is. I'm sorry, I suppose it's elitist of me, but I don't believe, and neither history nor experience has proven differently, that everyone is equally consequential. Some people work hard, some even, as I have, put their very lives on the line in the attempt to help others, that makes a difference between us and those who do nothing but talk. secondly, I feel it is totally unrealistic to pretend that no one should get angry. Anger is a real and natural emotion, when focussed out wards it can be therapeutic, when focussed inwards (suppressed) it kills. I don't mind being "criticized", as an political activist I've been so for almost all of my life (since 1954), but I don't like being "insulted" and I really believe there's a difference. Criticism is constructive, insult is destructive. >There is a certain pleasure in responding with clever, >sharp words in response to someone's angry blast, but that >pleasure is quickly buried as one get's one's feelings burned >yet again! There is a greater pleasure, I've found, in setting >aside all angry responses, and responding to others as though >they've never said an unkind word. That, Eldon is altogether too Saintly for me to even attempt. I think you can testify, based upon my correspondence with you, that I try to deal with things in a reasonable way, and I believe that with both you and Daniel I have, so far as it's in me. But, I am not a Christian and so I am not at all interested in "turning the other cheek" for in my experience it only gets "smitten" too. > >I usually find them glad too to leave the anger behind, and >then it's possible to move forward -- with a great sense of >relief! There's enough wonders in life to admire and share >with people, that no one needs to look for the ugly side of >life in people. Both sides of life exist, but which do we want >to put our energy into? But Eldon, if we pretend the "ugly side" doesn't exist, what's to put an end to it? > >I'm trying to improve things with JRC. (and there is an >occasional remark by you that would be tempting to respond to >as well!) Even so, you may find me at times to be a pest, >since I've got what I consider to be important views that need >a proper hearing, along with everything else that is being said! > >-- Eldon > That's good, just as I am trying to "improve things" with you and Daniel. I don't find you a "pest" though when you paraphrase (ergo re-phrase) things I've said, I do find it a tad annoying. But keep it up if that's your "style". We are completely different people so we can hardly be expected to respond and act alike. There is one thing to remember about me: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!"> I very much disagree with your points of view on many aspects of our mutual field of interest, but is not that what this list is about? To act as a point of contact between differing views of theosophy? How does one differ from Roman Catholicism if one maintains that there is only one view of Theosophy? The difference between you and I, as I see it, is that your accept the theosophical hypothesis as axiomatic rather than theoretical, and that you have "faith" in the various "founders" and the "Masters of The Wisdom". I on the other hand accept the theosophical hypothesis as hypothesis (or why would I call myself a Theosophist?), and, where they don't contradict knowledge and experience, both like and admire the "founders". The primary source of our differences is that for me, the Third Object isn't at all hypothetical, but experiential, and, as I see it, you either don't "approve" of that, or don't actually "believe in it as a possibility". I also think that you're the kind of person I can discuss those differences with, but you mustn't expect me ever to accept either HPB or "The Masters" as ultimate and un appealable authorities. alexis From 76400.1474@compuserve.com Tue Apr 30 17:14:55 1996 Date: 30 Apr 96 13:14:55 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Basic scholarship Message-Id: <960430171455_76400.1474_HHL96-2@CompuServe.COM> >O please do pay attention! :-) My view on reincarnation is that the >CWL/AB model as presented (say) in "The Lives of Alcyone" is a logical >absurdity. Neither do I believe in reincarnation as an inevitable and >universal *requirement* for human development. At the same time I >accept the possibility that humans *do* reincarnate from time to time >for particular purposes, or even by accident! > Thanks for the clarification, Alan. I have never read "The Lives of Alcyone" and likely never will. Jerry S. Member, TI From alexei@slip.net Thu May 2 06:31:00 1996 Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 23:31:00 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960502063100.006870cc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: The Ol Toad Spell At 11:09 PM 5/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <960501150949_76400.1474_HHL35-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry >Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >>>Jerry, >>>Try blaming Alan. No one has picked on him for a few days. >>> >>>Chuck >> >> Good idea. Alan did it! Alan did it! >> >> Jerry S. >> Member, TI >> >Did what? When? I deny it! I'm entitled to a phone call! It was >Jerry! It was Chuck! I was out of the country, and have seventeen paid >witnesses! On the other hand, if it was something praiseworthy ... > >Alan :-) >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Of course it was praiseworthy...the question is who turned RichTay into a Toad? I was going to but someone beat me to it! Chuck and Jerry both sadly admit that someone beat them to it too, so as you are the only active magician left...it's elementary my dear Watson! Phone call? You're entitled to four elemental messengers one of each. alexis From Richtay@aol.com Thu May 2 06:33:36 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 02:33:36 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960502023335_388410894@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Membership in the Gang of Four Alexis writes, > Eldon, as I view it the "us and them" polarization was instituted when I, > and some other people were referred to as heretics, and blasphemers, and > disrespectful of HPB. Believe me, no one at all is more respectful of, and > fond of, HPB than I. I believe I, at least, may have over reacted to that > polarization and added to it. Too bad he can't read my posts. Because I can promise it wasn't the "fundamentalists" who used the terms heresy and blasphemy, but members of the "Gang," and I think they were kidding. At least that's what Chuck tells me. No one on this list ever called Alex, or Jerry S, or Chuck, or Alan, "heretics," though in their humor they think they are heretics in my (or others') eyes ... So why don't we lay off the persecution complexes, all of us, and just move on? From alexei@slip.net Wed May 1 17:58:32 1996 Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 10:58:32 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960501175832.006c471c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Lost? At 08:57 PM 4/30/96 -0400, you wrote: >Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > > >> Your own princely title receives a high profile in your writings on >> theos-l, but in all honesty, I much prefer John's friend Alexis. I >> sincerely hope this does not upset you, as I intend a compliment, not a >> put down. >> >> Fondly, >> >> Alan > >I agree very much. I too prefer John's friend, he can be a neat guy when he >wants to be. > > > > > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L > > > >Ah true, too true, but "John's Friend" is only about half of me..what shall be done with the rest? alexis From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Fri May 3 03:45:57 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 20:45:57 -0700 From: Bee Brown Subject: Re: More on World Service-Wesak Message-Id: <31898175.1E72@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit m.k. ramadoss wrote: > > Keith: > > Glad to see your post and remind us of the Wesak. Most full moon days are > generally considered important by Hindus also. In addition Wesak is > considered more important. I am sure those who started the tradition > should have known something about the unseen influences. Years ago my dad > used to invite all the TS members to our home on the Wesak evening for a > dinner followed by a brief meditation and discussion. At that time I was > too young to follow what was going on except that all of us in the family > were excited about the visit of all the members of TS. It was a very good > and friendly brotherly feeling that everybody felt when they left. > > So let each who believes can do what they want on Wesak evening. Do you > know the exact time CST of the full moon? > Doss. Here in NZ it is 11.48pm Friday 2nd. I guess that isn't much use to you over there. We have a neat video of a TV team trekking all the way to the valley high in the Himalayas to film part of the Wesak festival so we intend to show it at 8pm, have a cuppa and then meditate for as long as people want. We have spread the word in town and put it over the radio so I will be interested to see how many turn up. I am looking forward to a good meditate. Liesel, when we have done with it I have arranged a copy for you. Sh..sh.. Regards Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Fri May 3 03:53:29 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 20:53:29 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <31898339.423E@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Is it real? Better measure.... References: <960501184012_388033318@emout09.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is a little snippet from another list that caught my eye. Rather interesting, what. > > Hi all, > Found this in my University's alumni magazine, The Rochester Review > (published by the University Of Rochester). > I am going to quote large chunks because as a "challenged in physics" > person I might get it wrong if I try to paraphrase. > > >From the Rochester Review/Spring-Summer1996(p.5) > > Photon Experiment Shows the Flaw in Classical Physics > > "Using a simple system involving two photons, Rochester physicists have > demontrated in the laboratory a central tenet of quantum mechanics: that an > event must be measured before it is real. The work is reported in a recent > issue of Physics Letters A. > (two paragraphs deleted ...) > Quantum mechanics has brought the rise of many ideas that fly in the face > of common sense: the possibility of altering past events, for instance, or > the ability to change an event merely by observing it. As bizarre as the > predictions of quantum mechanics are, the theoretical basis has held up > whenever tested experimentally." > > This research was done by a fellow named Leonard Mandel, a professor of > physics and optics, and two grad students, Justin Torgerson and David > Branning and research associate Carlos Monken. A laser was used to send a > stream of photons into a crystal which then sent out pairs of lower-energy > photons. > According to the article, after "mixing the photons" the team traced their > paths and compared the routes they followed to those predicted by classical > physics and by quantum mechanics. > Evidently classical physics lost, even though it predicted the path of > the photons > "with certainty", the photons didn't always follow the expected path. That > prediction was not matched by what actually happened. > And, says the Rochester Review, "Mandel's team has shown experimentally that > quantum mechanics wins again: There *is* no reality until a measurement is > made." > Says professor Mandel- > "Many people accept the notion that reality is something separate from the > information we take through our own detectors - our senses. Our results run > counter to that thinking, in emphasizing that there is no reality in the > absence of measurement. Even Einstein had trouble accepting that this was > true." > Whoosh....... > Does this mean that the world really might go away when we aren't looking? > Are you all my imagination? Am I having a bad dream and need to wake up? > mutter, mumble ......... > Sally Ann Smith > Encore9016@aolcom > > -- Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From poulsen@dk-online.dk Thu May 2 14:26:20 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 12:26:20 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Subject: Re: HPB/CWL Message-Id: <01BB3823.85726C60@x.dko.global-one.dk> Encoding: 158 TEXT JHE: > Your investigation seems to have led you to a personal >insight into the (in our case) the source texts: i.e. HPB and >CWL. I don't think we can avoid drawing from our insights. It >is just getting off into tangents that concerns me. Kim: Simply ignore the sidetracks. It will be useful to include these to make the posts more readable to casual readers. We have agreed to concentrate on the relation between the systems of CWL and HPB. I will sum the vital points up at the end of this post. I intend to include remarks relevant to the subject but outside the boundaries of our rules of discussion. Of course I may want to support an interpretation with a second opinion. If you are concerned about time, then let us simplify the discussion into a few diagrams and our respective interpretations. JHE > A student borrowed my only copy of ~Cosmic Fire~ and I just >realized that he never returned it. Kim: Really Jerry, 15000 volumes in your library and no "Cosmic Fire"! JHE: >So I have to go by memory concerning the charts in that book. However, if >my memory is correct, the diagram concerning the principles is either copied >or adapted from Besant's ~Study in Consciousness,~ therefore is >more representative of Besant than CWL. That you don't have CWL's books puts you at a disadvantage. Kim: I accept the disadvantage. I have yet to find an esoteric system which can be understood by merely reading about it. It takes years of contemplation and affinity with the author. I think I will defend the terminology and leave any subtler points. The diagrams are: CF., p. 56 - a chart from "Theosophist", december 1899. Showing the triple logos, tanmatras, tattvas, planes. CF., p. 94 - a chart from "Theosophist", january 1900. Also seven planes, triple logos and tattvas. CF., p. 1230 - a chart from "Theosophist", december 1899. Showing the seven Cosmic planes and defining the seventh cosmic as "prakritic"- the exact claim I made in my previous post based on a chart by HPB. Maybe someone could identify the author of these articles? JHE: >I do have some very inexpensive copies if you are interested. But they are >Quest printings, and I don't know to what extent they have been >tampered with. Kim: It will take forever. Your last package shipped months ago did not even arrive yet (at the mail office they warned me it could take up to 6 months!). I suggest you name page and volume for a short, clear description of the system - and then I will find a copy. I use an enormous amount of time to analyze a system of thought and I have no time for such an investigation at the moment. A diagram or two will be enough. JHE: > Perhaps we might start by looking at those various >"apparently irreconcilable" explanations of HPB. Actually, my >experience has been that the apparent inconsistencies disappear >when they are put back into their historical context. Kim: The most "apparently irreconcilable" of all is the various enumerations of seven principles of man or the universe.It is generally also the favorite intellectual exercise of theosophists to create such tabulations. It is a very abstruse subject and it would take years merely to cover all the material in the works of HPB. I suggest we use diagrams of both authors to make the subjects clearer to ourself and the readers of this. We can then add quotes so support the murkier points. JHE: > Once before, I took up a more informal exploratory >discussion with a person interested in Bailey............... > I bring this up, because my investment of time was enormous >and very little of value came out of it. Kim: A standstill will mean that both views can be supported. This I will consider a victory, since I am on the defending side of this argument :-) JHE: >But even with the most ideal communication, unless the discussion >remains carefully structured, it easily gets out of hand and >becomes counter productive. Kim: Agreed. See at end of post for main issues. Kim: >>If your view was correct we all aught to abandon all the works >>of not only CWL but also AB, AAB and many 20th century >>theosophical writers instantly! A few mistakes would be >>acceptable, but not a completely flawed understanding. JHE: >I try not to take such a hard line view. Kim: I always do, but fear not: this will not be the result of our discussion. JHE: >If HPB and CWL are not compatible with each other, we still have two >internally consistent systems to study. Some people might conclude >that CWL was right and HPB mistaken. Kim: My point is that at least some of the ideas of CWL can be prooven consistent with the system of HPB. Especially the points you hold to be the weaknesses of his system. JHE: >He reasoned that the Devil >anticipated God's plan to send Jesus to found Christianity, so >the Devil got in there first and created a false religion that >looks Christian so as to confuse everybody. As HPB (later?) on wrote, >with this kind of logic, the only thing we can do is stand in >open mouth silence. Kim: There certainly seems to be something "devillish" about this line of reasoning , the inquisitors were adepts at this sort of thing. In terms of logic and reasonability the dark age was a kafkian nigthmare JHE: > OK. I will have to look for your earlier post. Kim: The vital points are: Can the position be held - a) that our solar system (and hence our planetary chain) are part of the seventh and lowest part of seven universal planes or principles? b) that the principles of man are on various planes of existence within this solar system? And that these seven human principles has a connection far stronger than a mere correspondence with the seven principles of the solar system? c) that both the systems of HPB and CWL (and every other esoteric philosopher) can be explained satifactory from this position? This is a subjective interpretation, but the only one possible when the terminologies are differing. This should give you something to work on. In friendship, Kim From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed May 1 23:16:01 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 19:16:01 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960501191600_285093261@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Wicca???? Alex, No need. Those of that group that are still alive are very, very unhappy already. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed May 1 23:15:57 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 19:15:57 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960501191555_285093193@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Membership in the Gang of Four Alex, John Algeo almost never answers his mail. He never has time to write anymore. Nathan is up to his ears in business. And they just tend ot be rude anyway. I doubt it is anything personal against you. It will be fun watching John trying to explain to Radha and Joy what the Gang of 5 is. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From ramadoss@eden.com Thu May 2 12:02:20 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 07:02:20 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Basic scholarship In-Reply-To: <960430171455_76400.1474_HHL96-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII For anyone who has not seen The Lives of Alcyone, some of the "lives" are very stunning than many of the Steven Spielburg' movies. I have read them and found them to be very very interesting. This is one person's feedback. ...doss On Thu, 2 May 1996, Jerry Schueler wrote: > >O please do pay attention! :-) My view on reincarnation is that the > >CWL/AB model as presented (say) in "The Lives of Alcyone" is a logical > >absurdity. Neither do I believe in reincarnation as an inevitable and > >universal *requirement* for human development. At the same time I > >accept the possibility that humans *do* reincarnate from time to time > >for particular purposes, or even by accident! > > > Thanks for the clarification, Alan. I have never read "The > Lives of Alcyone" and likely never will. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > From jmeier@microfone.net Wed May 1 23:15:57 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 19:15:57 -0400 From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Message-Id: <199605012315.TAA09023@ginger.vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: A reply to JH-E re: HPB/CWL Jerry Hejka-Ekins comments to Kim: >>Kim: But you are quite right that the scope of our discussion would >>be enormous. But as it is vital it can be as prolongued as you >>wish. > >JHE > Yes. Once before, I took up a more informal exploratory >discussion with a person interested in Bailey. He considered >himself an expert on Bailey (I am far from it), so through >questions and explorations, I wanted to compare her ideas to HPB >(more my home ground). The conversation lasted for six months, >and I pumped out about two or three twelve page posting per week. >It was a tremendous amount of work, because I had to both look up >his references to HPB and follow up on his references to AAB. >But we seemed to have a terrible language barrier (he was Indian, >and his grammar suggested that he was still more in that culture >than in a European one). > I bring this up, because my investment of time was enormous >and very little of value came out of it. I already know that >your communication skills are far above my last correspondent. >But even with the most ideal communication, unless the discussion >remains carefully structured, it easily gets out of hand and >becomes counter productive. I was surprised to read Jerry's comments. There is naturally some license in recounting a thread from two years ago, but even so -- Jerry H-E and Arvind Kumar had (IMO) one of the more instructive threads on theos-l. *I* found it to be of value, and I know Arvind did as well. That's why he kept it up, and it was as much work for him, I think. As Jerry remarks, even the best of intentioned communications can skew up; Arvind and Jerry had several key points that just didn't ever click, but I don't think it was due to Arvind's inability with English. Arvind speaks with less of an accent than I do, and I suspect he also has a greater command of the language. Come to think of it, that could mean either one of two things... but anyway, I believe the communications problems stemmed from two sharp guys working from different sets of ground rules, with each thinking they were both in sync. It was disappointing to see the discussion break off the way it did. Hopefully, that won't happen with the current thread. Jim From eldon@theosophy.com Thu May 2 06:27:50 1996 Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 23:27:50 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960502062750.006b9c7c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: 2 quotes from HH which fit in with this list Liesel: You cite a nice example of a discussion between people of different views where there's a positive interchange, rather than hostility and bitterness. [quoting the Dalai Lama] >"The Buddha cited the famous example of the man struck by >a poisoned arrow: he doesn't want to let himself be treated >until he learns the name of the man who shot him, until he >knows what caste he belongs to, to what family, if he is >tall or short, in what forest the arrow was cut. And so he >dies before he can be cared for." I'd like to comment on this example. Like any analogy, it is helpful to describe a situation *when it applies*, and misleading when it does not apply. It basically decries useless intellectual inquiry when a matter of life-or-death urgency is facing one. But every situation in life is not this way. Sometimes there are situations, equally life-or-death, where proper knowledge is essential or fatal consequences ensue. If someone were really sick, for instance, and had a number of bottles of medicine, they would have to know or find someone to tell them which medicine might save them and which could be toxic. Even though their situation is urgent, if they know that they lack the proper knowledge, it would be equally urgent to seek out expert advice and training. The medicine remains useless without the proper knowledge. I'm not mentioning this to take anything away from the colorful story that the Dalai Lama told. I'm just trying to make the important point that analogies are a useful *descriptive* tool, but do not prove that something is the way the analogy suggests. Why is this important? Because the language of analogy and metaphor is perhaps more basic and primal than the traditional spoken language, and provides us with the tools to grasp things that our minds aren't ready yet to directly know. When properly understood and treated with respect, analogies can take us far into the mysteries of life. But if not recognized for their limitations and their equal power to confuse and mislead, they can instead take us into a fantasy world, and bring darkness rather than light to the mind! -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Thu May 2 06:57:38 1996 Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 23:57:38 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960502065738.00696c5c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: TSA Voting I posted this yesterday morning, and still haven't seen it come back, so I'm reposting it. -- Eldon ---- MKR: In your letter you make a good point that it is not customary for new rules to be imposed retroactively upon people that had been previously granted rights that the rules would take away. I've heard, though, that the rules *have been* applied in the past. When Chuck Ponsonby was National Secretary, he looked at the national bylaws and decided they did not exclude new members from voting, had a statement printed in the AT saying they could vote, and allowed them to vote in the election. It was at this point that the rules were relaxed. The situation, then, is not the retroactive imposition of new rules, but the renewed application of already existing and previously enforced rules. From this standpoint, it was not that certain new members that were previously entitled to vote are now retroactively denied that right. Rather, it is that certain new members were inadvertently allowed to vote in the past, when they should not have been allowed to do so. The intent, then, with the bylaws changes, was to make the national bylaws more in accord with the wording of the international bylaws. It was not to reduce or infringe upon the existing rights of members. As to the level of discontent with the vote, I've heard that there's been three complaints so far regarding the vote. One was a ballot lost in the mail. The other two were members ineligible to vote for whatever reason. This is not many considering there were thousands of ballots mailed out. I think that the people at Wheaton are a sincere, hard-working group of volunteers, that put up with long days of work for almost no renumeration. They have to deal with theosophical politics from both ends -- from individual members with their preferences from one side, and from Adyar at the other side. I'd rather not give them a hard time on any particular issue without good cause. Regarding the merits of the two-year rule, it helps, I think, keep elections from being rigged, it keeps things more fair. Why? Because it keeps candidates from having flocks of followers from joining at the last minute, in order to vote for them, only to lapse a year later, never having a real interest in participating in the T.S. And it tends to keep voting control in the hands of students that are interested enought to stick around for a couple of years. Many join and quit in the first year or two, finding no attraction to what the T.S. offers. -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Thu May 2 06:27:56 1996 Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 23:27:56 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960502062756.0068a870@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Reply to Paul Regarding A Priori Beliefs Paul: >Rich states that participation on theos-l, or at least >identification as a Theosophist, means that one has an A PRIORI >attitude that Theosophy is generally true. I must differ, and >feel sure that HPB herself would as well. To accept a priori that it is true would be to express an shared belief in Theosophy. You are right that such a belief is not required to be a student, and to discuss Theosophy on 'theos-l'. What would be required, if you would undertake a study of it, is the recognition and acceptance that it consists of a body of materials, doctrines, concepts, that can be learned, thought about, and considered. Unless one can agree that there is such a body of materials that can be studied, it would be hard to write books on, talk about, or study Theosophy. Having studied the subject for many years, it would be possible for most of us to sit down and outline what would go into a book that teaches beginning Theosophy. There are basic ideas that are clear to most of us, even if we don't all agree on everything. That basic material still has considerable value to people new to the spiritual, even if we no longer find it nourishing. Why do we (the group of writers on theos-l) have such a problem agreeing that there are definite theosophical doctrines? Many reasons ... that include: 1. We're unclear in certain areas, a bit fuzzy in remembering certain theosophical teachings. 2. We've studied certain writers that are different than HPB but claim to expound exactly the same ideas. We want some leeway for our favorite writers to be "right". 3. We have strongly-held views that differ from Theosophy as we've learned it, and want our ideas to always be heard, disliking a study of Theosophy when it differs from us. 4. We enjoy playing trickster or devil's advocate, and enjoy getting others riled. 5. We like some of the ideas that we've read, but the theosophical scheme of the Mahatmas and of how Theosophy was presented through HPB do not appeal to us. 6. We're not really interested in Theosophy, but find this forum a good hangout to promote our favorite views. And there are likely many more ... >While we *may* have the a priori assumption that >*theosophy* is generally true, it is quite alien >to the spirit of HPB to assume a priori that Theosophy -- >the modern expression by her and her successors -- >is generally true. To either undertake "theosophy" as a personal quest or "Theosophy" as a form of Jnana Yoga requires some a priori beliefs and considerable dedication of energy. But neither must be believed or undertaken as a practice. It is quite possible to study either the doctrines or the more generic approach to being a seeker without having to adopt and incorporate either into one's life. >Theos-l may or may not be a place where the burden of >proof is on those who would disagree with HPB. In an intellectual study of Theosophy, one could be asked to prove/disprove certain ideas as part of that study. The same would be true of any study. One would say: "Here is a body of ideas, for this particular one, let's see if it's really true or not, and if not so, we'll change it." It does not mean "Your idea is wrong until you can disprove my idea." It rather says "As part of the study of these theosophical ideas, the idea stands until or unless there is convincing proof that it should be changed." On the one hand, I'm not sure that we can say that the Mahatmas are so perfect in every possible way that every idea attributed to them is without error. There are bound to be mistakes with regard to scientific matters or even in the writing and communication of their ideas. On the other hand, the materials attributed to the Mahatmas are not a bunch of spiritualist baloney, to be automatically rejected by every passing theory in the scientific world, if not rejected out of hand in their entirety! There is a middle ground that would hold that the doctrines from the Mahatmas are solidly based in reality, and should be subject to careful scrutiny. But there should be strong and compelling reasons for revision or modification of the doctrines, something that can be made clear and obvious to a majority of theosophical students. And when or if such revisions should be made, it should be in the form of amendments, stating what has been changed and why, and not simply the replacement of the old ideas. This is because later students should be afforded the same right to consider and weigh the differences as our generation has had. -- Eldon From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed May 1 21:13:34 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 22:13:34 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Web Page In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Apologies to any of you who find the following a long post: In message , Rodolfo Don writes >>In message , Rodolfo Don >> writes >>>The reason that I included those quotes from the M.L. was because it was >>>inconceivable to me (and still is), that "Universal Brotherhood" is not >>>mentioned on the TI statement nor in its objects. As a matter of fact could >>>you answer that question to me: *Why isn't Universal Brotherhood mentioned >>>on the TI's objects?* I would like to know. >> >>Because of the changes in people's understanding of language since the >>19th century. The rising generation seem to regard "brotherhood" as a >>strictly masculine or male-oriented term which, by definition, excludes >>women, or at least marginalizes them. Younger women especially do not >>like this. Others see "Brotherhood" as relating to arcane rites >>conducted by male-only freemasons, and so forth. > >I don't have any problem with "Universal Brotherhood", are you implying >that there could be some people that think that "Universal Brotherhood" >applies only to men and not women? That's ridiculous, Alan. That is taking >semantics to the level of the absurd. I do not *think* that *some* people take this view, I am *informed* of it by some of the people who *do* see things this way. To them, "brotherhood" is a male-inclusive, female-exclusive term which *puts them off anything to do with organisations which proclaim it. The problem is not ubique to theosophy - the churches are having the same problem. I am relaying the perspectives of modern human beings, not expressing an opinion. That you have no probelm with the term does not, in all justice and fairness, make it OK to go on using it, surely? > What is mankind? What is love? What >is compassion? No, I don't happen to agree with you on this! As I said, it is a matter of fact, not opinion. Agreement doies not come into it. >> >>When the objects were first set out, these viewpoints did not obtain, >>and people had no problems with the language as it is still expressed in >>the 1896 objects. In an attempt to overcome the difficulty, when TI was >>developed, it was agreed to opt for the idea of us all being members of >>a universal human family, and approach the "brotherhood" ideal from >>there. As I mentioned before, there is still work to be done on this, >>and I have tried to do this in my "personal view" which is linked on the >>Web page. As modern language stands at present, we have not been able >>to find an inclusive term to cover all individuals which exactly matches >>the original ideal of "brotherhood" - and the T.S. worldwide is losing >>many potential members because of its retaining old and *outdated* >>language. It doesn't show up in the membership statistics, for the >>people concerned *are repelled by the language and go elsewhere!* I >>have been told this so many times by so many people, most of whom are in >>some kind of "new age" movement which in all probability owes its own >>existence to the T.S. in the first place - but it has moved with the >>times, and the T.S. has not, and gets smaller with every passing year. >>Sadly, it does not seem to want to listen to those of us who advise it >>of this particular problem, and it is not for want of trying, as John >>Crocker will bear witness. > >If you read Theosophy International first object, the way it stands on the >web now (the revised version), it could apply to any of the criminal gangs >that we have here in California and elsewhere. "To form a nucleus within >the universal human family, without distinction of sex, sexual orientation, >creed, class, or color." > >This is very sad, and I refuse to be part of it. None of us can opt out of the human race, or the human condition. That such criminal gangs exist is a mark of human failure, but the people who are in such gangs are, whether we like it or them, still members of the human family within which we hope to create a more harmonious and co- operative example they may come to appreciate and follow. Without doubt (surely?) the founders intended their "nucleus" to reach out to *all* beings, in which the idea of "class" would include the "criminal class" - not just those of whom we happen to approve. > >>All that said, the problem of restating the ideal remains, hence my >>suggestions to you. I am anxious that a Web page, which is, as it were, >>a front door to other rooms, should be as inviting as possible to people >>who know nothing of Theosophy, Mahatmas, or H.P.B. > >We are still trying to define Theosophy International, what its purpose for >existence is. As I said before, the way you are explaining it to me, it >seems that TI is not the place for me. > >Rudy > >>Once they are able to start following links from the Web page, then all >>theosophical possibilities can, in time, be open to them. >> >>Let me know what you think. >> >>Alan Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed May 1 16:14:05 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 17:14:05 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Only Joking! In-Reply-To: <960430084636_283974051@emout18.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960430084636_283974051@emout18.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >And Alan, who is supposed to be my friend, mind >you, just nominated me as the biggest asshole in the TS, but then possibly he >has never heard Horatio Costa, so I can forgive him. You mean you don't aspire to high office? I misunderstood - I thought you were volunteering! You're not standing in TSA elections? Will Horatio Costa win? Who is Horatio Costa? The posting was in jest, verily, in jest. [sob]. Will Chuck ever forgive me ..... Alan "People have paid good money." - Bank of England. --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Richtay@aol.com Thu May 2 02:35:12 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 22:35:12 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960501223512_285232500@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: To Eldon vis a vis CWL Alexis writes, > In > fact, my repugnance for the uLT began when I innocently walked into their > San Francisco Meeting Place and announced "I've just read some wonderful > books by Charles Leadbeater". Well, you can imagine the reception I was > given. I went away thinking "what impossible bigots". I honestly don't want to start up another round of nastiness. I just want to clarify ONE thing. Let me get this straight. Alexis can't stand CWL. ULT can't stand CWL. Alexis and ULT feel much the same about CWL. Therefore it is Alexis' duty to warn others of the dangers of CWL, while pointing out how repugnant ULT is?!?!? Yikes. From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed May 1 20:58:07 1996 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 21:58:07 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: vis a vis CWL (history - Liesel: delete if offends] In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960501073047.006a5be4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960501073047.006a5be4@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >All that business about appointing himself >a Bishop and regarding Christ's circle of disciples, is that anything at all >in the line of "service to theosophy"? I think Eldon, my problem is that, as >I've grown older and learned a lot more, I have come to be certain that, no >matter how popular CWL's works were, they in fact did an enormous disservice >to theosophy. A small correction, and an opinion adapted from my 1985 entry in "Bishops Irregular" [Alan Bain]: ------------------------------- Leadbeater, Charles Webster. 16.2.1854 - 29.2.1934 A former Church of England minister, he was ordained deacon in St. Andrew's Church, Farnham, Surrey on 21 December 1878, and priest in the same church on 21 December 1879 by Harold Browne, Bishop of Winchester, and was assigned to the parish of Bramshott. He became a theosophist in 1883, and was consecrated on 22 July 1916 by J.I.Wedgwood as Old Catholic Regionary Bishop for Australasia. In 1923 he became Presiding Bishop of the Liberal Catholic Church. He was successful in achieving both fame and notoriety, the former among theosophists, and the latter among the rest of the world. The author of a number of theosophical works, his best known work for Liberal Catholics is "The Science of the Sacra- ments," a work which is not at all scientific, and in which the sacraments referred to seem more of the order of 'high magic' than a true Christian Memorial. Brandreth [Episcopi Vagantes and the Anglican Church, S.P.C.K., 1948, 1961] states of the work that it "abounds in unhealthy mysticism and fantastic symbolism." Wedgwood had re-ordained him priest on 15 July 1916. A certain affinity seems to have existed between him and Wedgwood, which may have been due to a reputed mutual sexual interest in young boys, in connection with which Wedgwood was also alleged to have found his way out of the Church of England. According to Gregory Tillett, Leadbeater's biographer, the 'high spot' of Leadbeater's teaching to young men was reached during collective masturbation, whereby at the point of climax, all were exhorted to raise their thoughts to the highest planes. Wedgwood was alleged, incorrectly, to have died insane, and Leadbeater, although not a lunatic - he was far too shrewd - appears to have lived in a dream world of his own. The same has been said of the Liberal Catholic Church, whose official teaching is still based upon the fantasies in Leadbeater's work. Leadbeater lied about his age. In consequence many, if not most sources [prior to 1982/5] give his date of birth as 17 February 1847. The date given above is taken from the photograph of his birth certificate published by Gregory Tillett in his book, "The Elder Brother." (Routledge & Kegan Paul; London; Boston; Melbourne and Henley, 1982). (Consecrator of: Cordes; Nyssens; Pigott; Tettemer; Thomson; J.R.; Walker; J.; Wardall. --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu May 2 17:39:35 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 10:39:35 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199605021739.KAA28578@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Freedom of Opinion: Thoughts on What JHE and Alexis have been posting Jerry HE writes to Alexis, >>JHE >> Hi Alexis. It seems that Liesel is not the only one who >>objects to anything being said about CWL that might be taken in a >>negative light. In the past, two or three theos-l members >>protested when I and others have discussed forbidden subjects. >>There were still others who did not like us having these >>discussions, and in some cases informed me privately of this. >>Then there were others, who just quietly disapproved. In my >>opinion however, I much prefer Liesel's expression of hostility >>(though it be passive aggressive) over the political black- >>balling games played by the powerful few in Adyar and Wheaton. >>But it is not theosophical ideals that get in the way, but their >>institutional application. The ideals of the TS concerning the >>freedom of members are: >> >>1. The freedom of opinion. Members are allowed to express >>whatever opinion they wish, as long as they do not limit the >>rights of other members to also express their opinions. >> >>2. Members cannot have their rights and privileges as a member >>abridged for simply expressing minority opinions. >> >>3. Members are not bound to accept the teachings or opinions of >>any theosophical leaders, from HPB downwards. >> > >> So, Alexis, if you don't fear the consequences of having >>complete freedom to speak according to your own conscience, then >jump in--the water is fine. Daniel comments: So Alexis has jumped in the pool! Good for you. I agree with all three propositions listed by Jerry HE. And I believe that everyone on theos-l should have the freedom to state their opinion of Theos-l. But having said that, I believe*there is another separate issue involved*. And that is whether the statement or opinion made is true, false or whatever. In other words,how does one determine the validity or factuality of the opinion, etc.? For example, if Person B believes that HPB produced fraudulent psychic phenomena, or that Alice Bailey was a deluded psychic, then Person B, from the above perspective, has the right to state those opinions on Theos-l. But Person D who may not agree with those opinions should be also entitled to state that he/she does not agree with Person B. Now in the marketplace of ideas, in the arena of competing "truths", the exchange of ideas and of differing opionions is very important. And since Theos-l is, from my perspective, a forum for such discussion and exchange of ideas and views, then Person B and Person D should agree not to attack each other personally just because they don't agree on, for example, whether H.P.B. produced genuine or fraudulent psychic phenomena. For the purposes of Theos-l discusssion, both parties should be willing to admit (at least to themselves!!) that maybe, just maybe, they don't have an absolute monopoly on the truth and that they are willing to challenge THEIR OWN OPINION as well as the other person's opinion in the collective pursuit of truth. So then this is where reasonable discussion should come into play. *Of course, both parties have the right to their differing opinions on HPB. That is not the issue.* The issue for discussion is the search for the truth, reality, knowledge, etc. Therefore, both parties hopefully should be willing to explore the issues involved. How do I know that HPB produced fake phenomena? How do I know that HPB could produce real occult phenomena such as the cup and saucer at the Simla picnic, etc.? What are the criteria by which I have come to my current opinion? Did I have any criteria? Have I really studied the primary sources, etc. on this subject of HPB's phenomena? Do I believe in psychic phenomena in general? Is my reasoning faulty? etc. etc. If there is to be fruitful discussion and possibly a greater knowledge and understanding as a result of the discussion, the two parties involved must be willing to listen to each other and focus on the issues involved and not resort to personal attacks and name calling. Personal attacks and name calling does NOT help to resolve the major issue of discussion (whatever it may be). Such personal attacks only obscure the main issue under discussion. Another issue. If ( for example) Rich Taylor makes a certain statement concerning HPB and then someone else interjects that Rich's statement is wrong because he is so young, etc. , then as far as I can see, this has taken the focus off the issue and sidelined it to a totally irrelevent personal issue (the age and maturity of the other party in the discussion.) If a third party on Theos-l holds the same opinion as Rich on the issue under discussion and it turns out that the third party is 65 years old, then the irrelevancy of Rich's age to the discussion of Rich's statement concerning HPB should become obvious. Focus on the statement, not the person who said it. Another example. Alexis D. made the statement that what HPB wrote on Anthropogenesis in the S.D. is simply not true in light of modern knowledge on the subject. Now Alexis has a perfect right to hold that opinion and also a perfect right to state that on Theos-l. And if someone else on Theos-l disagrees with Alexis's statement, then that person has the perfect right to post his differing opinion. But beyond the bare *statement* of agreement or disagreement, can we (the collective we on Theos-l) discuss and debate the merits, etc. of the statement that "what HPB wrote on Anthopognesis in the S.D. is simply not true in light of modern knowledge on the subject"? I would hope that "we" could! If Rich or Eldon or whoever might disagree with Alexis' statement, then the focus should be on the ideas, facts, reasoning, etc behind the bare statement. The focus should not be on Alexis. To focus on Alexis is to digress into a totally irrelevant personal issue. Who really cares who made the statement? The issue for discussion is: Is the statement true or false? What is the statement based upon? Are there good reasons that support the statement? Is there evidence to show that the statement is invalid, inaccurate, etc.? What are the assumptions behind the statement? Those are the kind of questions that need to be asked and answered? And this can lead to a fruitful discussion and a beneficial exchange of ideas. I have belabored the point! Also this is a rough first draft so bear with me. From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu May 2 13:36:15 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 14:36:15 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Retrograde Mayhem In-Reply-To: <9605011822.AA04912@orchid.tc.pw.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <9605011822.AA04912@orchid.tc.pw.com>, Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com writes >I understand from a very reliable source that there will be six planets in >retrograde during the month of May -- I'll set them forth to all and say "hold >on to your shorts"! > > Mercury Retrograde in Taurus May 4 through the 28th > Venus Retrograde in Gemini May 21-31 > Jupiter Retrograde in Capricorn May 4-31 > Uranus Retrograde in Aquarius May 9-31 > Neptune Retrograde in Capricorn All month long > Pluto Retrograde in Saggitarius All month long (did I spell Sag right?) Gulp. Spelling of Sag OK despite retrograge Mercury ... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu May 2 13:53:12 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 14:53:12 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Lost? In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960501175832.006c471c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960501175832.006c471c@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >>Ah true, too true, but "John's Friend" is only about half of me..what shall >be done with the rest? > >alexis It will be loved along with the rest of you. Well, by most of us, I hope! Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Thu May 2 18:26:43 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 11:26:43 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960502182643.0069c9c8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Is it real? Better measure.... At 05:10 AM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >Here is a little snippet from another list that caught my eye. Rather >interesting, what. > >Bee: This is a good article and Sally though "Physics Challanged" (as I am) did a good job of quoting it exactly. This is the kind of information, coupled with what I've read of the work of Werner Heisenburg and those following his lead, along with the writings of Stephen Hawking, that has led me to the view I hold on the "science'in the Secret Doctrine. It is information like this that I am going to be using in the "Concordance" I'm going to write when I get through the book I'm currently working on. What information like this says to me that in our universe, the only certainty is uncertainty, and therefore any rigidly paradigmetric system is probably wrong. The Secret Doctrine, it seems to me, is as rigid a cosmic paradigm as that of the absolute materialists or the fundamentalist Christians and is therefore very questionable. In a cosmos whose only certainty is uncertainty the complicated hierarchy based details of the Secret Doctrine just don't make much sense. I have a friend who designed the Viking Lander, when I have time, I'm going to look him up and engage him to be a technical advisor for the "Concordance".What I'd really like to do is create a small committee of highly accredited scientific types to serve as an advisory committee for the book. (No Theologians need apply.) When I'm done, I want it to be a group effort, and I want it to ettle the question as much as anything can ever be settled in a world wherein uncertainty rules. alexis d. From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu May 2 14:13:29 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 15:13:29 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Tillet's Book In-Reply-To: <9605011928.AA09267@toto.csustan.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <9605011928.AA09267@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes > In the case of Tillett's book, Point Loma Publications >received notice of Routledge's intention to destroy the remaining >stock, and decided to purchase it so that it would still be >available. > > > >JHE > >JHE@TOTO.CSUSTAN.EDU Bob Gilbert was able to purchase remaindered copies in the UK. FYI. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Thu May 2 18:37:53 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 11:37:53 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960502183753.006a7970@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Basic scholarship At 06:13 AM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >>O please do pay attention! :-) My view on reincarnation is that the >>CWL/AB model as presented (say) in "The Lives of Alcyone" is a logical >>absurdity. Neither do I believe in reincarnation as an inevitable and >>universal *requirement* for human development. At the same time I >>accept the possibility that humans *do* reincarnate from time to time >>for particular purposes, or even by accident! >> > Thanks for the clarification, Alan. I have never read "The >Lives of Alcyone" and likely never will. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Why Jerry? Wouldn't you like a good belly laugh? Hollow pomposity is very funny and "The LIves of Alcyone" is the most hysterically funny book I've ever read. If CWL hadn't had a captive publishing company, no publisher, in their right mind, would have published it. While the greatest majority of what CWL had to say was pure nonsense, his writing was usually pretty good. But in this book the writing is so bad as to be almost worth reading for that reason alone. As to "Reincarnation" per se, my Shamanic experiences have given me a somewhat different "slant" on the subject. That coupled with input I have from a very interesting source might make for an interesting discussion between us. alexis d. From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu May 2 13:47:41 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 14:47:41 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: No Magician In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960502063100.006870cc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960502063100.006870cc@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >you are the only active >magician left... I tried the "magician" approach in 1957. Burnt fingers (and knees) and have taken an alternative Path ever since. So, I am not any kind of magician. Because my main interest is Kabala-based, people do tend to assume this, though. My approach is closer to the Chassidic than the magical, and for those who know what I mean, mine is not Merkava-based either (tho' some of my best friends ... etc.) Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Thu May 2 18:47:27 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 11:47:27 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960502184727.006b86e4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Jerry's Library Kim: I have visited Jerry's library and I tell you "it's to die for"! If I didn't live an over 90 minute drive from his home (soon to be three hours), I'd be there every day working through the treasures he has amassed. It is truly a labour of love! The effort and diligence it must have taken to amass such a vast body of specifically oriented information simply boggles the mind! I donated the papers of the late Piece Spinks to the library because I felt he was a far better recipient of them than I. When Alexandria West is complete it will be a really world class research facility for those interested in Theosophical History! I also visited the site of the future Alexandria West project and it is just a piece of "heaven on earth", it's one of the most beautiful places I've ever been and I've been lot's of places! cordially alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Thu May 2 18:51:45 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 11:51:45 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960502185145.006a1514@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List? At 06:40 AM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote: > >>Jerry, >>When I had my study center, we would get inquiries and the first >>question was always "What is Theosophy?" >>I would usually answer that Theosophy literally translated as >>Divine Wisdom, but as we were not divine we did not have the >>foggiest idea what it was. >> >>Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >>Heretic >>Troublemaker > >Chuck, > > That is a great line. I think I'll steal it :-) > >JHE > >------------------------------------------ > |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | > |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | > |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | > |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | > ------------------------------------------ > > >You know Jerry and Chuck, it is a great line and it's well worth stealing. After all isn't "trying to find out what theosophy is" exactly what theosophy is? That to me is the value of this list. A gathering of long-time students of theosophy coming together and trying to find out what it is they've been studying in sometimes abrasive interaction. But abrasives are what smooth things out. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Thu May 2 19:02:08 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:02:08 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960502190208.006b183c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Brotherhood and TS Membership At 06:40 AM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote: > >>>>>>cut<<<<<< >In 1889 HPB wrote: > >"No member is obliged to feel in sympathy with all three objects; >suffice that he should be in sympathy with one of the three, and >be willing not to oppose the two others, to render him eligible >to membership of the T.S." (B:CW XI, 335). > >It would be interesting if someone took the time to find out when >the rule was changed and under what circumstances. > > >JHE > >------------------------------------------ > |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | > |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | > |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | > |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | > ------------------------------------------ > > >Jerry: I have a question: did what H.P.B. wrote represent an actual "rule change", or was it something she said on the spur of the moment to allay some ones anxieties? I don't yet have a complete set of de Zirkoff's work so I can't look it up myself. But I'd be very interested in the circumstances under which she/he wrote those lines. I have never, heretofore, seen any evidence that the basic "rule" of a member being required to accept or support the three objects, ever got changed. Could it be possible that she was trying to calm someone's fears (or a group of "someone's") re: The Third Object, perhaps due to continuing repercussions of The Hodson Report"? One thing about both Helena Blavatskaya and H.P.B. consistency was never, ever, a "hobgoblin" to them. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Thu May 2 19:13:04 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:13:04 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960502191304.006ad2c4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: scuttling theos-l At 06:41 AM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >Liesel: > >>For a while there, I was thinking that, since we were talking so unfavorably >>about the ES, the ES had planted a few people to write on theos-l, to at >>least get us off the subject, if not destroy our well going conversations >>all together. Then I thought "Noooo, that's too cloak & dagger". > >Yes, I don't think that people do things like that. At least I wouldn't >suspect such a thing without substantial evidence, since I'm inclined >to give people the benefit of the doubt. > >>Today & yesterday I came back to the thought, because Chuck & Alexis turned up >>around that time, & they *have* managed for the time being to destroy much >>of our conversation. Chuck at times talks about the habits of people in >>Wheaton, including John Algeo's, habits he wouldn't know about unless he >>hung around Olcott a lot. Maybe strange things are happening? If you >>disenfranchise members to keep them from voting against you, you might try >>that kind of a Chuck trick as well. Ho ho! ho ho! > >You're joking, I hope!!! Seriously, I don't think that the negative side >of things manifests itself very often in people as self-conscious intent to >do harm. Rather, I think that it's the dark suspicions, angry reactions to >people, and general negativity that catches us unaware, and clouds our >minds and hearts. If there's a dark side to life, it would get its way >through "divide and conquer," through catching people and subtly changing >them, slyly changing them without them being aware. > >-- Eldon > >Eldon: Now that's the most astonishing thing I've ever seen! Chuck Cosimano and I as E.S. Plants? Chuck as you may know lives in Franklin Park Illinois (close to wheaton) and his house mate Gerda works at Olcott, obviously details of life at Olcott are intrinsic to their conversation. As to myself, I am too much the object of the negative attentions of the E.S. to accept such an accusation lightly. I don't think either Chuck or myself have "destroyed" the conversation on this list, livened it up perhaps, and introduced some new topics. But I really submit that someone who is as enamored of CWL as is Liesel Deutsch can hardly accuse someone who is totally against CWL of being an E.S. member. The E.S. today is what CWL made it and I unreservedly disapprove of both of them. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Thu May 2 19:16:02 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:16:02 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960502191602.00690574@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Retrograde Mayhem At 06:42 AM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >I understand from a very reliable source that there will be six planets in >retrograde during the month of May -- I'll set them forth to all and say "hold >on to your shorts"! > > Mercury Retrograde in Taurus May 4 through the 28th > Venus Retrograde in Gemini May 21-31 > Jupiter Retrograde in Capricorn May 4-31 > Uranus Retrograde in Aquarius May 9-31 > Neptune Retrograde in Capricorn All month long > Pluto Retrograde in Saggitarius All month long (did I spell Sag right?) > >"Sag" looks right to me. But Donna would you do me a tremendous service? Would you kindly explain to me what all that means? I know just enough about Astrology to know my sign, but this technical stuff really loses me. I'm interested, as I am in all things, but I really don't know much. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Thu May 2 19:26:38 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:26:38 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960502192638.0069fecc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Membership in the Gang of Four At 07:01 AM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >John Algeo almost never answers his mail. He never has time to write >anymore. Nathan is up to his ears in business. And they just tend ot be >rude anyway. I doubt it is anything personal against you. >It will be fun watching John trying to explain to Radha and Joy what the Gang >of 5 is. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: When I write to really important folks (senators and congressmen etc.) they seem to find the time to respond personally. What the hell does John Algeo (the president of a two-bit organization) have to do that keeps him so busy. No one can be too busy to meet standards of common courtesy! And if they don't know what common courtesy is, why are they officers of even such an irrelevant organization? As to watching John making explanations to Radha and Joy as to what the Gang of Five is (and I hope it's bigger by then) what makes you think you'll get a chance to speak? Considering the recent disenfranchisement I'll warrant the Convention is run like the Nuremburg Rally in 1934! They haven't replied to Sy Ginsburg either! I don't think it's personal chuck, I just think I represent everything they fear, and so rather than personal it's symbolic. By the way what do you think of Liesel Deutsch's accusation that you and I are E.S. "plants", provocateurs sent in to "destroy Theos-List"? Senility is the only possible excuse. alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu May 2 19:38:30 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:38:30 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960502193830.006b4fe8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Only Joking! At 09:14 AM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <960430084636_283974051@emout18.mail.aol.com>, >Drpsionic@aol.com writes >>And Alan, who is supposed to be my friend, mind >>you, just nominated me as the biggest asshole in the TS, but then possibly he >>has never heard Horatio Costa, so I can forgive him. > >You mean you don't aspire to high office? I misunderstood - I thought >you were volunteering! You're not standing in TSA elections? Will >Horatio Costa win? Who is Horatio Costa? The posting was in jest, >verily, in jest. [sob]. Will Chuck ever forgive me ..... > >Alan > >"People have paid good money." - Bank of England. >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Don't feel bad Alan, I never heard of Horatio Costa either! alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu May 2 19:57:09 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:57:09 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960502195709.006a5240@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: vis a vis CWL (history - Liesel: delete if offends] At 11:19 AM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>cut<<<<<< response follows >A small correction, and an opinion adapted from my 1985 entry in >"Bishops Irregular" [Alan Bain]: >------------------------------- >Leadbeater, Charles Webster. 16.2.1854 - 29.2.1934 > >A former Church of England minister, he was ordained deacon in >St. Andrew's Church, Farnham, Surrey on 21 December 1878, and >priest in the same church on 21 December 1879 by Harold Browne, >Bishop of Winchester, and was assigned to the parish of >Bramshott. He became a theosophist in 1883, and was consecrated >on 22 July 1916 by J.I.Wedgwood as Old Catholic Regionary Bishop >for Australasia. In 1923 he became Presiding Bishop of the >Liberal Catholic Church. > >He was successful in achieving both fame and notoriety, the >former among theosophists, and the latter among the rest of the >world. The author of a number of theosophical works, his best >known work for Liberal Catholics is "The Science of the Sacra- >ments," a work which is not at all scientific, and in which the >sacraments referred to seem more of the order of 'high magic' >than a true Christian Memorial. Brandreth [Episcopi Vagantes and the >Anglican Church, S.P.C.K., 1948, 1961] states of the work that >it "abounds in unhealthy mysticism and fantastic symbolism." > >Wedgwood had re-ordained him priest on 15 July 1916. A certain >affinity seems to have existed between him and Wedgwood, which >may have been due to a reputed mutual sexual interest in young >boys, in connection with which Wedgwood was also alleged to have >found his way out of the Church of England. > >According to Gregory Tillett, Leadbeater's biographer, the 'high >spot' of Leadbeater's teaching to young men was reached during >collective masturbation, whereby at the point of climax, all were >exhorted to raise their thoughts to the highest planes. Wedgwood >was alleged, incorrectly, to have died insane, and Leadbeater, >although not a lunatic - he was far too shrewd - appears to have >lived in a dream world of his own. The same has been said of the >Liberal Catholic Church, whose official teaching is still based >upon the fantasies in Leadbeater's work. > >Leadbeater lied about his age. In consequence many, if not most >sources [prior to 1982/5] give his date of birth as 17 February >1847. The date given above is taken from the photograph of his >birth certificate published by Gregory Tillett in his book, "The >Elder Brother." (Routledge & Kegan Paul; London; Boston; >Melbourne and Henley, 1982). (Consecrator of: Cordes; Nyssens; >Pigott; Tettemer; Thomson; J.R.; Walker; J.; Wardall. >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Thank you Alan that is very interesting. Perhaps you can clear something up for me, Hadn't both Leadbeater and Wedgewood been "defrocked" by the Anglican Church for their sexual peccadillos? As "defrocked Priests' wouldn't their consecration as Bishops have been irregular to say the least? Obviously Wedgewood found another source of authority, what was it? I don't know about either of them "dying insane" but shrewd or not, it could reasonably be argued, based upon their lives and works, that both of them "Lived insane", could it not? After all "living in a dream world of his own" is practically the dictionary definition of psychosis. Why do you suppose the silly man lied about his date of birth? It's a shame Routledge & Kegan Paul has changed ownership and policies, they were one of the better sources of alternative philosophical works. By the way, have you encountered Liesel's accusations that Chuck and myself are "E.S. agents provocateur" sent in to "destroy Theos-List"? Your thoughts please. fondly alexis d. From ramadoss@eden.com Thu May 2 20:12:01 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 15:12:01 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: TSA Voting In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960502065738.00696c5c@mail.deltanet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi I do not have immediate access to Chuck Posonby's statement in AT. If you have access to it, can you please post it here. ....doss On Thu, 2 May 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > I posted this yesterday morning, and still haven't seen it > come back, so I'm reposting it. > > -- Eldon > > ---- > > > MKR: > > In your letter you make a good point that it is not customary for > new rules to be imposed retroactively upon people that had been > previously granted rights that the rules would take away. > > I've heard, though, that the rules *have been* applied in the past. > When Chuck Ponsonby was National Secretary, he looked at the > national bylaws and decided they did not exclude new members from > voting, had a statement printed in the AT saying they could vote, > and allowed them to vote in the election. It was at this point > that the rules were relaxed. > > The situation, then, is not the retroactive imposition of new > rules, but the renewed application of already existing and > previously enforced rules. From this standpoint, it was not that > certain new members that were previously entitled to vote are now > retroactively denied that right. Rather, it is that certain new > members were inadvertently allowed to vote in the past, when they > should not have been allowed to do so. > > The intent, then, with the bylaws changes, was to make the > national bylaws more in accord with the wording of the > international bylaws. It was not to reduce or infringe upon the > existing rights of members. > > As to the level of discontent with the vote, I've heard that > there's been three complaints so far regarding the vote. One was a > ballot lost in the mail. The other two were members ineligible to > vote for whatever reason. This is not many considering there were > thousands of ballots mailed out. > > I think that the people at Wheaton are a sincere, hard-working > group of volunteers, that put up with long days of work for almost > no renumeration. They have to deal with theosophical politics from > both ends -- from individual members with their preferences from > one side, and from Adyar at the other side. I'd rather not give > them a hard time on any particular issue without good cause. > > Regarding the merits of the two-year rule, it helps, I think, keep > elections from being rigged, it keeps things more fair. Why? > Because it keeps candidates from having flocks of followers from > joining at the last minute, in order to vote for them, only to > lapse a year later, never having a real interest in participating > in the T.S. And it tends to keep voting control in the hands of > students that are interested enought to stick around for a couple > of years. Many join and quit in the first year or two, finding no > attraction to what the T.S. offers. > > -- Eldon > > > > From ramadoss@eden.com Thu May 2 20:17:59 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 15:17:59 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: TSA Voting In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960502065738.00696c5c@mail.deltanet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Eldon: I do not have ready access to Chuck Posonby's statement regarding voting by members which was published in AT. If you have access to it, can you post it here. Everyone can benefit. Thanks ....Doss ----------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 2 May 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > I posted this yesterday morning, and still haven't seen it > come back, so I'm reposting it. > > -- Eldon > > ---- > > > MKR: > > In your letter you make a good point that it is not customary for > new rules to be imposed retroactively upon people that had been > previously granted rights that the rules would take away. > > I've heard, though, that the rules *have been* applied in the past. > When Chuck Ponsonby was National Secretary, he looked at the > national bylaws and decided they did not exclude new members from > voting, had a statement printed in the AT saying they could vote, > and allowed them to vote in the election. It was at this point > that the rules were relaxed. > > The situation, then, is not the retroactive imposition of new > rules, but the renewed application of already existing and > previously enforced rules. From this standpoint, it was not that > certain new members that were previously entitled to vote are now > retroactively denied that right. Rather, it is that certain new > members were inadvertently allowed to vote in the past, when they > should not have been allowed to do so. > > The intent, then, with the bylaws changes, was to make the > national bylaws more in accord with the wording of the > international bylaws. It was not to reduce or infringe upon the > existing rights of members. > > As to the level of discontent with the vote, I've heard that > there's been three complaints so far regarding the vote. One was a > ballot lost in the mail. The other two were members ineligible to > vote for whatever reason. This is not many considering there were > thousands of ballots mailed out. > > I think that the people at Wheaton are a sincere, hard-working > group of volunteers, that put up with long days of work for almost > no renumeration. They have to deal with theosophical politics from > both ends -- from individual members with their preferences from > one side, and from Adyar at the other side. I'd rather not give > them a hard time on any particular issue without good cause. > > Regarding the merits of the two-year rule, it helps, I think, keep > elections from being rigged, it keeps things more fair. Why? > Because it keeps candidates from having flocks of followers from > joining at the last minute, in order to vote for them, only to > lapse a year later, never having a real interest in participating > in the T.S. And it tends to keep voting control in the hands of > students that are interested enought to stick around for a couple > of years. Many join and quit in the first year or two, finding no > attraction to what the T.S. offers. > > -- Eldon > > > > From murdicrj@esvax.dnet.dupont.com Thu May 2 20:27:42 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 96 16:27:42 EDT From: murdicrj@esvax.dnet.dupont.com Message-Id: <9605022027.AA21682@esds01.es.dupont.com> Subject: FYI - An interesting Symposium RETURN TO THE SOURCE Rediscovering Lost Knowledge & Ancient Wisdom September 27-29, 1996 John M. Clayton Hall University of Delaware Newark, Delaware World myths all tell of high vanished civilizations in the distant, pre-historical past - civilizations that vanished in deluges, earthquakes, fire. Long dismissed as fictions or exaggerations by two centuries of modern scholars, these old legends have recently been infused with life as independent researchers in geology, astronomy, comparative mythology, mathematics, and ancient cartography uncover powerful new evidence supporting the ancient view. As materially based contemporary science reaches beyond its own self-imposed limits, its finds itself confronting the consciousness-based sacred science of the ancients. A picture now emerges of a magnificent global civilization that vanished in a series of cataclysms about 12,000 years ago. Human beings at least as "advanced" as ourselves (and perhaps wiser) may have inhabited the earth long before history, as we currently understand it, was ever recorded. This new evidence contradicts the prevailing view of a slow, steady, linear ascent of human civilization from "primitive" Neolithic beginnings to our modern technological society. RETURN To The SOURCE draws together leading-edge researchers and thinkers who have challenged the accepted paradigm to advance the frontiers of this new/old science. They share the conviction that any viable future civilization must combine the best of the new with a new understanding of the old. These researchers/authors are: LEE DAVIS Assistant Director for cultural resources with the National Museum of the American Indian. An anthropologist who lived and worked with the Hopa Indian people for twenty years, she has over twenty publications on Native American worldview, ethnogeography and precontact mapping. RAND & ROSE FLEM-ATH Rand and Rose Flem-Ath are librarians in Ladysmith, British Columbia and co-authors of When the Sky Fell: In Search of Atlantis ROBERT JAHN A professor of aerospace science and Dean Emeritus of Princeton University's School of Engineering and Applied Science, directs the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory and is co-author with Brenda Dunne, of Margins of Reality. PAUL WILLIAM ROBERTS Taught at Oxford University, studied Sanskrit at Benares University, and is author of three philosophical travel books: River in the Desert (Egypt), Empire of the Soul (India), and In Search of the Birth of Jesus (Middle East). JOHN ANTHONY WEST Author of Serpent in the Sky and The Traveler's Key to Ancient Egypt and holds an Emmy Award for the NBC documentary The Mystery of the Sphinx. ROBERT SCHOCH Geologist and associate professor of science and mathematics at Boston University, is author of many scientific papers and books, including Stratigraphy: Principles and Methods. ROBERT BAUVAL An Egyptian Belgian engineer and author of The Orion Mystery and with Graham Hancock, The Message of the Sphinx. PAUL DEVEREUX A cognitive archaeologist, director of The Dragon Project Trust, editor of The Ley Hunter, and the author of Symbolic Landscapes, Earth Lights Revelations, Shamanism and the Mystery Lines and other books. GRAHAM HANCOCK An investigative journalist, author of The Sign and the Seal, and Fingerprints of the Gods, and co-author, with Robert Bauval, of The Message of the Sphinx. JAY KAPPRAFF A professor of mathematics at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, is author of Connections: The Geometric Bridge Between Art and Science, numerous articles on fractals, design science and plasma physics and the forthcoming book Mathematics Beyond Measure. COLIN WILSON A philosopher and author of numerous books on a wide range of topics, including The Outsider, The Occult and most recently, From Atlantis to the Sphinx. This groundbreaking symposium, sponsored by the Society for Scientific Exploration, will examine the evidence for such lost civilizations, the extent of this knowledge, and its relevance for the millennium to come. For Further Information: Call Carole Seifred at (302) 831-2216 between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday. FAX (302) 831-2998; e-mail CAROLE.SEIFRED@MVS.UDEL.EDU Symposium organized by MetaMedia Communications, Inc. Contact MetaMedia President Barbara Keller at (609) 965-3657, FAX (800) 425-3118 or e-mail at MTAMEDIA@ ACY.DIGEX.NET From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri May 3 01:09:25 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:09:25 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: brotherhood vs. human family In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960502194537.006b5130@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960502194537.006b5130@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >>Personally, I'm delighted to see brotherhood dropped and a >>genderless word such as family used instead. If some feel the loss >>of brotherhood in the wording smacks of being exclusive then I >>should say that I've always felt left out by the writings and talk >>about brotherhood. Being in a body of female gender as I am, I >>can't name myself a brother. >> >>Virginia Behrens TI, TSA >> >> >>What a delightfully reasonable and well-phrased presentation that is! >Needless to say, I agree entirely with it and am having some trouble trying >to find a reasonable basis in the arguments of those who disagree. There *isn't* IMHO a *reasonable* basis for such disagreement. > Thank you >Virginia, thank you very much. > >alexis d. And thank you too! Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu May 2 23:09:38 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 19:09:38 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960502190938_526776990@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: WELCOME! Alan, If this keeps up TI will be the second largest theosophical organization in the world by the end of the year. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Scorpio" From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu May 2 17:23:49 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 18:23:49 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <34hZAAAl+OixEwIO@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: brotherhood vs. human family In-Reply-To: <199605021414.KAA31529@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199605021414.KAA31529@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com>, Virginia Behrens writes >Personally, I'm delighted to see brotherhood dropped and a >genderless word such as family used instead. If some feel the loss >of brotherhood in the wording smacks of being exclusive then I >should say that I've always felt left out by the writings and talk >about brotherhood. Being in a body of female gender as I am, I >can't name myself a brother. > >Virginia Behrens TI, TSA THANK YOU! THANK YOU! So many men in theosophy cannot seem to realise the obvious! Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From ramadoss@eden.com Fri May 3 04:47:07 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 23:47:07 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960502234937.1b8fba78@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TSA Elections - 2 Yr Voting Requirement To: Theos-l, Theos-Buds, Theos@netcom.com ======================================================== Hi As a followup, I have today sent the following letter (with print outs of theos-l messages on the subject) by FAX to John Algeo to make sure that it reaches him immediately. I am posting it to keep all the TSA Members here fully informed. I will be awaiting to hear about further action by TSA in the matter. MK Ramadoss Member TSA, San Antonio TX Lodge ==================================================== FAX MESSAGE May 2, 1996 John Algeo National President The Theosophical Society in America P.O. Box 270 Wheaton, IL 60189 National Elections Ballots Dear Bro. Algeo This is a follow up to my letter of April 27, 1996 which I faxed you. In response to one of my messages on theos-l, Bro. Eldon Tucker posted a very informative message (see enclosed copy). From the message it appears that it is based on information that was provided to him from Wheaton. Today, I have posted a response to his message. A copy of my response is enclosed. If the reasons given in his message are the basis for justifying retroactive denial of voting rights to members who were TSA members in December 1995, then it is my humble opinion that the basis is just a poor excuse and is not based on very strong legal grounds. In this issue of voting rights, I hope no injustice is done by TSA to its members either due to oversight or ignorance of the law. Time is running out fast and quick action is needed. Since you are not subscribed to theos-l and may not have seen the messages, I am enclosing them for your information and action. With fraternal greetings, Yours fraternally, M. K. Ramadoss From alexei@slip.net Fri May 3 06:08:16 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 23:08:16 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960503060816.006b0b58@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: clarification Ah Alan, poor Alan, lack a day! Dost not feel like Sisyphus dear friend? But< keep a stiff upper lip and all that. It'll take time but I think it'll come together well in the end. Rudy Don is coming to dinner on Saturday and we'll discuss the subject. He's a really lovely and caring human and so I think eventually he's come to see that T.I. isn't deserting the ideals of the founders. alexis d. From poulsen@dk-online.dk Fri May 3 11:46:39 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 09:46:39 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Subject: Re: clarification Message-Id: <01BB38D5.92141600@x.dko.global-one.dk> Encoding: 33 TEXT Alan: >Clearly, the use of the 19th century language is one of the things that >TI sees as an obstacle to attracting new people to theosophy - a known >fact; I have spoken to many people who have been put off by it, and at >least one woman who *resigned* in protest at being regarded as a >"fellow" and a "brother." Dear Alan, I understand perfectly the objections against the terms.It however conveys a certain idea though which seems grander, more all-inclusive. But perhaps I have spend too much time with old writings. The term "universal brotherhood of humanity" has an important double meaning lost in the new text. Never mind, never mind. > To suddenly find the outdated language >appearing on putative TI Web page was quite alarming, and also >depressing. I actually missed that detail. Could it be a mistake by Rudy? If not he must feel strongly about it. Like me he probably refrained from joining the discussion to avoid endless hair-splitting discussions. > Surely we do not have to debate all over again one of the >reasons we came into being in the first place? Of course not, Alan. When half mankind :-) would be less than satisfied with the term, it is not satisfactory. But many of these words loaded with gender meanings are the results of defects in the english language! I think I will refrain from describing why "Law" is another favorite term of mine (but a hint, hmm... dharma/karma, sssshhhh...). In friendship, Kim From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri May 3 14:12:57 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 10:12:57 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605031517.LAA20885@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: nucleus of "Brotherhood" Dear Kim, In answer to your not wanting to change this nomenclature, I'm very definitely against calling it "Brotherhood". I'm not a brother, in or out of the ES. I'm a sister, & I feel excluded, as would any number of younger women in the US. Kim, if you can come up with something that suits you better than "nucleus of the human family", I'd probably go along with it, but calling me a brother just rubs me the wrong way. I started out life trying to act like a boy, because my father & my brother got subtle preferential treatment ... not to be nasty, but as treatment due a man. When I realized what I was doing, I did everything I could think of to discover what constitues a woman, & to try to be one. I've read books, & taken courses, thought a lot about it. It was a whole transformation. From that point of view, I no longer tolerate being called a brother, or being part of a "Brothehood". Women are just as good as men, they're different, but just as good. I hope you can understand my point of view. Liesel From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri May 3 16:19:43 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 17:19:43 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Second? In-Reply-To: <960502190938_526776990@emout14.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960502190938_526776990@emout14.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >If this keeps up TI will be the second largest theosophical organization in >the world by the end of the year. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, Second? Second? Keyboards at dawn, sir! Alan :-) "There is always someone" [Book of Sayings] --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri May 3 16:24:01 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 17:24:01 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: clarification In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960503060816.006b0b58@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960503060816.006b0b58@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >Ah Alan, poor Alan, lack a day! Dost not feel like Sisyphus dear friend? Is there some cream you can get for it? :-) > >But< keep a stiff upper lip and all that. It'll take time but I think it'll >come together well in the end. > >Rudy Don is coming to dinner on Saturday and we'll discuss the subject. He's >a really lovely and caring human and so I think eventually he's come to see >that T.I. isn't deserting the ideals of the founders. > >alexis d. > Phew! I hope so. And I hope you can persuade him to move his personal view to an equal platform with mine on the Web page, otherwise it is not the TI page at all, but Rudy's TI page - which is fine if that's what he wants and says so *on* it! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Fri May 3 19:22:06 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 12:22:06 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960503192206.00694d18@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: clarification At 04:01 AM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alan: >>Clearly, the use of the 19th century language is one of the things that >>TI sees as an obstacle to attracting new people to theosophy - a known >>fact; I have spoken to many people who have been put off by it, and at >>least one woman who *resigned* in protest at being regarded as a >>"fellow" and a "brother." The problem Kim, is that in this country at least the state of education is so bad that for most American's 19th Century English might as well be Greek. They are totally incapable of seeing the grandeur of the phraseology. Have you seen what American Bowdlerizers have done to the King James Bible? They have taken one of the most magnificent manifestations of the English language and made it as prosaic as a shopping list. If we want to reach people, especially the young, we have to speak to them in their own language, and sometimes it's really hard to ascertain what that is. > >Dear Alan, I understand perfectly the objections against the terms.It >however conveys a certain idea though which seems grander, more >all-inclusive. But perhaps I have spend too much time with old writings. >The term "universal brotherhood of humanity" has an important double >meaning lost in the new text. Never mind, never mind. If you mean what I think you mean by referring to the double entendre of "Universal Brotherhood of Humanity" then I agree with you it is a very grand concept, but perhaps one which it would be politic to avoid. > >> To suddenly find the outdated language >>appearing on putative TI Web page was quite alarming, and also >>depressing. > > I actually missed that detail. Could it be a mistake by Rudy? If not he >must feel strongly about it. Like me he probably refrained from joining the >discussion to avoid endless hair-splitting discussions. > >> Surely we do not have to debate all over again one of the >>reasons we came into being in the first place? > > Of course not, Alan. When half mankind :-) would be less than satisfied >with the term, it is not satisfactory. But many of these words loaded with >gender meanings are the results of defects in the english language! Kim what can you expect when English is such a compound language. Some linguistic experts refer to it as a Bastard Language because it is a compendium of so many languages and therefore of so many "laws" Welsh, Celt, Briton, Latin, French, Danish, Old German, all tossed into a bowl and tossed like a salad: what can one expect but difficulty? My Grandfather who spoke 14 languages fluently always said that "English is a Stupid language"...but it's the one we're stuck with on this list and in Theosophy International because it's the most, if not the only, common language. It's also the language used by the founders in their statements and declarations so we're doubly stuck. > I think I will refrain from describing why "Law" is another favorite >term of mine (but a hint, hmm... dharma/karma, sssshhhh...).> >In friendship, > >Kim > In friendship alexis d.> > From alexei@slip.net Fri May 3 20:51:59 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 13:51:59 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960503205159.00694024@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: clarification At 12:38 PM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960503060816.006b0b58@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>Ah Alan, poor Alan, lack a day! Dost not feel like Sisyphus dear friend? > >Is there some cream you can get for it? :-) >> >>But< keep a stiff upper lip and all that. It'll take time but I think it'll >>come together well in the end. >> >>Rudy Don is coming to dinner on Saturday and we'll discuss the subject. He's >>a really lovely and caring human and so I think eventually he's come to see >>that T.I. isn't deserting the ideals of the founders. >> >>alexis d. >> >Phew! I hope so. And I hope you can persuade him to move his personal >view to an equal platform with mine on the Web page, otherwise it is not >the TI page at all, but Rudy's TI page - which is fine if that's what he >wants and says so *on* it! > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan: I will do my damnest! alexis From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri May 3 21:45:21 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 17:45:21 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605032250.SAA25442@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: terminology Kim, I'm sorry, but the debate re "brotherhood" is anything but hair splitting to me. Rather it involves my right to function as a woman. Seems to me you haven't thought through the issue. Seems to me a theosophist who believes in "regardless of ..." etc. would mean that all people will not be thought less of. Liesel >to avoid endless hair-splitting discussions. From poulsen@dk-online.dk Sat May 4 02:55:45 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 00:55:45 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Subject: nucleus of "Brotherhood" Message-Id: <01BB3954.874C9600@x.dko.global-one.dk> Encoding: 31 TEXT Liesel: >In answer to your not wanting to change this nomenclature, I'm very >definitely against calling it "Brotherhood". I'm not a brother, in or out of >the ES. I'm a sister, & I feel excluded, as would any number of younger >women in the US. Dear Liesel, actually I did not advocate to reinstate the term, I merely regretted the loss of some of the meaning. In my opinion the meaning "a nucleous of the spiritual hierarchy within humanity" is completely lost. I can easily sign my name under the new objects however. >Kim, if you can come up with something that suits you better than >"nucleus of the human family", I'd probably go along with it, but calling me >a brother just rubs me the wrong way. :-) I have tried to figure something out for months. Sister- and brotherhood sounds rather silly. By the way, a lot of the gender-related terms in english are neutral in my language. >I hope you can understand my point of view. Easily, Liesel. It may be that the idea cannot be rendered satifactorily in english. It is the *idea* I like. Alan put the "universal" back in, which is a great improvement. "Brother-" is obviously hopeless. In friendship, Kim From ramadoss@eden.com Fri May 3 23:53:07 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 18:53:07 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960503185535.1177b88a@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TSA Elections - 2 Yr Voting Requirement To: Theos-l, Theos-Buds, Theos@netcom.com Hi, everybody: Here is an update on the on going communication with Wheaton on the issue of disenfranchisement of the voting rights of members. I Faxed my letter of April 27, 1996 to John Algeo. In response, I received the attached reply today. It may be noted that the reply is dated Saturday, April 27, 1996 and was sent to me by snail-mail and the USPS postmark on the envelope is dated Tuesday April 30, 1996. It was received by me today Friday, May 3, 1996. So it took *six* days for John Algeo's reply to reach me. In these days of instant communication, it is toooooooooo long, especially when I am accessible by all modern means of communication such as fax, e-mail etc. ------------------------------------------- The following are my comments on John Algeo's letter of April 27, 1996. As I already had stated in my earlier post in response to Eldon's message, the reasoning in John Algeo's letter is very satisfactory and has *no* legal basis. Firstly, TSA is a Illinois Non Profit Corporation and hence is governed by the Illinois Statutes and the TSA's Bylaws and *NOT* by International Rules. Whatever may be the International Rules, they *DO NOT* apply to TSA unless the specific detailed implementation is specifially voted on by the members of TSA and is part of its Bylaws. Saying that "international rule to the same effect is even older" is totally irrelevant and inapplicable to TSA. General statement of applicability will not cut it. If that be the case, then the issue of the International Organization controlling TSA through the device of International Rules comes up. This may be *illegal* under Illinios Statutes. In addition it may open up a pandora's box with very serious consequences. TSA as a 501(c)(3) organization, cannot be controlled either directly or indirectly or overtly or covertly or secretly by *any* foreign organization. If facts and circumstances can establish that this is the case, TSA can lose its Federal tax exempt status retroactively since Federal Income Tax Code prohibits any foreign entity controlling any US Tax Exempt Organization. Secondly, there is this basic principle of voting rights. Any time any changes are made to the qualifications to the rights of members, such changes should not infringe upon any currently held right of any member at the time such change takes place. This is technically called *grandfathering*. If grandfathering is not done, then the consequence of any change is that of taking away any existing right of an individual. This is a very serious and important principle and all civilized countries practice it everyday. TSA's response totally ignores this either due to ignorance or what ever other reason. (There was somewhat of a similar situation arose some years ago when TSA tightened the qualification requirements for the position of the National President. I do not plan to go into it now). So the only conclusion one can come to is that the voting rights of some of the members of TSA are taken away by TSA excluding them from the present election balloting by not sending them their ballots. If anyone disagrees with my analysis above, I suggest to consult your friendly attorney who may enlighten you and give us the feed back so that we all can understand the issues discussed above. MK Ramadoss ==================================== John Algeo's Reply to my letter of April 27, 1996 Saturday, April 27, 1996 Dear Mr. Ramadoss: In response to your query about the eligibility of members of the Society to vote, International Rule 29e says: Without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 10 [governing the election of an international President), no member in good standing for less than twenty-four consecutive months immediately prior to the date of voting shall have the right to vote in elections and others matters pertaining to Lodges, Federations, Regional Associations, National Societies or other duly constituted bodies of the Theosophical Society. In accordance with that rule, bylaw 4, section 8, of the rules of the Theosophical Society in America states: In accordance with the Rules of the international Society, only members in good standing for two years or more shall have the right to vote. In addition, bylaw 12 states; These bylaws shall become legally effective and supersede all previous bylaws of the Theosophical Society in America upon the date of their adoption by referendum The ballots adopting the new bylaws were counted on January 6, the results certified by the National Secretary, and his report received and ratified by the National Board at its January meeting. The new national bylaws have been in effect since that time, and the International Rule to the same effect is even older. No disenfranchisement has occurred since no one has been deprived of any right under either national or international rules. Sincerely yours, John Algeo National President M. K. Ramadoss 4203 Gardendale, Suite 226 San Antonio TX 78229-3137 From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri May 3 23:08:07 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 19:08:07 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605040012.UAA13942@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: nucleus of "Brotherhood" Kim, How do you like "a nucleus of humanity"? Is that any better for you than "human family"? LFD >Liesel: >>In answer to your not wanting to change this nomenclature, I'm very >>definitely against calling it "Brotherhood". I'm not a brother, in or out >of >>the ES. I'm a sister, & I feel excluded, as would any number of younger >>women in the US. > >Dear Liesel, > >actually I did not advocate to reinstate the term, I merely regretted the >loss of some of the meaning. In my opinion the meaning "a nucleous of the >spiritual hierarchy within humanity" is completely lost. I can easily sign >my name under the new objects however. > >>Kim, if you can come up with something that suits you better than >>"nucleus of the human family", I'd probably go along with it, but calling >me >a brother just rubs me the wrong way. > > :-) I have tried to figure something out for months. Sister- and >brotherhood sounds rather silly. By the way, a lot of the gender-related >terms in english are neutral in my language. > >>I hope you can understand my point of view. > > Easily, Liesel. It may be that the idea cannot be rendered satifactorily >in english. It is the *idea* I like. Alan put the "universal" back in, >which is a great improvement. "Brother-" is obviously hopeless. > >In friendship, > >Kim > > > From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 4 00:22:12 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 19:22:12 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960503192440.268faa10@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: FW: 5th Graders Want E-mail (fwd) Hi - Again this is off the topic, but..... ...doss >From: "Jensen, Jeanne-Anne" >To: listening-l >Subject: FW: 5th Graders Want E-mail (fwd) >Date: Fri, 03 May 96 14:46:00 PDT >Encoding: 25 TEXT > > >I realize this is completely off the topic of Krishnamurti, but . . . > > --- Here is the original message --- > >>>Forwarded message: >>>From: nbravo@smtpgw.lcp.com >>>To: Coyoteugly@aol.com, TMooney691@aol.com >>>Date: 96-04-24 17:24:03 EDT >>> >>>Subject: science fair >>> >>>Hi, our names are Stevie and Amanda. We are in the 5th grade at the >>>Phillipston Memorial school, Phillipston, Massachusetts, USA. We are >>>doing a science project on the Internet. We want to see how many responses >>>we can get back in two weeks. (We are only sending out 2 letters). >>>Please respond and then send this letter to anyone you communicate >>>with on the Internet. Respond to smc@tiac.net. >>> >>>1. Where do you live (state and country)? >>>2. From whom did you get this letter? >>> >>>Thank you, >>> Stevie and Amanda >>> > From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 4 00:55:58 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 01:55:58 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: sibling and how to sible In-Reply-To: <960502190940_526777034@emout17.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960502190940_526777034@emout17.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >I rather like siblinghood myself, but no one ever listens to me. > >Chuck the Barbarian Did someone say something? Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri May 3 01:03:41 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:03:41 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Not an ES conspiracy In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960502195709.006a5240@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960502195709.006a5240@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >>Thank you Alan that is very interesting. Perhaps you can clear something up >for me, Hadn't both Leadbeater and Wedgewood been "defrocked" by the >Anglican Church for their sexual peccadillos? I have no evidence to support this claim, though it is an old one. It is possible that Wedgwood *resigned* but so far as I know CWL left of his own accord. > As "defrocked Priests' >wouldn't their consecration as Bishops have been irregular to say the least? Note the title of my book! The view of the Church of England was and is that their later consecration was invalid and irregular. The view of the Church of Rome was that they were valid but irregular. But the view of Rome is that the orders of the Church of England (at all levels) are totally invalid. On this argument, CWL's (and mine) holy orders are more valid than those of the Achbishop of Canterbury! :-) >Obviously Wedgewood found another source of authority, what was it? I don't >know about either of them "dying insane" but shrewd or not, it could >reasonably be argued, based upon their lives and works, that both of them >"Lived insane", could it not? After all "living in a dream world of his own" >is practically the dictionary definition of psychosis. Why do you suppose >the silly man lied about his date of birth? Their source of authority derived from the Dutch Old Catholic Church which had broken ties with Rome, which had failed to destroy them (the Dutch Old Catholics). The differences were doctrinal. Later they broke with the Old Catholics to form the [theosophical] Liberal Catholic Church, in which (today, but not then) reincarnation is an article of faith. > >It's a shame Routledge & Kegan Paul has changed ownership and policies, they >were one of the better sources of alternative philosophical works. > >By the way, have you encountered Liesel's accusations that Chuck and myself >are "E.S. agents provocateur" sent in to "destroy Theos-List"? >Your thoughts please. I think Liesel perceives you both as making a lot of disruptive noise, and looks for a familiar explanation. She does not accuse, she speculates. Personally, I doubt that there is any ES conspiracy of any kind to disrupt theos-l, which has less than 100 subscribers out of tens of thousands of potentially pliable theosophists! The worldwide TS may be small, but theos-l is miniscule by comparison, though its capacity to broadcast *information* is huge. I would personally like to see *more* information being broadcast, and a great deal less combativeness. > >fondly > >alexis d. > ditto alan b. --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Richtay@aol.com Thu May 2 23:30:30 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 19:30:30 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960502193029_285771294@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TSA Elections-2 Year Voting Requirement One writer says, > Any organization in The United States of > America must be run on fully Democratic principle, this is not Democratic. This is simply not true. Where did you ever get that idea? There are plenty of groups in America, from religions to corporations to the most racist KKK groups and such, that do NOT operate on democratic principles. In general, organizations that receive state or federal funds need to operate in line with Constitutional values, but even there grants are made to religious and other groups which are completely authoritarian. I have never heard of a business, of any appreciable size, which was actually democratic. Heaven forbid! Bosses make decisions, employees follow them. As a private institution, I strongly doubt that the T.S. must be democratic. Rather, it must follow its own Constitution and By-Laws, respect non-profit or not-for profit tax codes, local zoning laws, etc., or else be in legal jeopardy of retaining its assets. Otherwise, whatever the duly elected T.S. officials decide, provided it is in line with TS rules and regulations, will be viewed by governmental authorities as purely internal affairs. From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Fri May 3 03:50:07 1996 Date: 02 May 96 23:50:07 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: More Wesak Full Moon Lunacy Message-Id: <960503035007_74024.3352_BHT58-1@CompuServe.COM> I knew Jim Meier could give some more exact information and Bee too about this opportunity to tune in on a kind of Buddha Easter. There seems to be a lot of strange energy (as always) out there as Kim talks about the amount of retrograde motion in the planets for the month of May. Doss talks about the quaintness of Eastern rituals that seem to get lost in our sometimes over-reverintial attitude to the mystic East. I have tried to focus on AAB's idea of facing the moon as symbol of lower personality and letting the light of the Solar logos shine through as a cleansing. healing attempt to bring higher spiritual energies through a focused group of world servers who are linking at this time (I am told and I hope!). I have felt a definite uplift and connection to more impersonal spiritual energies beyond my local human problems. Did anyone see "Mysteries of the Millienium" on CBS last night? It was pretty shallow, but it had a lot of neat computer images of things like tidal waves, atomic blasts at the Egyptian pyramids and comet fragments hitting earth. I still find it interesting that many can hold on to the idea of some massive world event for good or bad when things seem to going along as usual despite all this feverish expectation. There was an interesting bit about digitizing ourselves and making a back-up copy of ourselves everyday. In case of a crash, we can reboot and reincarnate with our memory intact with no need to learn things again! This is the next stage of human evolution, a merging with the computer. The computer can map our neuron connections and we can really upload ourselves and enter cyberspace. Hmmm! Is this where TI wants to go? A nucleus of human brotherhood on floppy disk? :) Move over gang of 4, no priviate directories! Namaste Keith Price From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Fri May 3 04:09:03 1996 Date: 03 May 96 00:09:03 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Wilber and Hero Worship Message-Id: <960503040902_74024.3352_BHT58-2@CompuServe.COM> While surfing the www, I came across Ken Wilber's endorsement of his teacher/guru Adi Dama (or something) who I think was once called Bubba Free John (???). He give an endorsement of this guy as a guru worthy of bakti-yoga. As far as I could see, the way to enlightenment is the sacrifice of the ego and the linking to Unified Primal Mind by adoration of this man. I hope I am not getting this right. Does anyone know about this guru? I have changed a lot of my ideas recently and fear I could become open to some of this cult stuff. I really admire Wilber's writings (some don't on theos-l, I know), but I am concerned that Wilber thinks that World Service, World Soul and World Enlightenment can come through this recent human incarnation of God(?). And that we will enter the stream of evolution and progress quicker to the state of Godhood (located somewhere near Montana one can only asssume) if we link up with Adi Bubba and all those that love and adore this guy --that our only hope is Bubba Consciousness?! He looks like a fat Anglo fruitcake too me, but maybe Buddha looked like a fat Eastern ninny on the physical plane, but appeared as Beauty itself to the open eye of buddhi to those that can see the human aura at its highest levels. It could be true. Please tell me I have got this all wrong. Namaste Keith Price From ramadoss@eden.com Thu May 2 23:33:20 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 18:33:20 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960502183546.2d270474@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TSA Voting Eldon: Glad to see your msg. I am glad that you took time to research and post the message. As I am *not* satisfied with the explanation/reasoning. Hence, I place the following comments: 1. TSA is a Non Profit Corporation Chartered by the State of Illinois and hence for all operational and procedural matters of TSA, only the *Bylaws* of TSA govern the voting and all other matters. No matter what the International Rules says is totally inapplicable. So the first item to be clarified is, before the bylaw referendum of December 1995, what does TSA Bylaws say regarding members' eligibility to vote in elections and other matters requiring a vote of the membership? Does the bylaws require a 2 year membership? If the 2 year membership requirement is *not explicitly stated* in the TSA bylaws in effect in December 1995, then the only conclusion is that members are entitled to vote without any requirement of a 2 year waiting period. What ever logic applied to explain *relaxation* of rules etc in the past has no applicability nor any validity. 2. It is a widely accepted principle in all of the civilized world that if there are any voting rights existing for members as on the date of December 1995 referendum on Bylaws, one cannot and should not take that away from any member who was a member on that date unless there is some other explicit disqualifying clause is there in the Bylaws and applies to a member. 3. In this particular instance, the voting rights of this class of members were taken away by retroactively applying the membership requirement. 4. As this is a serious issue, did TSA obtain a *written* legal opinion and advise on this voting issue from the Chicago lawyers that TSA gets counsel from? If so, can you get a copy and post it here? If not, why not? This will help everybody understand the situation and clear the air of any doubts as well as ensure that no injustice is done to even a *single* member due to the *ignorance* of the Illinois law governing Non Profit Corporations. No amount of in-house lawyering or free advise would have the degree of credibility that is needed in the current situation. 5. As for discontent of the membership, the number of complaints received is not a satisfactory measure at all to measure it. Many may not care or knowledgeable or literate enough to complain. Many many not even be aware that their rights were taken away. But for Internet, even I would not have known about the situation and we will not be discussing it here. 6. Everyone knows that the rank and file workers are Wheaton are hardworking and dedicated. This is how I have always found it to be. During my contacts, I have always found them to be very professional, courteous, cooperative and helpful. However, I do not know how many of them are working for *no remuneration*. I am very glad that you brought up this issue. Several years ago, I suggested to the TSA BOD, that TSA should publish the names and total compensation (including any fringe and other benefits) (from all entities in the TSA umbrella) of say top five compensated persons. This would demonstrate to the membership the sacrifices that are made by those who are compensated at Wheaton from TS Funds. This is like what is being done in public traded companies. Initially there was enthusiasm. But nothing came out of it. Making public such information will reinforce how these persons are working hard for *no remuneration.* Lack of this kind of information makes one to assume there are individuals whose compensation, in the eyes of members, may not appear as working for *nothing.* Can you please pass this request on to your contacts at Wheaton for their quick action? I am confident that all the dues paying TS Members would be delighted if it is followed through and information made public. 7. As for the political problems from both ends - from membership as well as from Adyar, this is *the job* of elected officials and *not* those of rank and file workers at Wheaton. As a matter of fact, the rank and file workers should not never be caught in these matters and they should always send it up the chain of command to the elected officers so that they can do the job they aspired for and elected to. Be assured I will be the last person to cause any problem to any rank and file worker (even when there is a cause) as I am always *for* the *little guy*. 8. The issue that is being raised now is the retroactive application of the 2 year membership rule and not the rule itself. Personally I have no problem with a 2 year membership rule. But there is the serious issue of taking away the voting rights of members by retroactive application of the rule and thus doing injustice to the membership. 9. I hope something is done very soon and very quickly as time is running out. Once time runs out, injustice done, it cannot be undone even if the BOD wants to undo it. No amount of any regret or apology later on is going to undo it. ....Doss ============================================================================ ============ Eldon Tucker Wrote: I posted this yesterday morning, and still haven't seen it come back, so I'm reposting it. -- Eldon ---- MKR: In your letter you make a good point that it is not customary for new rules to be imposed retroactively upon people that had been previously granted rights that the rules would take away. I've heard, though, that the rules *have been* applied in the past. When Chuck Ponsonby was National Secretary, he looked at the national bylaws and decided they did not exclude new members from voting, had a statement printed in the AT saying they could vote, and allowed them to vote in the election. It was at this point that the rules were relaxed. The situation, then, is not the retroactive imposition of new rules, but the renewed application of already existing and previously enforced rules. From this standpoint, it was not that certain new members that were previously entitled to vote are now retroactively denied that right. Rather, it is that certain new members were inadvertently allowed to vote in the past, when they should not have been allowed to do so. The intent, then, with the bylaws changes, was to make the national bylaws more in accord with the wording of the international bylaws. It was not to reduce or infringe upon the existing rights of members. As to the level of discontent with the vote, I've heard that there's been three complaints so far regarding the vote. One was a ballot lost in the mail. The other two were members ineligible to vote for whatever reason. This is not many considering there were thousands of ballots mailed out. I think that the people at Wheaton are a sincere, hard-working group of volunteers, that put up with long days of work for almost no remuneration. They have to deal with theosophical politics from both ends -- from individual members with their preferences from one side, and from Adyar at the other side. I'd rather not give them a hard time on any particular issue without good cause. Regarding the merits of the two-year rule, it helps, I think, keep elections from being rigged, it keeps things more fair. Why? Because it keeps candidates from having flocks of followers from joining at the last minute, in order to vote for them, only to lapse a year later, never having a real interest in participating in the T.S. And it tends to keep voting control in the hands of students that are interested enough to stick around for a couple of years. Many join and quit in the first year or two, finding no attraction to what the T.S. offers. -- Eldon From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Fri May 3 04:32:23 1996 Date: 03 May 96 00:32:23 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Eldon on Theo. Groups Message-Id: <960503043223_74024.3352_BHT58-3@CompuServe.COM> Eldon touched on a topic of the emphasis that various groups have and that this has created a kind of denominantional problem in the theosphical movement. That is some groups emphasize HPB, but not CWL or Purucker and on and on. I can only speak for myself, but I wonder if many get frustrated with this or that approach because it doesn't address the core issue of the spritual development of the individual in practical terms as opposed to theoretical and historical issues. In other words, how do the notions of the cycles of manifestation, reincarnation and karma help one develop all of the vehicles. How do we stop aruging the ideas and live the life? I have been forced to focus on the need to regenerate the inncessant demands of my kama-manas or desire-mind. This has strenghened my belief in reincarnation in that I can see how these issues came over from another life and I have been given the opportunity to pay karmic debts by suffering to restructure myself a little at a time. Christina Grof has written about the spiritual emergence movement and has started a network to help those in a spiritual crisis. Transpersonal psychology, deep ecolgoy and other movements are addressing issues beyond mental analysis. I am brainstorming, but I think that many feel this and may be looking for answers in karma yoga, bakti yoga, hatha yoga and tantra because rational analysis has reached a kind of dead end crisis. This could lead to a new type of irrationality of cults, drugs, violence, gangs, terrorism etc. or type of transrationality we all dimly expect and even glimpse, but have trouble making it practical perhaps. Unity consciousness at one with everyday consciousness is the philosopher's stone and jewel of great place and like the grail seems "occult" in a special way. Namaste Keith Price From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri May 3 04:37:20 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 00:37:20 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960503003719_483253067@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: More Wesak Full Moon Lunacy Keith, It gets a lot stranger than that. Try to image a chip implanted in the human brain linked to a central database with every bit of knowledge available in it. No more need to go to reference books. And it's possible! Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri May 3 04:40:34 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 00:40:34 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960503004032_483255580@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Wilber and Hero Worship Keith, I hate to say this, but you got it all right. Once, many moons ago, a follower of the then Bubba Free John or whatever, gave a lecture at Olcott and managed to annoy the entire audience by reducing his topic to a series of platitudes with at least one cuss word that starts with an F thrown in for good measure. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA MG of 5 (want to make it 6?) Heretic Troublemaker From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Fri May 3 04:40:41 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 22:40:41 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Wilber and Hero Worship In-Reply-To: <960503040902_74024.3352_BHT58-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Kieth Price Wrote: > And that we will enter the stream of > evolution and progress quicker to the state of Godhood (located > somewhere near Montana one can only asssume) if we link up with Adi > Bubba and all those that love and adore this guy --that our only hope > is Bubba Consciousness?! Hey! Stop dissing Montana! - We Montanans can take care of that ourselves thank you very much. In the wake of the events of the last month, it has become somewhat of a Montana hobby to invent new State Mottos and print them on T-shirts - some of the best (to replace to current "Montana: Big Sky country"): "Montana: Sometimes ya feel like a nut, sometimes ya are!" "Montana: We dare ya!" "Montana: At least our cows are sane!" tee hee, -JRC From ramadoss@eden.com Fri May 3 04:47:07 1996 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 23:47:07 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960502234937.1b8fba78@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TSA Elections - 2 Yr Voting Requirement To: Theos-l, Theos-Buds, Theos@netcom.com Hi As a followup, I have today sent the following letter (with print outs of theos-l messages on the subject) by FAX to John Algeo to make sure that it reaches him immediately. I am posting it to keep all the TSA Members here fully informed. I will be awaiting to hear about further action by TSA in the matter. MK Ramadoss Member TSA, San Antonio TX Lodge ==================================================== FAX MESSAGE May 2, 1996 John Algeo National President The Theosophical Society in America P.O. Box 270 Wheaton, IL 60189 National Elections Ballots Dear Bro. Algeo This is a follow up to my letter of April 27, 1996 which I faxed you. In response to one of my messages on theos-l, Bro. Eldon Tucker posted a very informative message (see enclosed copy). From the message it appears that it is based on information that was provided to him from Wheaton. Today, I have posted a response to his message. A copy of my response is enclosed. If the reasons given in his message are the basis for justifying retroactive denial of voting rights to members who were TSA members in December 1995, then it is my humble opinion that the basis is just a poor excuse and is not based on very strong legal grounds. In this issue of voting rights, I hope no injustice is done by TSA to its members either due to oversight or ignorance of the law. Time is running out fast and quick action is needed. Since you are not subscribed to theos-l and may not have seen the messages, I am enclosing them for your information and action. With fraternal greetings, Yours fraternally, M. K. Ramadoss From eldon@theosophy.com Fri May 3 11:39:16 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 04:39:16 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960503113916.006a2778@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Reply to Keith re Pain versus Suffering Keith: In your posting you write about the benefits of suffering and how it is something that cannot be avoided. I'd use a different word: "pain". Pain is the mirror of pleasure. Both are a part of the experience of life. But suffering is not. Suffering is a state of mind that we don't have to approach our experiences with. If I were jogging, and my legs hurt as I ran, there would be pain. But I could be enjoying the run, and not think about the way that my legs feel. Paying attention to the pain, I could wish to be doing something else, and let myself suffer. Or ignoring the pain and enjoying the run, I could have the identical experience, minus any sense of suffering. Buddhism would call the cause of suffering to be the attachment to our expectations. We fail to recognize the impermanence of life, and want to repeat or hold onto experiences that have previously brought us pleasure. This clinging to the past and failing to embrace the present, this wanting to be someone and somewhere else, is the cause of suffering. >1) suffering is a tool for spiritual growth The action of Shiva in destroying the old forms in our lives helps us move forward, to leave behind stagnant waters for fresh-flowing springs. >2) suffering is good for you -- it teaches lessons we have >chosen for ourselves this incarnation We always get lessons in life. Often they are unexpected and come as a surprise. Sometimes they are painful, but that pain can be combined with pleasure and excitement. We can cooperate with life, keeping in touch with our inner lives, sensing when change is needed and cooperating with bringing about that change. Or we can drag our heels, turn our backs on the need for change, and let the new lessons in life impose themselves on us, yelling and screaming all the way! Change is unavoidable. If we cooperate with planning and directing it, we remain somewhat in control and don't have to suffer. >3) suffering is necessary as the shadow of good Suffering is the feeling that we don't want to be in life as we find ourselves at the moment. It comes from *denial* and lack of cooperation with the processes of change. It's not the shadow of good, it's the shadow of living in harmony and cooperation with the eternal law of change. >4) people can expedite debts by willingly learning to accept >suffering with grace. But it's not a debt, because there's not a fixed quantity of suffering to pay off. We can become willing to accept pain with grace, but don't have to suffer. >5) suffering leads to transcendence As we cooperate with the law of change and loosen our clinging to the status quo of our lives and personalities, we approach transcendence. That loosening can be forced upon us through painful episodes in life, but also can be done by cooperating with the process, and finding enjoyable ways to do it. >6) willingly helping the suffering of others is the true >test of spiritual advancement It is, as you say, easiest to forget our pain when we seek to heal the pain in others. That is because suffering comes from the sense of personal self, from the personality-centered perspective on life. In forgetting ourselves for a moment, we've let go of that activity of mind that is the cause of our greatest suffering: the notion that we are the personality. >7) suffering in itself is a karmic repayment Everything that happens in life is karmic, that is, we're responsible for it. That does not always mean that it came about because we did something in the past. Other people besides ourselves have free will, and can choose to make new karma that affects us for the first time. But we are responsible *for the future* for anything that comes into our lives. Again, though, we may have pain inflicted upon us, but do not have to let ourselves suffer because of that pain. >8) suffering can bring people together and get to the >truth the way celebration rarely does Because people are drawn *out of themselves* due to the pain, and are inspired to unselfish acts. They have a sense of compassion evoked in their hearts, a compassion that uplifts them. That compassion is much harder to evoke in people in seeing someone that is content, enjoying himself, and having a good time. >But when I search in books read and reread, I seem to >find things I failed to see before, for example, that >self-expression is not the goal of life, but the willingness >to accept the seemingly unacceptable I would still see it the older way: that the purpose of life is in self-expression. Not self-expression where we're talking of the petty personality parading itself before the world and saying "See how great I am!" Rather, the making of a unique, personal expression of the truly divine side of life. There are untold wonders awaiting their chance to be born into the world, if we'd only grow, open ourselves up, and give them expression. The willingness to accept the seemingly unacceptable is a trait of spiritual advancement. But when it is done, the unacceptable does not look that way at all! The notion that things are unacceptable disappears, along with any trace of selfishness, of "me first!", and things aren't seen in those terms at all. >I have been deeply resentful that if life has so many >unfortunate accidents, why religion seems to exalt suffering, >renunciation, humility, poverty unto sickness as a >requitement for the spiritual path. A short-term lesson of suffering is to cope with it until finding better solutions. But the long-term experience of suffering is not the nature of life. Suffering indicates that something is wrong and needing attention. The long-term solution to suffering is to discover, even if it takes lifetimes, what are the needed changes in one's life. What are the inner adjustments that need to be made, that are forcing themselves upon one's attention, despite any efforts to deny or avoid them. These adjustments could mean that there are changes to lifestyle, to types of self-expression, to relationship with others, to subjects to learn and ways of making a contribution in the world. What specifically is needed? It's hard to pin it down, it's something like working on a Zen koan, the question needs asking, asking, and asking again. And the answer may not appear for some time. But when it comes, there will be a sense of recognition, and some new, important vista in life will open itself up for one. >Perhaps this is why I was attracted at some level to the >occult, which seems to covertly imply the opposite, that is, >that spiritual "ideas", prosperity thinking, Depak Chorpaisms >etc will give you spiritual success which can't help but lead >to "like attracts like", perfect health, eternal body/mind >and two new cars. But since it is the attachment to the objects of pleasure that brings about suffering, gaining those objects will potentially bring about more suffering, if one's inner attitudes towards life don't change. >The Buddhist doctrine of the wheel of karma as desire leading >to the suffering of unfulfilled desires as the nature of human >consciousness leads to the desire to escape into nirvana. We are held in existence by the wheel of karma, but are not held in suffering. That comes from a self-created delusion, from the hearsay of separateness. Nirvana is a sense of perfect peace to a certain part of us, but there is yet a higher part that is beyond the cycle of evolution, the Monad, and this part is beyond both liberation and bondage to the wheel. We have a transcend part to ourselves that is perfectly at peace regardless of our status -- in or out of nirvana, evolved or unevolved, suffering or not. >To hold back to help others as the Nirmanakaya vesture >blows out the difference between Nirvana and Samsara to a >unity awareness. You are right. It is a higher form of awareness that leads one to postpone nirvana for the purpose of liberating other sentient beings. This too is karmic in nature, and participates in the wheel of rebirth, the wheel of life, but the ties that are forged are those of compassion, not those of personal desire. The ties are infinitely stronger, and are able to even overcome the allure of ultimate bliss, nirvana itself! >World Service seems not to depend so much on special knowledge, >but attitude. Attitude is a better indicator of someone that is truly a server, than special knowledge. The knowledge itself, without the corresponding inner changes, takes us nowhere. But the knowledge is also of critical importance if we would be not just holy and wondrous beings, but also be of actual use to others in the world. >World Servers can be the ordinary people who provide the link >unconsciously to the goodness behind suffering: that is health >professionals, doctors, ministers and on down to the levels of >cook and office cleaner. But anything that we do is of service, even a father tending the children after work, a woman writing a healing letter to a friend, or someone taking time to talk to a stranger on a bus and bringing a smile to their face! >I am beginning to think that intellectual analysis is necessary, >but actually lies midway on the spiritual path. It is a necessary ingredient, but where it comes on the way depends upon the specific individual. All ingredients are needed, though, to make the whole man, the whole woman, the whole worker for the spiritual in the world. >I have been synchronistically reintroduced indirectly and >through my own conscious and unconscious processes (dream work) >to the notion of the World Server. But there are *two* ways of looking on service. Both are important. First is looking to the world, finding its needs, and seeking to fulfill them. This is important and good. But there is another way, equally important, but not as often talked about. There are *wonders* that await their expression in the world. There are great works and grant ideas and ideals seeking people capable of expressing them, great things that are denied expression in the world *until we take personal responsibility to take concrete, tangible steps to bring them into the world*! >Many like Eldon reiterate the theosophical goal or a Brotherhood of >Humanity. Is a political system necessary for this? No. Systems and organizations work for some people some of the time, but I never expect to see one that would work for all people all of the time. It's not having a better system, it's having a genuine love and respect for others that are different, that is needed. And this is not given to anyone along with a membership card. It has to be called forth from within by each individual. We can only provide encouraging circumstances for others to, on their own, open up their minds and hearts. They still have to take the necessary steps to change themselves. >Are we in collusion with some dark tyrannical movement that wants >to reduce the freedom of the individual in the name of world peace >as many so-called kooks would suggest. There's a lot of darkness, but it only appears in our lives through our own neglect, our own inattention to what we should be doing in life. Evil cannot walk up to us, stare us in our faces, and gain our cooperation. But it can sneak up behind us and catch us unaware, and enlist us in its work, when we are inattentive. >The goal is not the brotherhood of humanity, but the more humble >nucleus of a brotherhood of humanity. This modest goal is perhaps >all we can achieve at this point in the evolution of humanity. Each of us, though, is a nucleus of one. When our barriers drop and we accept others, we are a living center of brotherhood. We don't need a theosophical group to do this work. >How many have been called to the path by suffering more than by >complacency, boredom or simple curiosity? Until the Buddha stepped >out of the palace and Christ out of the carpenter's shop spirituality was >superfluous to the enjoyment and struggles of life. Suffering was the >initiation fee, so to speak. Unexpected pain in life (which you call suffering), like physical illness, is the last and most primal attempt of life to get one's attention. If we were more inattentive, we could resolve the inner conflicts and deal with the issues in a more effective manner, before things get to that stage. But pain is also an inseparable part of life, and itself is not suffering, but rather the "bitter" in the "bitter-sweet" flavor of life. Just as there is a "music of the spheres", a sound-quality to life, there is likely a "flavor of experience", a taste-quality to life as well. And we can savor the taste, rather than spit it out of our mouths and say "I don't like life." -- Eldon From alexei@slip.net Fri May 3 05:44:15 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 22:44:15 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960503054415.006ac364@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Lost? At 02:15 PM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960501175832.006c471c@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>>Ah true, too true, but "John's Friend" is only about half of me..what shall >>be done with the rest? >> >>alexis > >It will be loved along with the rest of you. Well, by most of us, I >hope! > >Alan :-) >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > Mille Grazie mi egregio signore! Thank you Alan, after all I'm no different than your average Martian. By the way, it's really a shame about Routledge & Kegan Paul, they were one of the better publishers of books on spiritual themes. Jerry-H.E. procured my a copy of Tillett's book and I sent my Xeroxed excepts on to Chuck Cosimano on the ground that he'd make good use of them. You remember I once suggested Amino Acids for Arthritis, well it was suggested by John's "Spirit Doctor" Angus Mac Pherson and for some or another reason it seems to work. You I'm sure, know what they are, and that they are vital to proper utilization of various nutrients etc. But why they help with Arthritis I have no idea at all...except that they do. When I take them I never even get the little "twinges" that are all that's left from the very bad arthritis I did have before spirit took a hand. I take 2,000 mg pills three times a day. I recently made an experiment and stopped taking them for a while and it was instantly "twinge - twinge - twinge", I't can't hurt in any case, as amino acids are entirely natural bodily products. It's not like taking some chemical. I haven't sent the 40.00 I promised because of "new house expenses" some of them being surprises. We are still waiting for the approval of the Veteran's Administration who will underwrite our loan. When that's done,(and you know bureaucrats) all the pins are in a row, and we'll begin to finalize plans for our move. fondly, alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Fri May 3 06:02:44 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 23:02:44 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960503060244.006b3b18@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom of Opinion: Thoughts on What JHE and Alexis have been posting At 01:44 PM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >Jerry HE writes to Alexis, > > >Daniel comments: > >So Alexis has jumped in the pool! Good for you. > >I agree with all three propositions listed by Jerry HE. And I believe that >everyone on theos-l should have the freedom to state their opinion of Theos-l. > Having said that, and let me say to you that I agree with the sense of most of what you said in your continuing message but I cannot admit to some of the detailing. Far be it from me to deny anyone their belief in CWL (remember HPB is NOT the issue here, no one admires her more than J.H-E and myself), but the issue is that, IMO Liesel has absolutely forbidden the discussion of CWL in any context. Now I agree with eldon, that if I was simply discussing History, then Theos-Roots is the proper venue. But I am not discussing past history, CWL's personal life is past history and that really doesn't bother me (He's really no worse than Bertie Russell was) what I am trying to discuss, in a reasonable fashion, it what I perceive to be the pernicious effects of CWL's work and teaching on the theosophical movement today. And that, I believe is entirely relevant for this list. Now as to RichTay's age, I think that JRC, Jerry Schueler, Alan, and I know I, were actually using his age to perhaps account for his terrible manners. It's not WHAT Rich says that we object to. it's HOW he says it. There are at least five people on this board who strongly perceive Rich's attitude as entirely disrespectful of the intelligence and knowledge of those with whom he disagrees. THAT is why we are all trying to give him the benefit of immaturity to explain his really unacceptable attitude. I realize that my own expectations "date me" but the man is NOT a gentleman, if he thinks he is, he should try to prove it by acting like one. I think Rich's approach to the entire subject is highly limiting, but that's his right, it is not his right to limit others. It is his bad manners that are indefensible. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Fri May 3 06:09:54 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 23:09:54 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960503060954.006bcd08@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: No Magician At 02:40 PM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960502063100.006870cc@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>you are the only active >>magician left... > >I tried the "magician" approach in 1957. Burnt fingers (and knees) and >have taken an alternative Path ever since. So, I am not any kind of >magician. Because my main interest is Kabala-based, people do tend to >assume this, though. My approach is closer to the Chassidic than the >magical, and for those who know what I mean, mine is not Merkava-based >either (tho' some of my best friends ... etc.) > >Alan :-) >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Shall I submit "un self-consciously magical" then? alexis d. From Richtay@aol.com Fri May 3 06:09:09 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:09:09 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960503020909_105662844@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Now it gets interesting In response to Bee's post on science, Alexis writes, > This is the kind of information, coupled with what I've read of the work of > Werner Heisenburg and those following his lead, along with the writings of > Stephen Hawking, that has led me to the view I hold on the "science'in the > Secret Doctrine. It is information like this that I am going to be using in > the "Concordance" I'm going to write when I get through the book I'm > currently working on. > > What information like this says to me that in our universe, the only > certainty is uncertainty, and therefore any rigidly paradigmetric system is > probably wrong. The Secret Doctrine, it seems to me, is as rigid a cosmic > paradigm as that of the absolute materialists or the fundamentalist > Christians and is therefore very questionable. Aha ! There is another view which in my opinion is very tenable. What the Heisenberg principle shows, and what Bee's post re-affirms, is that the universe is NOT materialistically determined. HPB said the same thing. MIND is what has a huge impact on matter and the course of evolution. One can look at these experiments in quantum physics and be very impressed by the fact that HPB knew and discussed this decades before the actual proof came to us WEsterners. Namely, that it is by taking note of an event -- observing it -- that it becomes fully formed. Thus MIND is the definitive factor in the manifestation of reality. In my opinion, this is exactly what the SECRET DOCTRINE teaches, and all the more reason to see value in that work. From alexei@slip.net Fri May 3 06:22:37 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 23:22:37 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960503062237.0069fb6c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Brotherhood and TS Membership At 05:10 PM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >Alexis, > > The alleged "rule change" I had in mind was not HPB's but >the rule stated Doss' anonymous critic, that the TS requires the >acceptance of *all* three objects as a condition for membership. >This may be true today. Only the gods know of all of the changes >in policies and rules since the founding of the TS. But as a >historian who has read through a great deal of the early >statements of the objects, rules, goals etc. my impression was >much the same as Doss': that the first object was of primary >importance, and acceptance of all three objects was never >required by the founders--at least during HPB's lifetime. It was >also my understanding that the acceptance and practice of the >second or third object would lead one toward sympathy with the >first object anyway. But Doss' anonymous critic made it clear >that Doss' and my understanding is not at all like the current >application of the three objects in Wheaton (and presumably in >Adyar too). Therefore, I cited an article that expressed HPB's >understanding of the rules in 1889. My assumption is that HPB's >understanding of the rules is correct. But I don't think my >assumption is out of line. My experience has been that HPB was >pretty careful about correctly representing Olcott's rules, >whether she agreed with them or not. Of course It would have >been better for me to dig though the early rules to see what they >have to say on the subject. I do have them, but don't have the >time to investigate the issue in depth. That is why I suggested >that someone else might look into it. > The article itself has nothing particularly to do with the >third object nor does it mention the Hodgson report. It was >concerned with Bradlaugh's misconceptions concerning theosophy >and the TS, and she was trying to correct them. HPB was >responding to an article Bradlaugh had published where he made a >lot of errors in his description of the TS and in his definition >of "Theosophy" (as the word is used by HPB). Among other things, >Bradlaugh had concluded that since the dictionary definition of >"theosophy" is "the wisdom of God" atheists would not be eligible >to join the TS. The issue of the three object entered the >article when HPB raised the question as to whether Bradlaugh >himself would be eligible to join. She raised doubts concerning >his eligibility. It's an interesting article. > > >JHE > >------------------------------------------ > |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | > |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | > |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | > |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | > ------------------------------------------ > > >Jerry: I think your assumptions regarding HPB are quite correct, and I'm glad to learn the real cause behind her quote. I also agree with your analysis, each of the objects leads inexorably to the others, and the second and third objects can have no other result than the culmination of the hopes expressed in the first object. It's really a shame that so many people choose to interpret Theo - sophia as "wisdom of God" and not as "Divine Wisdom" as the two things are very much different. alexis d. From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Sat May 4 00:07:54 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 17:07:54 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <318A9FD9.751C@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Is it real? Better measure.... References: <2.2.32.19960502182643.0069c9c8@mail.slip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit alexis dolgorukii wrote: > > At 05:10 AM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Here is a little snippet from another list that caught my eye. Rather > >interesting, what. > > > >Bee: > > This is a good article and Sally though "Physics Challanged" (as I am) did a > good job of quoting it exactly. > > This is the kind of information, coupled with what I've read of the work of > Werner Heisenburg and those following his lead, along with the writings of > Stephen Hawking, that has led me to the view I hold on the "science'in the > Secret Doctrine. It is information like this that I am going to be using in > the "Concordance" I'm going to write when I get through the book I'm > currently working on. > > What information like this says to me that in our universe, the only > certainty is uncertainty, and therefore any rigidly paradigmetric system is > probably wrong. The Secret Doctrine, it seems to me, is as rigid a cosmic > paradigm as that of the absolute materialists or the fundamentalist > Christians and is therefore very questionable. In a cosmos whose only > certainty is uncertainty the complicated hierarchy based details of the > Secret Doctrine just don't make much sense. Personally I find the SD and more so GdeP, who I understand better, to be the catalyst for my intuition. I read the words they use only so as to intuit what meanings lie behind them. This means that my understanding is always changing because as this happens, my intuition picks up more of what the hidden ideas might be saying. I believe that there is so much more the the universe than we can hope to understand at the moment so the path should be an ever growing one and we all use our individual methods to travel this path. Mine at the moment is the source literature and the gleaning of inner meaning that HPB was pointing to. I think the SD is only a pointer to the greater reality and words are poor substitute for the experience of that inner reality which you no doubt are well aware off. So you get your experience in a different way to the way I go about it. I find it very difficult to voice what I intuitively understand from reading these books but it has its effect in the way I see life and the way I relate to it. > > I have a friend who designed the Viking Lander, when I have time, I'm going > to look him up and engage him to be a technical advisor for the > "Concordance".What I'd really like to do is create a small committee of > highly accredited scientific types to serve as an advisory committee for the > book. (No Theologians need apply.) When I'm done, I want it to be a group > effort, and I want it to ettle the question as much as anything can ever be > settled in a world wherein uncertainty rules. I am not sure that uncertainty does not stem from our own lack of knowledge of the forces at work in the Universe. There may be more certainty than we realise except for the continual growth factor in all things but all things may grow in certain directions mainly, when viewed in a long term sense. I really don't know so I will have to leave that in the too hard tray. > > alexis d. -- Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From alexei@slip.net Fri May 3 06:49:41 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 23:49:41 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960503064941.006b4014@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Membership in the Gang of Four At 11:20 PM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Now you know very well that being president of the TSA is a much more >important job than being a senator. The masters told him. Oh, I didn't know that Mea culpea, mea culpea, mea culpea, mea maxima culpea! >Every convention begins with greetings from the assembled multitudes and I >have no doubt I will be allowed to deliver mine, unless John wants to have to explain the oversight. Besides, he may consider it funny. If he's like some toher people I've met in my years in Theosophy it's quite probable he has no sense of humor at all. >As I never read anything the old biddie writes I cannot comment on it other >than to say she never writes anything worth reading anyway. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA MG of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker >"Scorpio" > The comment in question was included in one of Eldon's messages tome and so my filter didn't catch it. But you can comment on it now that I've informed you of the slander. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Fri May 3 06:58:39 1996 Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 23:58:39 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960503065839.0069cee4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Not an ES conspiracy At 12:01 AM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960502195709.006a5240@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>>Thank you Alan that is very interesting. Perhaps you can clear something up >>for me, Hadn't both Leadbeater and Wedgewood been "defrocked" by the >>Anglican Church for their sexual peccadillos? > >I have no evidence to support this claim, though it is an old one. It >is possible that Wedgwood *resigned* but so far as I know CWL left of >his own accord. As to Wedgewood, was he part of the famous "china" family? Wasn't it relatively customary in those days to permit someone to resign rather than face charges? As to CWL, did he not "leave of his own accord" right after a scandal (of the usual sort) with a youth group he led? > >> As "defrocked Priests' >>wouldn't their consecration as Bishops have been irregular to say the least? > >Note the title of my book! The view of the Church of England was and is >that their later consecration was invalid and irregular. The view of >the Church of Rome was that they were valid but irregular. But the view >of Rome is that the orders of the Church of England (at all levels) are >totally invalid. On this argument, CWL's (and mine) holy orders are >more valid than those of the Achbishop of Canterbury! :-) Alan: Why do you think I chose those exact words? I think I understand the Roman viewpoint, they are terrified of invalidating any Apolstolic Succession, though how they can do so with the various English Archbishops is beyond by comprehension. If anyone's apostolic succession is valid the Arch Bishop of Canterbury's is. (Now I question the validity of the entire concept, but my questioning includes the Pope). > >>Obviously Wedgewood found another source of authority, what was it? I don't >>know about either of them "dying insane" but shrewd or not, it could >>reasonably be argued, based upon their lives and works, that both of them >>"Lived insane", could it not? After all "living in a dream world of his own" >>is practically the dictionary definition of psychosis. Why do you suppose >>the silly man lied about his date of birth? > >Their source of authority derived from the Dutch Old Catholic Church >which had broken ties with Rome, which had failed to destroy them (the >Dutch Old Catholics). The differences were doctrinal. Later they broke >with the Old Catholics to form the [theosophical] Liberal Catholic >Church, in which (today, but not then) reincarnation is an article of >faith. >> >>It's a shame Routledge & Kegan Paul has changed ownership and policies, they >>were one of the better sources of alternative philosophical works. >> >>By the way, have you encountered Liesel's accusations that Chuck and myself >>are "E.S. agents provocateur" sent in to "destroy Theos-List"? >>Your thoughts please. > >I think Liesel perceives you both as making a lot of disruptive noise, >and looks for a familiar explanation. She does not accuse, she >speculates. Personally, I doubt that there is any ES conspiracy of any >kind to disrupt theos-l, which has less than 100 subscribers out of tens >of thousands of potentially pliable theosophists! The worldwide TS may >be small, but theos-l is miniscule by comparison, though its capacity to >broadcast *information* is huge. > >I would personally like to see *more* information being broadcast, and a >great deal less combativeness. >> >>fondly >> >>alexis d. >> >ditto > >alan b. >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > Oh alan, if you think I enjoy the combat, you are mistaken, I don't. But I also don't like having certain topics made Tabu. Like the one we discussed herein. fondly alexis d.> From alexei@slip.net Fri May 3 07:09:57 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 00:09:57 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960503070957.006bc630@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Wilber and Hero Worship At 12:15 AM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >While surfing the www, I came across Ken Wilber's endorsement of his >teacher/guru Adi Dama (or something) who I think was once called Bubba Free >John (???). He give an endorsement of this guy as a guru worthy of bakti-yoga. >As far as I could see, the way to enlightenment is the sacrifice of the ego and >the linking to Unified Primal Mind by adoration of this man. I hope I am not >getting this right. > >Does anyone know about this guru? I have changed a lot of my ideas recently and >fear I could become open to some of this cult stuff. I really admire Wilber's >writings (some don't on theos-l, I know), but I am concerned that Wilber thinks >that World Service, World Soul and World Enlightenment can come through this >recent human incarnation of God(?). And that we will enter the stream of >evolution and progress quicker to the state of Godhood (located somewhere near >Montana one can only asssume) if we link up with Adi Bubba and all those that >love and adore this guy --that our only hope is Bubba Consciousness?! He looks >like a fat Anglo fruitcake too me, but maybe Buddha looked like a fat Eastern >ninny on the physical plane, but appeared as Beauty itself to the open eye of >buddhi to those that can see the human aura at its highest levels. It could be >true. > >Please tell me I have got this all wrong. > >Namaste >Keith Price > > >Kieth: There is absolutely nothing positive I can tell you about Bubba Free John (aka Adi Dama). He is a phenomenon of the early Seventies in San Francisco-Berkeley. For many years I was associated with "The Meeting of The Ways" an association of groups in the Guru Tradition, and I know for sure that the Bubba Free Johnites weren't welcome in it. There's a lot of real junk books he wrote all telling in great detail how incredibly wonderful he is. Now I do want to say this, Franklin (that's his real name) is fat, he's anglo, and he is a gay man, but the word "Fruitcake" is no more acceptable than the word "Nigger! If you're going to sign your messages with "Namaste" you'd best mean it for everybody. I'm not the only Gay person on this list and I take very strong exception to words like "fag" and "fruitcake"! I think you'd best apologize if it was a thoughtless misstatement. But if it wasn't and you ARE a homophobe then forget about being a Buddhist because being an anything phobe is hardly what Buddha taught! alexis d. From poulsen@dk-online.dk Fri May 3 11:46:57 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 09:46:57 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Subject: Re: Jerry's Library Message-Id: <01BB38D5.9573BBC0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Encoding: 20 TEXT Alexis: >When Alexandria West is complete it will be a really world class research >facility for those interested in Theosophical History! >I also visited the site of the future Alexandria West project and it is just >a piece of "heaven on earth", it's one of the most beautiful places I've >ever been and I've been lot's of places! I certainly hope I can visit it some day when it is completed. California seems to be full of theosophists and AW could become a very important place (as I suspect Jerry had in mind when naming it). The eastern original, of course, was known both for the finest library and for attracting the best minds in the western world. California seems also to be the home of the various factional disputes. Jerry joined all factions and conceived of a place likely to attract them all. I take my (imaginary) hat off! In friendship, Kim From jmeier@microfone.net Fri May 3 10:06:14 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 10:06:14 -0400 From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Message-Id: <199605031406.AA28084@vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To Alexis re: Wilber and Hero Worship Hi Alexis -- Earlier today, Alexis wrote to Keith Price in response to Keith's posting on another subject. He added, (snip) >If you're going to sign your messages with "Namaste" >you'd best mean it for everybody...(snip) ...and I take very strong exception to words like "fag" and "fruitcake"! I >think you'd best apologize if it was a thoughtless misstatement. But if it >wasn't and you ARE a homophobe then forget about being a Buddhist because >being an anything phobe is hardly what Buddha taught! > >alexis d. wow -- I think Keith just inadvertently found one of Alexis' "buttons." Re-read Keith's post; it doesn't contain the word "fag", and "fruitcake" doesn't mean the same thing -- at least, it doesn't in Texas. I wouldn't presume to speak for things in California, but I have been privileged to live in various parts of Texas for 40 years (including Houston, Keith's home) and I can't remember ever hearing anyone use "fruitcake" in the sense that Alexis thought Keith was. There are several words that seem to mean different things to different people in Theosophy (Brotherhood, psychism, and so on) and and using them can cause occasional flare ups and arguments, but I don't think this should be one of them. I'm pretty sure Keith used the word the same way I would: a fruitcake is something full of nuts... and little colored, unidentifiable things... that comes around every so often, un-asked for, and no one is really sure what to do with it when it arrives... :) Jim From Coherence@aol.com Fri May 3 14:43:54 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 10:43:54 -0400 From: Coherence@aol.com Message-Id: <960503104353_105818786@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Doctrine In a message dated 96-04-28 14:53:57 EDT, you write: >2. Do you realize that you, and I, Chuck, Alan, and Jerry Schueler, and some >others I'm not ready to name, are actually the only "traditional" >theosophists who regularly express themselves on this list? The others can >only be described as Pharisees. I cannot begin to cite how many times and >places in the earliest theosophical literature the words (or some variation >thereupon): "THEOSOPHY HAS NO DOGMA, NO DOCTRINE" appear. And now Eldon et >al are saying it does. Who then is the revisionist? I think there needs to be some clarification here. In many places, HPB and others state that Theosophy has no Dogma. However, I have not read ANYWHERE where the statement is made that there is no Doctrine. In fact, a quick perusal of the Index to the SD lists many references to Doctrine, and many times does HPB refer to the Theosophical Doctrines. Is it too obvious to point to the title: THE SECRET DOCTRINE? The following is from "Yours till Death and After, HPB", an article by WQJ in which he quotes HPB in the following: . . . . . . "We are not working merely that people may call themselves 'Theosophists', but that the DOCTRINES WE CHERISH may effect and leaven the whole mind of this century. This alone can be acccomplished by a small earnest band of workers, who work for no human reward, no earthly recognition, but who, supported and sustained by a belief in that Universal Brotherhood of which our Masters are a part, work steadily, faithfully, in understanding and putting forth for consideration the DOCTRINES OF LIFE AND DUTY THAT HAVE COME DOWN TO US FROM IMMEMORIAL TIME . . . . . " (caps mine) It seems naive to think that HPB was not giving out a body of doctrines. Now, how each of us understands those and works with them is another matter. But I would maintain that there is a "theosophical doctrine". I just returned from a great break of sun, sand and surf, and am sorting through alot of mail. What I am finding is fairly disgusting. It seems the list has gone "over the top" as the Brits and NZs are fond of saying. I see a lot of gross name calling, endless barbs, jabs and rejections (all in the name of "discussion") and too many instances of the accuser being the guiltiest of offenses. The worst was the use of "repugnent" to describe individuals, groups and their ideas. This coming from a "theosophist" and refering to other theosophists. A nucleus of Brotherhood does not exist here. Such public pronouncements, let alone the attitudes, should have no place on this list. Even in the above post exists the epitome of the us vs. them, separatist, anti-brotherhood attitude. And just what are you accomplishing by refering to OTHERS as Pharisees? I see the pot speaking to the kettle. I think I may have to leave, for even though words are supposed to be harmless, there is no need to live with the risk that at some point my ideas would be refered to as "repugnent" or, worse, merely dismissed as unworthy. There is an escape hatch in this lion's den. Greg H From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri May 3 14:13:27 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 10:13:27 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605031518.LAA20906@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: CWL & courtesy Dear Eldon, Thanks for your understanding. I really appreciate it & you're exactly right. There's another little wrinkle to it ... I think the people who think well of CWL myself included, deserve some consideration from the others on this mailing list as well. From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri May 3 14:13:31 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 10:13:31 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605031518.LAA20909@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: to each his own Path Rich writes >Maybe that makes me wishy-washy. But I've decided tonight it's more >important to support people wherever they are than to point out how far >they've gone in my opinion from the source. After we are all dead, what is >really going to matter? Which version of the planes of existence one held >to? Rich, I couldn't agree with you more. And it seems to me that allowing the other person to follow their own vibes & inclinations isn't at all wishy washy. To the contrary, I think it takes a bigger person to allow the next guy the freedom of his thoughts & beliefs (provided they don't hurt anyone), than it is to always insist that you're the only one who's right. You can't convince anyway, at least not often. Let me just add 2 quotes from my present favorite book "Violence & Compassion" It's a dialogue between HH The Dalia Lama, & a French screen writer Jean-Claude Carriere. It's a very clear statement of Buddhism. It also applies Buddhism to present day occurrences. HH "Our Scriptures affirm that the moon is 100 miles above the earth, and that the center of the earth is Mount Meru. If that mountain exists, we should have found it a long time ago, or at least we should have discovered some signs of its existence. Since that isn't the case, we have to distance ourselves from the literal sense of the Scriptures." JCC "And if someone refuses to do this?" HH "That's their business. It's useless to waste our time arguing with them." .................. HH "I have had many visitors ... feel very close to the force of compassion that we find at the most constant level of our inconstant nature and that the bodhisattva in some way personifies ... But this interest that people have doesn't give us any right to judge others by our particularism. We don't own the universal truth, we can offer only the results of a very long reflection, which is ours" JCC "So the notion of the bodhisattve would be relative too?" HH " Of course. We have no right to apply it in general, to make it into a universal dogma...." Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri May 3 14:23:23 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 10:23:23 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605031528.LAA26335@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Brotherhood & TS Membership Dear Doss & to whom it may concern. When I joined the TS in the 1970ies, I was told that all that was required was to believe in the"Brotherhood" of man. (which included women). Looks like the rules have been changed since then. Liesel >Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:33:49 -0500 (CDT) >From: ramadoss@eden.com >Subject: Brotherhood and TS Membership >Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960501073614.27cf62bc@mail.eden.com> From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri May 3 16:00:28 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 17:00:28 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: CWL etc. In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960503065839.0069cee4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960503065839.0069cee4@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes > >>I have no evidence to support this claim, though it is an old one. It >>is possible that Wedgwood *resigned* but so far as I know CWL left of >>his own accord. > >As to Wedgewood, was he part of the famous "china" family? No idea! > Wasn't it >relatively customary in those days to permit someone to resign rather than >face charges? As to CWL, did he not "leave of his own accord" right after a >scandal (of the usual sort) with a youth group he led? Yes, and people still occasionally resign in this way. As I said, I have no evidence concerning the resignation of CWL. Maybe someone else has. >> >>> As "defrocked Priests' >>>wouldn't their consecration as Bishops have been irregular to say the least? They were not "defrocked". >> >>Note the title of my book! The view of the Church of England was and is >>that their later consecration was invalid and irregular. The view of >>the Church of Rome was that they were valid but irregular. But the view >>of Rome is that the orders of the Church of England (at all levels) are >>totally invalid. On this argument, CWL's (and mine) holy orders are >>more valid than those of the Achbishop of Canterbury! :-) > >Alan: Why do you think I chose those exact words? I think I understand the >Roman viewpoint, they are terrified of invalidating any Apolstolic >Succession, though how they can do so with the various English Archbishops >is beyond by comprehension. If anyone's apostolic succession is valid the >Arch Bishop of Canterbury's is. Deficient on grounds of form and intent [Doctrinal viewpoint]. The C of E changed the nature of the ordination and consecration rites so that they no longer purported to bestow the Holy Spirit upon the ordinand/consecrand, substituting a prayer that God might see fit to send the same. In terms of catholic theology they thus changed a divinely ordered process into a humanly ordered and therefore secular convenience. The view of the Eastern Orthodox Churches is different again. The whole theory of apostolic succession is dicussed by Brandreth in his SPCK "Episcopi Vagantes" and the chapter on this was reproduced verbatim in my own book courtesy of S.P.C.K. themselves. > (Now I question the validity of the entire >concept, but my questioning includes the Pope). Question away. It rests upon the concept underlying the Aramaic/Hebrew word *shaliach* - plenpotentiary, sort of like power of attorney. :-) >> >>I would personally like to see *more* information being broadcast, and a >>great deal less combativeness. >>> >>alan b. >> >Oh alan, if you think I enjoy the combat, you are mistaken, I don't. But I >also don't like having certain topics made Tabu. Like the one we discussed >herein. > >fondly > >alexis d.> > I was not being personal, just entering a plea in general while I was on the subject! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri May 3 13:13:03 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 14:13:03 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <4xcwjDAfZgixEwII@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Wilber and Hero Worship In-Reply-To: <960503040902_74024.3352_BHT58-2@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960503040902_74024.3352_BHT58-2@CompuServe.COM>, Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> writes >Please tell me I have got this all wrong. > >Namaste >Keith Price You have got this all wrong. There! Who's a happy fruitcake, then? :-) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri May 3 16:06:45 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 17:06:45 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Hero Worship In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960503070957.006bc630@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960503070957.006bc630@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >I'm not the only Gay person on this list >and I take very strong exception to words like "fag" and "fruitcake"! In UK English (just FYI) "fag" is a cigarette, and "fruitcake" is someone who is slightly crazy. And a rubber is something you erase pencil marks with. The English visiting the US have had some really unhappy experiences with this one! Alan to friend: "I keep making mistakes writing to Alexis in pencil!" Friend: "I'll get you a rubber." Burble burble burble ... Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri May 3 15:40:20 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 16:40:20 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <7zhePEAkjiixEwpS@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: No Magician In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960503060954.006bcd08@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960503060954.006bcd08@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >>Shall I submit "un self-consciously magical" then? > >alexis d. If you derive some pleasure from doing so, though I have no idea what you are talking about! Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From blafoun@azstarnet.com Fri May 3 17:59:40 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 10:59:40 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199605031759.KAA09530@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Doctrine-----Who are the true Revisionists? Coherence quotes the following: >>2. Do you realize that you, and I, Chuck, Alan, and Jerry Schueler, and some >>others I'm not ready to name, are actually the only "traditional" >>theosophists who regularly express themselves on this list? The others can >>only be described as Pharisees. I cannot begin to cite how many times and >>places in the earliest theosophical literature the words (or some variation >>thereupon): "THEOSOPHY HAS NO DOGMA, NO DOCTRINE" appear. And now Eldon et >>al are saying it does. Who then is the revisionist? > I must say that I agree with Coherence's remarks on the above quote. "Who then is the revisionist?" Good question. But concerning the word "doctrine," Master K.H. writes in the Mahatma Letters (3rd edition): "...learn what you can under the circumstances---*viz*.---the *philosophy* of the phenomena and our doctrines on Cosmogony, inner man, etc." p. 370 "...the septenary doctrine [concerning the 7 principles of a human being] had not yet been divulged to the world at the time when *Isis was written....' p. 180 ..it is one of the elementary and fundamental doctrines of Occultism that the two [spirit and matter) are one...." p. 138 Then HPB writes (ML, p. 457): ..Mahatma K.H. told you a hundred times that you could not be told the *whole* doctrine...." And K.H. says elsewhere in the same M.L.s: "...Theosophy is no new candidate for the world's attention, but only the restatement of principles [doctrines?] which have been recognised from the very infancy of mankind...." pp. 34-35 In *The Key to Theosophy*, HPB writes that: "Theosophy, in its abstract meaning, is Divine Wisdom, or the aggregate of the knowledge and wisdom that underlie the Universe.....) p. 56 And then on p. 60, HPB says: "What is meant by the [Theosophical] Society having no tenets or doctrines of its own is, that no special doctrines or beliefs are *obligatory* on its members; but, of course, this applies only to the body as a whole. The Society, as you were told, is divided into an outer and inner body. Those who belong to the latter have, of course, a philosophy, or---if you prefer it---a religious system of their own." And further down that same page, HPB again describes that philosophy or religious system as follows: "It is based on the oldest philosophy in the world, called the Widom-Religion, or the Archaic Doctrine." Also in the *Key*, HPB writes about: "the genuine doctrines of the "Wisdom-Religion [Theosophy?]..." Doctrine????!!!! Religious???!!!! I don't believe it is too much of a stretch of the imagination to say that HPB and her teachers stated that Theosophy, at least in one sense of the word, consists of a body of doctrines or teachings. Now, it is also true that this body of doctrines or principles are not obligatory on the members of any of the various Theosophical societies and groups. This latter statement does not nullify the former statement. And to A.O. Hume, Master K.H. wrote: "You and your colleagues may help furnish the materials for a needed universal religious philosophy; one impregnable to scientific assult because itself the finality of abosolute science; and, a religion, that is indeed worthy of the name, since it includes the relations of man physical to man psychical, and of the two to all that is above and below them." I would say that Theosophy can be defined as that "universal religious philosophy." Those who are interested in the original materials written by HPB and the Masters, should consult for example, *The Key to Theosophy* and *The Mahatma Letters*. Also consult the index (Volume 15) to HPB's *Collected Writings*. Should HPB and KH also be included among the "revisionists"? Food for thought. Daniel From blafoun@azstarnet.com Fri May 3 18:17:40 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 11:17:40 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199605031817.LAA00181@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: What is the definition of "fruitcake"? Aleixis writes: >>I'm not the only Gay person on this list >>and I take very strong exception to words like "fag" and "fruitcake"! > I believe it was Keith who used this term and we should ask him what he meant by the term? But in one of my dictionaries [THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, Third edition, "fruitcake" is defined as a cake or a second definition is: "2. Slang. A crazy or an eccentric person." Alexis, maybe you are confusing "fruitcake" with the term "fruit" which is defined in the same dictionary as: "7. Offensive Slang. Used as a disparaging term for a gay or homosexual man." Fruitcakes usually have nuts in them and MERRIAM WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, Tenth edition, gives one definition of fruitcake as "nut", ie., "a foolish, eccentric, or crazy person." DHC From alexei@slip.net Fri May 3 18:57:31 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 11:57:31 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960503185731.00697eb0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Is it real? Better measure.... At 02:21 AM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>cut<<<<<<<< >Personally I find the SD and more so GdeP, who I understand better, to be the >catalyst for my intuition. I read the words they use only so as to intuit >what meanings lie behind them. This means that my understanding is always >changing because as this happens, my intuition picks up more of what the >hidden ideas might be saying. I believe that there is so much more the the >universe than we can hope to understand at the moment so the path should be >an ever growing one and we all use our individual methods to travel this >path. Mine at the moment is the source literature and the gleaning of inner >meaning that HPB was pointing to. I think the SD is only a pointer to the >greater reality and words are poor substitute for the experience of that >inner reality which you no doubt are well aware off. So you get your >experience in a different way to the way I go about it. I find it very >difficult to voice what I intuitively understand from reading these books but >it has its effect in the way I see life and the way I relate to it. 'A POINTER TO THE GREATER REALITY".....now that is a wonderful sentence, I wish I had thought of it, because it describes exactly what I feel the Secret Doctrine to be. I have always felt that the "details" given in the S.D. were not nearly as important as were the books primary function and that is and was as a "clue" or "hint" to the intuition to help it deal with the totally abstract nature of the greater reality. Where science, especially the most modern Quantam Theory type of science has helped is in the arena of demolishing all totally materialistic models of reality which was something H.P.B. attempted but could not succeed in doing because she lacked the "cachet" of tokay's multi-degreed scientists who are saying essentially the same thing. Stephen Hawking has said that whether they like it or not the latest work, which is a cooperative effort between humans and Cray supercomputers is giving them a model of the Universe that is too close to the Rg.Veda for comfort. "We get awfully near the "G" word", he says. >> > >I am not sure that uncertainty does not stem from our own lack of knowledge >of the forces at work in the Universe. There may be more certainty than we >realise except for the continual growth factor in all things but all things >may grow in certain directions mainly, when viewed in a long term sense. I >really don't know so I will have to leave that in the too hard tray. But of course the "uncertainty" stems from lack of knowledge, after all "uncertain" is a synonym for "don't really know". The thing that's good about it is that it represents a new thing for scientists, they can openly admit to not knowing something, and that is a "great leap forward". The primary thing I have always objected to about religion (and about those who treat theosophy in a religious fashion) is that they are too certain by far. They claim knowledge when only hypothesis exists. Religionists keep saying they "know" and I keep saying "No, you don't know, you'd only like to believe". As you know it gets me into a lot of trouble. But science has come to a very important place, they know feel they "know" that the only reality of all things is energy and they also have experienced through experimentation that the "energy" is not nearly as simple a thing as they once thought, and that it exhibits many really strange propensities. That is, indeed, a giant leap, in the direction to which metaphysical philosophers (like H.P.B.) have been "pointing" FOR MILLENNIA. >> >> alexis d. > >-- > > > > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L > > > From alexei@slip.net Fri May 3 19:06:09 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 12:06:09 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960503190609.00693fa0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Jerry's Library At 03:59 AM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis: >>When Alexandria West is complete it will be a really world class research >>facility for those interested in Theosophical History! >>I also visited the site of the future Alexandria West project and it is >just >>a piece of "heaven on earth", it's one of the most beautiful places I've >>ever been and I've been lot's of places! > > I certainly hope I can visit it some day when it is completed. >California seems to be full of theosophists and AW could become a very >important place (as I suspect Jerry had in mind when naming it). The >eastern original, of course, was known both for the finest library and for >attracting the best minds in the western world. > California seems also to be the home of the various factional disputes. >Jerry joined all factions and conceived of a place likely to attract them >all. I take my (imaginary) hat off! > > In friendship, > >Kim > > Well Kim, California is "full" some twenty million people, but as you know theosophist make hardly a drop in the bucket. None the less, there are many theosophists in California and many, many, other sincere metaphysical and occult folks as well. Alexandria West could be a lodestone for them all and do the Human Race a great deal of real service in the process. I certainly hope you'll be able to visit and I hope that Jerry's project comes soon to fruition. I certainly will add any assistance I can give. It's an ambitious project and it will take some Millions of Dollars to come about. It's a fantastic site, and his plans are wonderful, but that old devil "money" is always a necessity. I hope you will see it completed, and I hope I do too, but I assure you, in the present state of "potential only" it is a really marvelous experience. My only reservation is that it's a four and one half hour drive from my new home. in friendship alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Fri May 3 19:59:31 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 12:59:31 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960503195931.0069b7d0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Alexis re: Wilber and Hero Worship At 10:09 AM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >Hi Alexis -- >>>>cut<<<<<<< > >wow -- >I think Keith just inadvertently found one of Alexis' "buttons." Re-read >Keith's post; it doesn't contain the word "fag", and "fruitcake" doesn't >mean the same thing -- at least, it doesn't in Texas. I wouldn't presume to >speak for things in California, but I have been privileged to live in >various parts of Texas for 40 years (including Houston, Keith's home) and I >can't remember ever hearing anyone use "fruitcake" in the sense that Alexis >thought Keith was. Jim: He certainly has "touched one of my buttons"! I have been a Gay Activist since the middle 1950's. I got started way before it was "fashionable". Now, in the last many years of my life I have lived in New York City, Boston, Tampa Florida, Europe, and now California, and in everyplace that I have heretofore lived "fruitcake" is a slang expression for Gay. Not as nasty as some expressions but none the less offensive.The fact that Franklin Jones (aka "Da Free John, Bubba Free John etc.) IS a gay man made it all the more suspicious. Now I know Texas is idiosyncratic (I read Molly Ivins everyday) but I didn't know it was THAT idiosyncratic. If people in Texas use "fruitcake" as a synonym for "nutty" then perhaps Keith was an innocent man unjustly accused. But in any case, we live in a big country and now he knows that "fruitcake" is offensives to millions of his fellow Americans, so perhaps he won't use it again. It's very important for all Americans and all people everywhere to remember that we are out of the closet and we're not going back in. When we find something offensive we no longer cower in fear. >There are several words that seem to mean different things to different >people in Theosophy (Brotherhood, psychism, and so on) and and using them >can cause occasional flare ups and arguments, but I don't think this should >be one of them. I don't think this little contre temps has anything to do with Theosophy. It has to do with apparent homophobia and that has only one aspect that connects it to theosophy and that is that it certainly doesn't "jibe" with the First Object. > >I'm pretty sure Keith used the word the same way I would: a fruitcake is >something full of nuts... and little colored, unidentifiable things... that >comes around every so often, un-asked for, and no one is really sure what to >do with it when it arrives... > >:) >Jim > Jim: I hope you're right about Keith's "inadvertency" but I'd rather hear it from him. I do appreciate your efforts: "Blessed are the Peacemakers". I would far rather that you were correct in your assessment than that I am. I don't like to think that Theosophists can be bigots but I sadly have some past experience that they can. None the less, and old activist is like an old fire horse..ring the bell and out we charge! cordially alexis do. > > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri May 3 19:31:33 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 15:31:33 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605032036.QAA14272@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Dan, Re: spiritrualism Dear Dan, I printed out those whole 14pp, because I thought it would be an important historical document, & I wanted to read it carefully. It was really disappointing. What was your purpose in sending that much misinformation about the (to us) rather unimportant subject of mediums and "Phenomena"? skimming through, it said mesmerism is evil. I was aware that stuff like that was frowned upon in the past. It's being used today by therapists, (even though I would never allow anyone to mesmerize me) & people are quite curious as to how it works. The article says that spiritism was being welcomed by those who pioneered socialism. How is that supposed to jive? What do politics have to do with mediumship? That's like witches fly on a brooom. Nobody can prove it logically. It says people who use it are immoral. Well, I'd say the're amoral rathr than immoral. I think lots of mediums cheat, but they mostly think they're helping people, so it's not intentional. I find this whole article rather of the caliber of those who described witches & non-believers in the Middle Ages. Flapdoodle! They don't know very much what they're talking about. Just reminded me - the very important topic of live people communicating via ESP is completely left out. Probaby quite unknown to the writers of this article. I wish you'd explain to me why you took the trouble to put that on theos-l. Liesel From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri May 3 20:34:39 1996 Date: 03 May 96 16:34:39 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Theory vs Practice Message-Id: <960503203438_76400.1474_HHL29-3@CompuServe.COM> >I can only speak for myself, but I wonder if many get frustrated with this or >that approach because it doesn't address the core issue of the spritual >development of the individual in practical terms as opposed to theoretical and >historical issues. > >In other words, how do the notions of the cycles of manifestation, reincarnation >and karma help one develop all of the vehicles. How do we stop aruging the >ideas and live the life? Keith, you have touched a theosophical nerve here. There have been many many good theosophists over the years who have left for this very reason. TSs are strong on theory, and weak on practical application. Altruism and good deeds (karma yoga) only go so far. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri May 3 20:34:37 1996 Date: 03 May 96 16:34:37 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: The Ol Toad Spell Message-Id: <960503203436_76400.1474_HHL29-1@CompuServe.COM> >Alan, >Don't try to deny it. We had several witnesses on the astral plane when you >turned Rich T. into a toad. :-) Chuck, he limits his magic to only really necessary operations. But when he does one, look out! Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri May 3 20:34:38 1996 Date: 03 May 96 16:34:38 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Basic scholarship Message-Id: <960503203437_76400.1474_HHL29-2@CompuServe.COM> >Jerry, >You really should read the Lives of Alcyone. Not only are they great fun, >but I'm in there. Chuck, I probably am too! Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri May 3 20:34:43 1996 Date: 03 May 96 16:34:43 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Uncertainty Message-Id: <960503203443_76400.1474_HHL29-5@CompuServe.COM> >I am not sure that uncertainty does not stem from our own lack of knowledge >of the forces at work in the Universe. Physics has finally caught up to occultism. Physics has confirmed that our stable universe rests on an unstable background. This is exactly what has been taught in occult circles for centuries--cosmos (or Kosmos, as HPB has it) rises up from chaos, light from darkness. You cannot have one without the other. And no, it does not stem from our "lack of knowledge" but is a very real Ring-Pass-Not for us. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri May 3 20:34:41 1996 Date: 03 May 96 16:34:41 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Now it gets interesting Message-Id: <960503203441_76400.1474_HHL29-4@CompuServe.COM> >What the Heisenberg principle shows, and what Bee's post re-affirms, is that >the universe is NOT materialistically determined. HPB said the same thing. > >MIND is what has a huge impact on matter and the course of evolution. One >can look at these experiments in quantum physics and be very impressed by the >fact that HPB knew and discussed this decades before the actual proof came to >us WEsterners. > > Thus MIND is the definitive factor in the manifestation of reality. > >In my opinion, this is exactly what the SECRET DOCTRINE teaches, and all the >more reason to see value in that work. Rich, while I kind of agree with you, I am not so sure that HPB "discussed" quantum mechanics or quantum theory. I think that she says mind *can* effect matter, but I don't recall her ever saying that it *does* whether we like it or not. The idea that matter follows mind, and expresses it, is pure Christian Science, which HPB rejected. Could you give me some quotes to back up your thesis? Maybe we could start a new thread? This is an intriguing topic. Jerry S. From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri May 3 20:34:47 1996 Date: 03 May 96 16:34:47 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Bubba-Free John Message-Id: <960503203446_76400.1474_HHL29-6@CompuServe.COM> >While surfing the www, I came across Ken Wilber's endorsement of his >teacher/guru Adi Dama (or something) who I think was once called Bubba Free >John (???). He give an endorsement of this guy as a guru worthy of bakti-yoga. >As far as I could see, the way to enlightenment is the sacrifice of the ego and >the linking to Unified Primal Mind by adoration of this man. I hope I am not >getting this right. > >Does anyone know about this guru? I have read two books by Bubba-Free John, and I like him. Better than Wilber. However, bakti-yoga is simply not my style, and as Alexis says, he seems rather stuck on himself. I know nothing of his sexual activities. Jerry S. Member, TI From alexei@slip.net Fri May 3 20:45:34 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 13:45:34 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960503204534.006a07c4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Doctrine At 10:46 AM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 96-04-28 14:53:57 EDT, you write: > >>2. Do you realize that you, and I, Chuck, Alan, and Jerry Schueler, and some >>others I'm not ready to name, are actually the only "traditional" >>theosophists who regularly express themselves on this list? The others can >>only be described as Pharisees. I cannot begin to cite how many times and >>places in the earliest theosophical literature the words (or some variation >>thereupon): "THEOSOPHY HAS NO DOGMA, NO DOCTRINE" appear. And now Eldon et >>al are saying it does. Who then is the revisionist? > >I think there needs to be some clarification here. In many places, HPB and >others state that Theosophy has no Dogma. However, I have not read ANYWHERE >where the statement is made that there is no Doctrine. In fact, a quick >perusal of the Index to the SD lists many references to Doctrine, and many >times does HPB refer to the Theosophical Doctrines. Is it too obvious to >point to the title: THE SECRET DOCTRINE? The following is from "Yours till >Death and After, HPB", an article by WQJ in which he quotes HPB in the >following: > >. . . . . . "We are not working merely that people may call themselves >'Theosophists', but that the DOCTRINES WE CHERISH may effect and leaven the >whole mind of this century. This alone can be acccomplished by a small >earnest band of workers, who work for no human reward, no earthly >recognition, but who, supported and sustained by a belief in that Universal >Brotherhood of which our Masters are a part, work steadily, faithfully, in >understanding and putting forth for consideration the DOCTRINES OF LIFE AND >DUTY THAT HAVE COME DOWN TO US FROM IMMEMORIAL TIME . . . . . " (caps mine) The problem is that when "Doctrine" becomes "Dogma" what is it then? And that is what I think has happened. HPB was "giving out' a theoretical model of reality, since her death it has been made into an unquestionable doctrine which is a synonym for Dogma. Those who claim that the model presented in the Secret Doctrine etc. are "The Core Doctrine of Theosophy" are making an hypothesis into a dogma and therefore in this new model dogma and doctrine are inseparable and interchangeable. I'm sorry if you don't like that view, but it's my view, and that's how I see it, and I don't think stating that view is reprehensible in any way. > >It seems naive to think that HPB was not giving out a body of doctrines. > Now, how each of us understands those and works with them is another matter. > But I would maintain that there is a "theosophical doctrine". > >I just returned from a great break of sun, sand and surf, and am sorting >through alot of mail. What I am finding is fairly disgusting. It seems the >list has gone "over the top" as the Brits and NZs are fond of saying. I see >a lot of gross name calling, endless barbs, jabs and rejections (all in the >name of "discussion") and too many instances of the accuser being the >guiltiest of offenses. The worst was the use of "repugnent" to describe >individuals, groups and their ideas. This coming from a "theosophist" and >refering to other theosophists. A nucleus of Brotherhood does not exist >here. Such public pronouncements, let alone the attitudes, should have no >place on this list. Even in the above post exists the epitome of the us vs. >them, separatist, anti-brotherhood attitude. And just what are you >accomplishing by refering to OTHERS as Pharisees? I see the pot speaking to >the kettle. Gee, how fascinating, "repugnant" is unacceptable but "disgusting" isn't. My comment was that I found some one person's attitude toward my comments personally repugnant, your comment implies that my comment was universally disgusting. Give me a break! as far as Pharisee is concerned, I used it because I felt it was perfectly descriptive! IO used the term "repugnant" to that person because in his series of remarks addressed to me personally I felt he had demonstrated an unacceptable amount of bigotry and I have always, and always will, regarded bigotry as repugnant. If being a theosophist means one can't find things repugnant then poor Blavatsky was lucky she died in 1891 before that happened. > >I think I may have to leave, for even though words are supposed to be >harmless, there is no need to live with the risk that at some point my ideas >would be refered to as "repugnent" or, worse, merely dismissed as unworthy. > There is an escape hatch in this lion's den. > >Greg H > There are not one but three "escape hatches" to this so-called lion's Den Greg. One is the delete Key, another is a filter program if your supplier has one, and the third is the one you just mentioned un subscribing. I personally use the delete key and my filter program quite frequently now and I even contemplated un subscribing because of the same reasons you give but obviously a different point of view. You've got plenty of options. You don't have to read what I write, but I am very tired of being the "fall guy" for every so-called traditionalist on this list. alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri May 3 20:51:14 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 13:51:14 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960503205114.006710f8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: No Magician At 12:50 PM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960503060954.006bcd08@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>>Shall I submit "un self-consciously magical" then? >> >>alexis d. > >If you derive some pleasure from doing so, though I have no idea what >you are talking about! > >Alan :-) >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan: I think you do too! Think about it. alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri May 3 20:55:50 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 13:55:50 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960503205550.006a44bc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What is the definition of "fruitcake"? At 02:26 PM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >Aleixis writes: > >>>I'm not the only Gay person on this list >>>and I take very strong exception to words like "fag" and "fruitcake"! >> > >I believe it was Keith who used this term and we should ask him what he >meant by the term? > >But in one of my dictionaries [THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE >ENGLISH LANGUAGE, Third edition, "fruitcake" is defined as a cake or a >second definition is: > >"2. Slang. A crazy or an eccentric person." > >Alexis, maybe you are confusing "fruitcake" with the term "fruit" which is >defined in the same >dictionary as: > >"7. Offensive Slang. Used as a disparaging term for a gay or homosexual man." > >Fruitcakes usually have nuts in them and MERRIAM WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE >DICTIONARY, >Tenth edition, gives one definition of fruitcake as "nut", ie., "a foolish, >eccentric, or crazy >person." > >DHC > > >Dan: You are obviously not a Gay Man, but forget about the Dictionary...in this instance the dictionary is irrelevant. We know what we're called and we have long and unhappy experience with a large variety of pejoratives. As I told Jim Meier, Franklyn Jones is a Gay man and describing him as a "Fat, Anglo, Fruitcake" gives one very strong rounds for suspicion. In this instance, your referring to written authority is useless, for only a Gay Man or Lesbian is the authority. alexis From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Sat May 4 15:50:43 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 08:50:43 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <318B7CD3.3406@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: DNA Shows Human And Chimps...... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >I saw this and remembered that HPB and more so GdeP said that apes were descended from man rather than the other way round. I have looked up the quotes but I won't post them unless requested. Science may be getting closer to the SD in yet another area. > Reuter > > SYDNEY (May 3) - Gorillas and chimpanzees should be reclassified into the > same species group as humans because of the closeness of their DNA, > according to a team of Australian and New Zealand scientists. > > The scientists on Friday called for a formal revision of the genus homo and > for species classification to be based on DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). > > "If you compare other mammal groups, like genus ratus (rat) there is much > more divergence in DNA than there is between humans and chimpanzees," > Australian scientist Simon Easteal, from the John Curtin School of Medical > Research in Canberra, told Reuters on Friday. > > "If the (species) classification is to have any sort of meaning and > standard we should be in the same genus," said Easteal, a member of a team > of Australian and New Zealand scientists who presented a paper "Human > Origins and Evolution" at the Australian Academy of Science in Canberra on > Friday. > > Using a nuclear DNA test the scientists found humans diverged from > chimpanzees about 3.6 to four million years ago and the two had diverged > from gorillas between four and five million years ago. > > "There is only 1.6 percent difference between our nuclear DNA and that of a > chimpanzee, and only 1.7 percent difference from a gorilla," Easteal said. > "The coding DNA is closer still and some DNA shows absolutely no > differences at all." > > Eastel said the DNA test indicated that both chimpanzees and humans had a > common ancestor who walked upright. > > Developments in DNA research meant that the old rules of classification of > species based on appearance was now obsolete, as changes in DNA sequences > were a more reliable way to classify animals than outward appearances > because DNA appeared to change more evenly. > > "I think classification should be based on DNA distances. This (genus homo) > is just one case of that," he said. > > DNA is the substance that functions as the chemical bearer of hereditary > characteristics. -- Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From Richtay@aol.com Fri May 3 20:58:54 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 16:58:54 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960503165854_389781458@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Wilber and Hero Worship Responding to Keith's posts, Alexis writes, > Now I do want to say this, Franklin (that's his real name) is fat, he's > anglo, and he is a gay man, but the word "Fruitcake" is no more acceptable > than the word "Nigger! If you're going to sign your messages with "Namaste" > you'd best mean it for everybody. I'm not the only Gay person on this list > and I take very strong exception to words like "fag" and "fruitcake"! I Geez, chill out ! I did not get the sense Keith was using the word "fruitcake" in a way that had anything to do with gays ! I understood Keith to mean that this guru fellow looks very strange. Fruitcake has a lot of meanings, you know? And Keith did NOT use the word "fag." Boy. How quickly one can assume they are being called names. I wonder if in a day or two Alexis is going to run around writing that he's personally been called "heretic" "blasphemer" and "fag" to boot. Oh, the evils of Theos-hell ! From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri May 3 19:59:20 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 15:59:20 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605032104.RAA00541@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: PS To Daniel Re: Spritism I guess I should have said somewhere in my first message that many people are still grappling with this subjct, & it's really too soon to look at the subject matter of this article from the Catholic encyclopedia historically with any kind of objectivity Liesel From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri May 3 21:11:58 1996 Date: 03 May 96 17:11:58 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Repugnant Doctrines Message-Id: <960503211158_76400.1474_HHL59-1@CompuServe.COM> Greg writes: > The worst was the use of "repugnent" to describe >individuals, groups and their ideas. I think that we have all agreed to confine such attributes as "repugnant" to ideas rather than people. In many ways, it seems harsh to even consider such a name for ideas, but here is the fact of it: although we are all under the theosophical umbrella, certain sections of the fabric do seem repugnant to those standing under other sections. There have been more than one posting (on ethics, for example) that practically make me barf, and I feel horrified that theosophists could think such silly things. So, I crusade away against what I consider repugnant ideas, theosophical or otherwise, while trying to keep the personalities out of it. Sometimes I miss, but I do try. I don't see any other way of maintaining such a free-wheeling list such as this one. Any ideas? Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri May 3 21:12:00 1996 Date: 03 May 96 17:12:00 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Doctrine-----Who are the true Revisionists? Message-Id: <960503211159_76400.1474_HHL59-2@CompuServe.COM> >I would say that Theosophy can be defined as that "universal religious >philosophy." Dan, there is religion, and there is religion. Theosophy, like Magic and Occultism, address our religious aspirations, and in that way form a living religion in the American Indian sense. My objection come when we start institutionalizing it as such. When we set up individuals as "priests" by whatever name, than we have lost the living religion that the MLs and HPB refer to. So too when we set up certain writings as being biblical. It is wrong to look at the MLs, or the SD as biblical canon, where every word is inspired and true. To do this will lead down a very dark path. Quotes, such as the ones you have provided, are excellent to allow us to see where you are coming from. But as a theosophist, I don't feel any compulsion on my part to accept them literally as written. These very same authors also said that religion is the cause of most of man's problems. >Those who are interested in the original materials written by HPB and the >Masters, should consult for example, *The Key to Theosophy* and *The >Mahatma Letters*. Also consult the index (Volume 15) to HPB's >*Collected Writings*. This is very close to being condescending. Or is this your library background speaking? Jerry S. Member, TI From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri May 3 20:11:08 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 16:11:08 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605032115.RAA06177@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Eldon, Re:scuttling theos-l Dear Eldon, With the disenfranchisement of those 40-odd voters of the Miami TS, I finally caught John Algeo cheating. After that, anything is possible. Liesel >From: "Eldon B. Tucker" >Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960501091017.006841dc@mail.deltanet.com> > >Liesel: From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri May 3 20:22:40 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 16:22:40 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605032127.RAA11762@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Eldon Re: scuttling theos-l PS I'll amend that from "cheating" to "playing dirty pool". In any case, it's very disappointing. Liesel From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri May 3 21:26:48 1996 Date: 03 May 96 17:26:48 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Doctrine Message-Id: <960503212647_76400.1474_HHL77-2@CompuServe.COM> > You don't >have to read what I write, but I am very tired of being the "fall guy" for >every so-called traditionalist on this list. Don't give up now, Alexis. You are taking all the hits that I used to take. I feel like I am on respite or R&R. No one even notices my mild-mannered postings anymore. Yours have made me a pussy cat. In retrospect, I haven't had a single flame since you joined the list. Thanks. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri May 3 21:26:47 1996 Date: 03 May 96 17:26:47 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: To: Dan, Re: spiritrualism Message-Id: <960503212646_76400.1474_HHL77-1@CompuServe.COM> > I find this whole article rather of the caliber of those who >described witches & non-believers in the Middle Ages. Flapdoodle! >They don't know very much what they're talking about. .... I wish you'd >explain to me why you took the trouble to put that on theos-l. Liesel, you beat me to the punch. I asked myself the very same question. However, I didn't finish the article, having realized its worth during the first part. Dan, why did you post this? Did you want comments? Are you trying to tell us something? Like Liesel, I too missed the point. Jerry S. Member, TI From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri May 3 20:51:16 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 16:51:16 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605032155.RAA27857@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Eldon, Re: Quotes from HH >It basically decries useless intellectual inquiry when >a matter of life-or-death urgency is facing one. But >every situation in life is not this way. Hi, Eldon, I took this passage to mean that when you're in a situation it makes more sense to come right to the point, rather than to first blow your choppers for 10 minutes. Well, looks like it can be interpreted in different ways. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri May 3 20:57:48 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 16:57:48 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605032202.SAA03238@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: bylaws >When Chuck Ponsonby was National Secretary, he looked at the >national bylaws and decided they did not exclude new members from >voting, had a statement printed in the AT saying they could vote, >and allowed them to vote in the election. It was at this point >that the rules were relaxed. > >The situation, then, is not the retroactive imposition of new >rules, but the renewed application of already existing and >previously enforced rules. From this standpoint, it was not that >certain new members that were previously entitled to vote are now >retroactively denied that right. Rather, it is that certain new >members were inadvertently allowed to vote in the past, when they >should not have been allowed to do so. In other words you apply the bylaws or not depending on whatever suits you better. Liesel From blafoun@azstarnet.com Fri May 3 22:29:59 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 15:29:59 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199605032229.PAA15361@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To: Dan, Re: spiritrualism Liesel wrote: >Dear Dan, > >I printed out those whole 14pp, because I thought it would be an important >historical document, & I wanted to read it carefully. It was really >disappointing. What was your purpose in sending that much misinformation >about the (to us) rather unimportant subject of mediums and "Phenomena"? >skimming through, it said mesmerism is evil. I was aware that stuff like >that was frowned upon in the past. It's being used today by therapists, >(even though I would never allow anyone to mesmerize me) & people are quite >curious as to how it works. The article says that spiritism was being >welcomed by those who pioneered socialism. How is that supposed to jive? >What do politics have to do with mediumship? That's like witches fly on a >brooom. Nobody can prove it logically. It says people who use it are >immoral. Well, I'd say the're amoral rathr than immoral. I think lots of >mediums cheat, but they mostly think they're helping people, so it's not >intentional. I find this whole article rather of the caliber of those who >described witches & non-believers in the Middle Ages. Flapdoodle! >They don't know very much what they're talking about. Just reminded me - the >very important topic of live people communicating via ESP is completely left >out. Probaby quite unknown to the writers of this article. I wish you'd >explain to me why you took the trouble to put that on theos-l. > >Liesel Daniel comments: Well, I thought the article was pretty informative. The section outlining the history was fairly well done and accurate. And some of the views on the phenomena seemed sorta similar to the views of some Theosophists. Of course, I assume this article was the official Catholic view of the subject. But I thought it raised some important issues which are still around more than 80 years later. I thought someone might notice and compare the view of "demons" with HPB's teachings about "elementals" and "elementaries". Just food for thought. Daniel From blafoun@azstarnet.com Fri May 3 22:39:21 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 15:39:21 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199605032239.PAA20179@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What is the definition of "fruitcake"? See my latest comment to Alexis at the end of this posting. Daniel >At 02:26 PM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >>Aleixis writes: >> >>>>I'm not the only Gay person on this list >>>>and I take very strong exception to words like "fag" and "fruitcake"! >>> >> >>I believe it was Keith who used this term and we should ask him what he >>meant by the term? >> >>But in one of my dictionaries [THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE >>ENGLISH LANGUAGE, Third edition, "fruitcake" is defined as a cake or a >>second definition is: >> >>"2. Slang. A crazy or an eccentric person." >> >>Alexis, maybe you are confusing "fruitcake" with the term "fruit" which is >>defined in the same >>dictionary as: >> >>"7. Offensive Slang. Used as a disparaging term for a gay or homosexual man." >> >>Fruitcakes usually have nuts in them and MERRIAM WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE >>DICTIONARY, >>Tenth edition, gives one definition of fruitcake as "nut", ie., "a foolish, >>eccentric, or crazy >>person." >> >>DHC >> >> >>Dan: > >You are obviously not a Gay Man, but forget about the Dictionary...in this >instance the dictionary is irrelevant. We know what we're called and we have >long and unhappy experience with a large variety of pejoratives. As I told >Jim Meier, Franklyn Jones is a Gay man and describing him as a "Fat, Anglo, >Fruitcake" gives one very strong rounds for suspicion. In this instance, >your referring to written authority is useless, for only a Gay Man or >Lesbian is the authority. > >alexis > > Alexis, I lived in Texas the first 22 years of my life. And during that time (1960s), the term "fruitcake" was used where I lived to mean a "nut". The "rednecks" had other terms for gay people! I will ask some gay people in Tucson what their reactions are to this term "fruitcake." I have read allegations that Mr. F.J. also had sex with some of his female disciples. Does this make him a bi-sexual? DHC From blafoun@azstarnet.com Fri May 3 23:08:23 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 16:08:23 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199605032308.QAA02108@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Doctrine-----Who are the true Revisionists? Jerry S. writes: > Dan, there is religion, and there is religion. Theosophy, >like Magic and Occultism, address our religious aspirations, and >in that way form a living religion in the American Indian sense. >My objection come when we start institutionalizing it as such. >When we set up individuals as "priests" by whatever name, than >we have lost the living religion that the MLs and HPB refer to. So >too when we set up certain writings as being biblical. It is >wrong to look at the MLs, or the SD as biblical canon, where >every word is inspired and true. To do this will lead down a >very dark path. Quotes, such as the ones you have provided, >are excellent to allow us to see where you are coming from. But >as a theosophist, I don't feel any compulsion on my part to accept >them literally as written. These very same authors also said that >religion is the cause of most of man's problems. Daniel replies: K.H. actually says: ..."I will point out the greatest, the chief cause of nearly two thirds of the evils that pursue humanity *ever since that cause became a power.* It is religion under whatever form and in whatsoever nation...." Asterisks added. To me that means when a religion becomes a power that exercises control and undue influence over people, groups and societies. " Believe this, or ELSE..... " KH continues later in the same letter: "Is not man ever rady to commit any kind of evil if told that his God or Gods demand the crime?..." Think of all the religious wars even in our day. In my original post, I wrote: >>Those who are interested in the original materials written by HPB and the >>Masters, should consult for example, *The Key to Theosophy* and *The >>Mahatma Letters*. Also consult the index (Volume 15) to HPB's >>*Collected Writings*. Jerry S. replies: > This is very close to being condescending. Or is this your >library background speaking? If you view it as condescending, then that is your perception. It was meant to be helpful, especially the reference to the Volume 15 index. The interested reader would find alot to read and study by looking up terms like "doctrine", "Theosophy," "dogma.", related terms, etc. Maybe someone on this list might not know about that index volume, which I believe is a wonderful tool for serious students of HPB's collected articles. And there are other relevant passages on Doctrines versus Dogmas in the KEY and the MLs. No doubt, Jerry, you are well aware of these works, but others may not be. If I had the time I would have posted other relevant extracts. I didn't so that's why I gave the references. DHC From Richtay@aol.com Fri May 3 23:24:08 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 19:24:08 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960503192407_286662197@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Mind, matter and evolution Poor hapless Rich wrote: > > Thus MIND is the definitive factor in the manifestation of reality. > > > >In my opinion, this is exactly what the SECRET DOCTRINE teaches, and all the > >more reason to see value in that work. > Jerry S. responded: > Rich, while I kind of agree with you, I am not so sure that > HPB "discussed" quantum mechanics or quantum theory. I think that > she says mind *can* effect matter, but I don't recall her ever saying > that it *does* whether we like it or not. The idea that matter follows > mind, and expresses it, is pure Christian Science, which HPB > rejected. Could you give me some quotes to back up your thesis? > Maybe we could start a new thread? This is an intriguing topic. Jerry, I didn't claim HPB discussed quantum mechanics, but rather the IMPLICATIONS of quantum mechanics, i.e. the conclusions that scientists appear to be limping toward, are the very same ideas that are outlined in HPB's S.D. The new thread idea is wonderful, here goes. HPB did in fact criticize Christian Science for its vagueness and lack of principles, but never denied that it produced results -- sometimes, by experimentation. Nor did HPB deny the principle that matter follows mind. Rather, she enunciated it first in the Western world. The quotes are immense, I will give only a few here for the time being: ON THE POWERS OF THE INDIVIDUAL MIND vol. 1, p. 124. "We produce CAUSES, and these awaken the corresponding powers in the sidereal world; which powers are magnetically and irresistably attracted to--and react upon--those who produced these causes; whether such persons are practically the evil-doers, or simply THINKERS who brood mischief. Thought is matter [footnote below] we are taught by modern Science .." Footnote 1: "Not of course in the sense of the German Materialist Moleschott, who assures us that "Thought is the movement of matter," a statement of almost unequalled absurdity. Mental states and bodily states are utterly contrasted as such. But that does not affect the position that every thought, in addition to its physical accompaniment (brain-change), exhibits an objective--though to us supersensuously objective--aspect on the astral plane." ON THE CREATIVE POWERS OF UNIVERSAL MIND vol. 1, p. 110: "From the Unknown One, the Infinite TOTALITY, the manifested ONE, or the periodical, Manvantaric Deity, emanates; and this is the Universal Mind, which, separated from its Fountain-Source, is the Demiurgos or the creative Logos of the Western Kabalists ... By the action of the manifested WIsdom, or Mahat, represented by these innumerable centres of spiritual Energy in the Kosmos, the reflection of the Universal Mind, which is Cosmis Ideation and the intellectual Force accompanying such ideation, becomes objectively the Fohat of the Buddhist esoteric philosopher. Fohat, running along the seven principles of Akasa, acts upon manifestated substance of the One Element, as declared above, and by differentiating it into various centres of Energy, sets in motion the law of Cosmic Evolution, which, in obedience to the Ideation of the Universal Mind, brings into existence all the various states of being in the manifested Solar System. The Solar System, brought into existence by these agencies, consists of Seven Principles, like everything else within these centres. Such is the teaching of the trans-Himalayan Esotericism." vol. 1, p. 139 "As an abstraction, we call it the ONE LIFE; as an objective and evident Reality, we speak of a septenary scale of manifestation, which begins at the upper run with the One Unknowable CAUSALITY, and ends as Omnipresent Mind and Life imminent in every atom of Matter. Thus, while science speaks of its evolution through brute matter, blind force, and senseless motion, and Occultists point to INTELLIGENT Law and SENTIENT LIFE, and add that Fohat is the guiding Spirit of all this." HPB SUMS UP HER POSITION vol. 1, p. 280 "[Cosmic forces] are dual in their character; being composed of (a) the irrational BRUTE ENERGY, inherent in matter, and (b) the intelligent soul or cosmic consciousness which directs and guides that energy, and which is the DHYAN-CHOHANIC THOUGHT REFLECTING THE IDEATION OF THE UNIVERSAL MIND. This results in a perpetual series of physical manifestations and MORAL EFFECTS on Earth, during manvantaric periods, the whole being subservient to Karma ..." "Matter is ETERNAL. It it the UPADHI (the physical basis) for the One infinite Universal Mind to build thereon its ideations...." HPB ON SCIENCE AND CONSCIOUSNESS vol. 1, p. 296 "Neither the Occultists generally, nor the Theosophists, reject, as erroneously believed by some, the views and theories of the modern scientists, only because these views are opposed to Theosophy. The first rule of our Society is to render under Ceasar what is Caesar's. The Theosophists, therefore, are the first to recognize the intrinsic value of science. But when its high priests resolve consciousness into a secretion from the grey matter of the brain, and everything else in nature to a mode of motion, we protest against the doctrine as being unphilosopkical, self-contradictory, and simply absuyrd, from a SCIENTIFIC point of view, as much and even more than from the occult aspect of esoteric knowledge." There's plenty more, the *Key To Theosophy* is full of the statements of mind affecting matter continuously, NECESSARILY by its very action. From blafoun@azstarnet.com Fri May 3 23:21:34 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 16:21:34 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Subject: Re: Now it gets interesting Message-Id: <199605032321.QAA07372@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jerry writes: Rich, while I kind of agree with you, I am not so sure that >HPB "discussed" quantum mechanics or quantum theory. I think that >she says mind *can* effect matter, but I don't recall her ever saying >that it *does* whether we like it or not. The idea that matter follows >mind, and expresses it, is pure Christian Science, which HPB >rejected. Could you give me some quotes to back up your thesis? >Maybe we could start a new thread? This is an intriguing topic. > I believe HPB's demonstration of her own occult powers was to show open-minded people the power of the mind to manipulate "matter." HPB's materialization of a cup and saucer at a Simla picnic was such a demonstration. What present-day physicist is open-minded enough to even contemplate that such a feat could really happen? Even many students of Theosophy boggle at the mention of such a feat. Or of letters materializing or a turban becoming physical? Maybe just lower siddhis, but nevertheless, they illustrate the remarkable power of *conscious* "kriyashakti", some of the wonderful abilities of the human mind. DHC From Richtay@aol.com Fri May 3 23:24:13 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 19:24:13 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960503192412_286662220@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Yes, DOCTRINE Greg writes, > >. . . . . . "We are not working merely that people may call themselves > >'Theosophists', but that the DOCTRINES WE CHERISH may effect and leaven the > >whole mind of this century. This alone can be acccomplished by a small > >earnest band of workers, who work for no human reward, no earthly > >recognition, but who, supported and sustained by a belief in that Universal > >Brotherhood of which our Masters are a part, work steadily, faithfully, in > >understanding and putting forth for consideration the DOCTRINES OF LIFE AND > >DUTY THAT HAVE COME DOWN TO US FROM IMMEMORIAL TIME . . . . . " (caps mine) Alexis responds: > The problem is that when "Doctrine" becomes "Dogma" what is it then? And > that is what I think has happened. HPB was "giving out' a theoretical model > of reality, since her death it has been made into an unquestionable doctrine > which is a synonym for Dogma. Those who claim that the model presented in > the Secret Doctrine etc. are "The Core Doctrine of Theosophy" are making an > hypothesis into a dogma and therefore in this new model dogma and doctrine > are inseparable and interchangeable. Huh? It is obvious that HPB "offered" a doctrine for anyone who wanted to study it. Most people don't want to. And Theosophists don't have to study it if they don't want to. But I am so tired of hearing everyone flaunt their "freedom" of thought. I agree with what Daniel Caldwell said over a week ago, we all know we have that perfect "freedom" so let's get over ourselves. This *is* a Theosophical list, Theosophy offers a doctrine said to be from "immemorial time," and there are a great many of us on the list who would like to discuss and explore those DOCTRINES. If those who don't like the DOCTRINES don't want to talk about them, and would rather criticize them or tell jokes or talk about various people's failures, fine. Who cares? The fact is that HPB offered us a body of teachings i.e. DOCTRINE, those teachings are called Theosophy, and Greg here wants to study them and talk about them. So do I. (See the new thread Jerry S. started on mind, matter and evolution for food for thought). From eldon@theosophy.com Sat May 4 06:35:05 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 23:35:05 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960504063505.0068e530@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB/CWL Kim: I'm not jumping into this time-consuming analysis just now, but thought I'd comment with a word on two. >Can the position be held - >a) that our solar system (and hence our planetary chain) are >part of the seventh and lowest part of seven universal planes >or principles? We can talk about the plane(s) that a planetary chain are on. These planes are different levels within the solar system. But the solar system itself is not *on the planes*, but rather *comprises the planes*. If an airplane were to have seven floors within it, and we were passengers on that plane, we could go to higher floors, or lower floors. We could be on the top floor or the bottom floor. Within the definition of existence that the airplane provides us, we have various levels of experience. Regardless of the floor that we're on, though, the airplane itself can go higher or lower *in its own realm of experience*. That is, completely transparent to us as passengers, the plane could fly to higher or lower levels of its own field of action. That field of action is the planes provided by the greater scheme which that plane participates in. From this standpoint, it's possible within the solar system to talk about the solar or cosmic planes on which a planetary chain resides, but not to talk about the planes on which the solar system itself is on. >b) that the principles of man are on various planes of >existence within this solar system? Each plane of existence is a full-featured realm of experience, with laws of nature, "physical" forms, and various classes of beings from the different kingdoms of nature. The seven principles are not an experience of embodied existence on seven planes. They are seven aspects or ingredients of sentient being, including insight, thought, feeling and desire, and sense perception. These qualities or attributes of consciousness are necessary for one to come into existence on any plane. When we speak of thought being the action of a "mental body", it is a metaphor, not a literal truth. The substance of mind is thought, not 'physical matter or a physical body on the mental plane'. Thought is not an attribute of matter on this or some higher plane; it is a quality of consciousness. >And that these seven human principles has a connection far >stronger than a mere correspondence with the seven principles >of the solar system? The human principles have an inseparable connection with the seven principles of the solar system, and with the seven principles of any other being or scheme of existence, regardless of its size or level. The great is reflected in the small. The same pattern of life holds true throughout the universe, in the big and in the small. The pattern is universal. The correspondence, though, is human principles to solar principles, not human principles to solar planes of existence. Just as we have, within ourselves, a Sutratman, a stream of consciousness with knots or centers of sentience, including the higher self and the human ego that we know ourselves as, so does the planetary chain or the solar system. When we look at planes of existence, we have a spectrum of possible planes, but there are only certain discrete "places" or centers or worlds or levels along this spectrum where existence actually takes place. This corresponds to the knots or centers of consciousness in our own constitution. Along the spectrum of possible planes of existence, there are certain knots or centers where worlds form. These are the planes of our planet or solar system, and in us would be the egos or centers of consciousness. >c) that both the systems of HPB and CWL (and every other >esoteric philosopher) can be explained satisfactory from >this position? We can talk about the law of correspondence, about the fractal nature of life where the same patters appear throughout all living things, of however big or small scale that we look at. This is usually recognized and mentioned, but it is not in this general rule that HPB and CWL might differ. The difference would be in certain specific concepts like the distinction between the monads or centers of consciousness and the principles or attributes of a particular consciousness. >This is a subjective interpretation, but the only one possible >when the terminologies are differing. But I don't think that we can explain all the differences between CWL and HPB as arising out of using different terminologies. I'd see the ideas as sufficiently different and distinct that it would be reasonable to talk about the Besant/Leadbeater variant of Theosophy as a system of thought in its own right. -- Eldon From JPROLSTON@aol.com Fri May 3 23:48:33 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 19:48:33 -0400 From: JPROLSTON@aol.com Message-Id: <960503194832_483879061@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Doctrine To Coherence: Excellent post on doctrine, I think it is important to get that up there. Theosophy DOES teach a doctrine. How people interepret that doctrine, what they feel like doing with it, is up to them. To Alexis, who wrote: > > >>2. Do you realize that you, and I, Chuck, Alan, and Jerry Schueler, and some > > >>others I'm not ready to name, are actually the only "traditional" > > >>theosophists who regularly express themselves on this list? The others can > > >>only be described as Pharisees. This, sir, is another ripple in a long stream of the nastiest invective I have ever read in my short experience on the Internet. You suggest that one may use the "delete" key but in fact your personal remarks, which seem aimed to hurt the PERSON and not just discuss the ideas, draw the whole group into the malestrom. How do I delete all of that? I certainly feel you are entitled to your opinion, but why the nasty, personally-aimed barbs? I certainly don't feel welcome here to a nucleus of Brotherhood, and I too would like to sign off if this is typical of this discussion. I suppose my views will also make me one of the "repugnant" ones? JPR From ramadoss@eden.com Fri May 3 23:53:07 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 18:53:07 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960503185535.1177b88a@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TSA Elections - 2 Yr Voting Requirement To: Theos-l, Theos-Buds, Theos@netcom.com Hi, everybody: Here is an update on the on going communication with Wheaton on the issue of disenfranchisement of the voting rights of members. I Faxed my letter of April 27, 1996 to John Algeo. In response, I received the attached reply today. It may be noted that the reply is dated Saturday, April 27, 1996 and was sent to me by snail-mail and the USPS postmark on the envelope is dated Tuesday April 30, 1996. It was received by me today Friday, May 3, 1996. So it took *six* days for John Algeo's reply to reach me. In these days of instant communication, it is toooooooooo long, especially when I am accessible by all modern means of communication such as fax, e-mail etc. ------------------------------------------- The following are my comments on John Algeo's letter of April 27, 1996. As I already had stated in my earlier post in response to Eldon's message, the reasoning in John Algeo's letter is very satisfactory and has *no* legal basis. Firstly, TSA is a Illinois Non Profit Corporation and hence is governed by the Illinois Statutes and the TSA's Bylaws and *NOT* by International Rules. Whatever may be the International Rules, they *DO NOT* apply to TSA unless the specific detailed implementation is specifially voted on by the members of TSA and is part of its Bylaws. Saying that "international rule to the same effect is even older" is totally irrelevant and inapplicable to TSA. General statement of applicability will not cut it. If that be the case, then the issue of the International Organization controlling TSA through the device of International Rules comes up. This may be *illegal* under Illinios Statutes. In addition it may open up a pandora's box with very serious consequences. TSA as a 501(c)(3) organization, cannot be controlled either directly or indirectly or overtly or covertly or secretly by *any* foreign organization. If facts and circumstances can establish that this is the case, TSA can lose its Federal tax exempt status retroactively since Federal Income Tax Code prohibits any foreign entity controlling any US Tax Exempt Organization. Secondly, there is this basic principle of voting rights. Any time any changes are made to the qualifications to the rights of members, such changes should not infringe upon any currently held right of any member at the time such change takes place. This is technically called *grandfathering*. If grandfathering is not done, then the consequence of any change is that of taking away any existing right of an individual. This is a very serious and important principle and all civilized countries practice it everyday. TSA's response totally ignores this either due to ignorance or what ever other reason. (There was somewhat of a similar situation arose some years ago when TSA tightened the qualification requirements for the position of the National President. I do not plan to go into it now). So the only conclusion one can come to is that the voting rights of some of the members of TSA are taken away by TSA excluding them from the present election balloting by not sending them their ballots. If anyone disagrees with my analysis above, I suggest to consult your friendly attorney who may enlighten you and give us the feed back so that we all can understand the issues discussed above. MK Ramadoss ==================================== John Algeo's Reply to my letter of April 27, 1996 Saturday, April 27, 1996 Dear Mr. Ramadoss: In response to your query about the eligibility of members of the Society to vote, International Rule 29e says: Without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 10 [governing the election of an international President), no member in good standing for less than twenty-four consecutive months immediately prior to the date of voting shall have the right to vote in elections and others matters pertaining to Lodges, Federations, Regional Associations, National Societies or other duly constituted bodies of the Theosophical Society. In accordance with that rule, bylaw 4, section 8, of the rules of the Theosophical Society in America states: In accordance with the Rules of the international Society, only members in good standing for two years or more shall have the right to vote. In addition, bylaw 12 states; These bylaws shall become legally effective and supersede all previous bylaws of the Theosophical Society in America upon the date of their adoption by referendum The ballots adopting the new bylaws were counted on January 6, the results certified by the National Secretary, and his report received and ratified by the National Board at its January meeting. The new national bylaws have been in effect since that time, and the International Rule to the same effect is even older. No disenfranchisement has occurred since no one has been deprived of any right under either national or international rules. Sincerely yours, John Algeo National President M. K. Ramadoss 4203 Gardendale, Suite 226 San Antonio TX 78229-3137 From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 4 00:22:12 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 19:22:12 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960503192440.268faa10@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: FW: 5th Graders Want E-mail (fwd) Hi - Again this is off the topic, but..... ...doss >From: "Jensen, Jeanne-Anne" >To: listening-l >Subject: FW: 5th Graders Want E-mail (fwd) >Date: Fri, 03 May 96 14:46:00 PDT >Encoding: 25 TEXT > >I realize this is completely off the topic of Krishnamurti, but . . . > > --- Here is the original message --- > >>>Forwarded message: >>>From: nbravo@smtpgw.lcp.com >>>To: Coyoteugly@aol.com, TMooney691@aol.com >>>Date: 96-04-24 17:24:03 EDT >>> >>>Subject: science fair >>> >>>Hi, our names are Stevie and Amanda. We are in the 5th grade at the >>>Phillipston Memorial school, Phillipston, Massachusetts, USA. We are >>>doing a science project on the Internet. We want to see how many responses >>>we can get back in two weeks. (We are only sending out 2 letters). >>>Please respond and then send this letter to anyone you communicate >>>with on the Internet. Respond to smc@tiac.net. >>> >>>1. Where do you live (state and country)? >>>2. From whom did you get this letter? >>> >>>Thank you, >>> Stevie and Amanda >>> > From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 4 00:31:52 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 01:31:52 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Ringing the bell In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960503195931.0069b7d0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960503195931.0069b7d0@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >None the less, and old activist is like an old >fire horse..ring the bell and out we charge! > >cordially >alexis do. You said it! Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 4 00:47:05 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 01:47:05 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: DOCTRINE In-Reply-To: <960503192412_286662220@emout19.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960503192412_286662220@emout19.mail.aol.com>, Richtay@aol.com writes >The fact is that HPB offered us a body of teachings i.e. DOCTRINE, those >teachings are called Theosophy, and Greg here wants to study them and talk >about them. So do I. Go ahead! Just remember that if you do it on a public, unmoderated list, other people *will* join in, pro or con, with *their* comments on what you write, and *how* you write it. Instant feedback, and instant karma - it's just how it is. AB --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri May 3 16:54:17 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 17:54:17 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <5SEM7BA5ojixEwa+@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Doctrine In-Reply-To: <960503104353_105818786@emout08.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960503104353_105818786@emout08.mail.aol.com>, Coherence@aol.com writes >It seems naive to think that HPB was not giving out a body of doctrines. > Now, how each of us understands those and works with them is another matter. > But I would maintain that there is a "theosophical doctrine". .. and so would I. Maybe Alexis was having a bad day? I chose not to take up his inclusion of my name in the post you quoted, owing in part to matters of language - at least one of my theosophical kabalist associates is a latter-day *genuine* pharisee, a "parush." The word was at one time used in a pejorative sense in English, and a number of pejoratives have been used by different people on the list of late, as in one subscriber calling another "deluded" as a statement of fact rather than a supported opinion. For all of our sakes, please stay and keep your contributions coming. Sincerely, Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Fri May 3 23:11:47 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 96 16:11:47 PDT From: Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Message-Id: <9605040048.AA09298@orchid.tc.pw.com> Subject: Re: Wilber and Hero Worship I'm tellin' ya ... it's retrograde mayhem! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Responding to Keith's posts, Alexis writes, > Now I do want to say this, Franklin (that's his real name) is fat, he's > anglo, and he is a gay man, but the word "Fruitcake" is no more acceptable > than the word "Nigger! If you're going to sign your messages with "Namaste" > you'd best mean it for everybody. I'm not the only Gay person on this list > and I take very strong exception to words like "fag" and "fruitcake"! I Geez, chill out ! I did not get the sense Keith was using the word "fruitcake" in a way that had anything to do with gays ! I understood Keith to mean that this guru fellow looks very strange. Fruitcake has a lot of meanings, you know? And Keith did NOT use the word "fag." Boy. How quickly one can assume they are being called names. I wonder if in a day or two Alexis is going to run around writing that he's personally been called "heretic" "blasphemer" and "fag" to boot. Oh, the evils of Theos-hell ! From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 4 01:10:20 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 21:10:20 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605040215.WAA19336@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: democratic organizaitons > I have never >heard of a business, of any appreciable size, which was actually democratic. > Heaven forbid! Bosses make decisions, employees follow them. Rich, When you read modern management books, bosses do make decisions, but before they make them, in some settings, everyone concerned is asked for their opinion first, & that's considered. In some factories groups of workers work according to their own plan. Ti isn't the only organization which is a loose network working mostly by concensus. Unfortunately most times bosses still makes decisions, & sometimes they'd be well advised to listen moe to the employees who are doing the work, & know what's missing, sometimes what could be done better. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 4 01:10:33 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 21:10:33 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605040215.WAA19358@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Keith, Re: what should we learn Dear Keith, I'm with you all the way. As a matter of fact, I've been talking about it, off & on, but nobody seems to be listening. They keep on yelling history, & talking about the hole in WQJ's sock, just the same, as if that helped anyone live a more satisfying life! you say it much more succinctly: >that approach because it doesn't address the core issue of the spritual >development of the individual in practical terms as opposed to theoretical and >historical issues. > >In other words, how do the notions of the cycles of manifestation, reincarnation >and karma help one develop all of the vehicles. How do we stop aruging the >ideas and live the life? From eldon@theosophy.com Sat May 4 09:29:21 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 02:29:21 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960504092921.006b8960@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Denizen of theos-hell Donna: [responding to Alexis] >Oh, the evils of Theos-hell ! Without repeating the message and reply, I think that you've come up with a brilliant term here. Something that is as noteworthy as my previously coined term "gang of four" or Chuck's "barbarians". What a good nickname for 'theos-l': 'theos-hell'. A world we descend into, in order to be ground over by the forces of nature, to suffer, and to eventually redeem ourselves! -- Eldon From vrc@tiac.net Sat May 4 02:48:42 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 22:48:42 -0400 From: Vegetarian Resource Center Subject: Generation V Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960503224027.282fac0e@pop.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > From: wizdom@qnet.com > Subject: Generation V Be a part of the most exciting video about veganism/vegetarianism ever produced! Generation V. (see full discription on Generation V below) The producers of Generation V; Emergent Films, are looking for video segments on any fomat of videotape (Standard VHS, VHS-C, 8mm, High-8, Super VHS, 3/4, Betacam, etc.) We need vegans/vegetarians as well as meat-eaters to participate. And... If we use your footage or material in the video you will receive a free copy of the finished version of Generation V as well as other special bonuses! For the V- people We are looking for video of yourself and others talking about: 1. The reasons why you are a vegetarian/vegan (health, ethical, environment, other?) and your philosophy about being veg. What motivated you to make the change? Was it a specific experience? 2. Your joys and fears of being veg. 2a. How has your life changed for the better or worse since the change (health, spiritual, social, relationships, sex life, work life, etc.) How do you see the world now through vegetarian eyes? 2b. How did you make the change? Things that helped you transition. 3. Good and bad experiences of your life as a vegan/vegetarian. 4. How do you get along with meat-eaters? How do they get along with you? (relatives, spouses, friends, etc.) Have you had any encounters with obnoxious meat-eaters who seemed threatened by your choices? Have you been successful in converting others? 5. How do you see the future of vegetarianism? Do you think the majority of people will ever stop eating animals? Feel free to be creative and add your own subject matter and questions. You do not have to stick to these specific questions. They are just to guide you in the right direction. For the Meat-eaters How do you feel about vegetarians? Please share any views you have about vegetarianism and meat-eating. Also use the above questions as a guide to what we are looking for. Basically anything goes, so let those creative juices flow and send us your stuff! If you have any stock footage that you think we might be able to use, send it along! We need vegetarian comedy, drama, animal footage (slaughter and abuse, etc.) and anything else you think would be educating or entertaining. We at Emergent Films ask that you make this your video and get involved anyway you can. Rather it's creatively or financialy, we want you to be apart of this most important and fun journey into the next generation, Generation V! We need support in the following areas: 1. Financial We have raised enough to start the project but we still need a significant amount of funding to bring Generation V to it's full potential. See below for more on how you can help in this area. Because Emergent Films is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization, all contributions are tax-deductable. 2. Creative talents (i.e., video production, art work, poetry, music, etc.) If you have a talent, think about how you can incorporate it in the video. 3. Grant writing If you would like to earn a significant amount of cash and have experience in grant writing, please contact us. We need grant writing support from your home state. Production tips for shooting the video. 1. Steady camera 2. Good lighting (well lit) 3. Good audio (little or no background noise) Try to use a hand held mic or be close enough to the camera so the fixed mic pics you up well. 4. *IMPORTANT* We need the video to look like you are being interviewed. If possible have a friend ask the questions and look at that person during taping or find a spot that you can look at consistantly and pretend someone is there. Please, DO NOT LOOK DIRECTLY INTO THE CAMERA. Note: For quality reasons we need the original footage you shoot, not a copy of it and tapes can not be returned. It would be wise to make a copy for yourself if you want to keep what you have produced. After we view your footage or material we will let you know if we plan to use it and if we do we will send you out model release forms and a coupon to get the video for free when it hits the stores. Let's all participate in one way or another and make this OUR film. Hope to hear from you soon and we'll be looking for your tapes! Sincerely, Robin Armstrong Emergent Films For more on Emergent films and Generation V see our mission statement at: http://www.newveg.av.org/emergent.htm Please send videos and materials to: Robin Armstrong Emergent Films P.O. Box 5088 Lancaster, Ca. 93539 NewVeg@qnet.com (310) 572-6579 Generation V Generation V, a one hour film hosted by In Living Color's, AJ Jamal, will declare a new generation. The "V" stands for vegan or vegetarianism, the fastest growing lifestyle trend in the world. Economic, health and environmental issues are forcing people to look in a new direction. This film will focus on an animal free diet as the nucleus for age and race unity. Madonna, Alec Baldwin, Woody Harrelson, Dick Gregory, Denzel Washington, Einstein, Dexter Scott King, Ghandi, Hank Aaron, Sade, Lisa Simpson (The Simpson's), Sarah Gilbert, PJ Harvey, Eddie Vedder and Keanu Reeves are just a few who believe meat doesn't do a body or the planet any good. We will focus on a variety of people, be it young or old from all over the world. Activists, entertainers, scientists, athletes or just the average Joe on the street, each are committed to saving the Earth community by establishing the standard for a meatless evolution. They may have read somewhere that the number one cause of cancer is fried meat; or perhaps they're concerned with the 4 billion animals slaughtered yearly just in North America; or the fact that resources needed to support a meat based diet account for 1/3 of the total amount of all raw materials used for all purposes in the United States. No matter what their beliefs, they are growing en mass and creating waves in the food, restaurant and commerce industries. They have affected the new food pyramid and are the audience to whom Archer Daniels Midland, Giant Foods and many others are redirecting their advertisements. Imagine a montage of triumphs, defeats, joy, anger, laughter and fear, mixed with visually hypnotic, pulsating, erotic, shocking and austere images of a culture never before experienced by the naked eye. Allow the universal language of peace with its limitless boundaries to permeate your brain and take you on an adventure through this "MTV style" documentary film. With AJ Jamal's comedic talents and fast paced music video imagery inspired by America's youth, experience a truly psychedelic trip. For the first time in history, a generation without gaps and racial barriers-- Generation V. visit NewVeg at: http://www.newveg.av.org/ From eldon@theosophy.com Sat May 4 10:10:48 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 03:10:48 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960504101048.006c4f2c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Regarding Problems With Anger Alexis: >I feel it is totally unrealistic to pretend that no one should get >angry. Anger is a real and natural emotion, when focussed out wards it can >be therapeutic, when focussed inwards (suppressed) it kills. Just a few days ago I saw on tv the movie "Unforgivable". It was about a man that could not control his anger, and would physically abuse his wife. (I probably wouldn't have stayed up to see the movie except for a strange coincidence. The movie was filmed at a house in Salt Lake City that my parents and owned and I had lived in from 4th to 11th grades. My parents had called me to tell me of the filming, and I had to watch to see if I recognized the house.) In the movie, the man's anger took control of him and he did things that he later came to regret. With self-improvement, he was able at a later time to control his anger, and keep from manifesting it in harmful ways. I have no problem with anger, when it is appropriate. I would be against automatically striking out in anger, though, and would want to contain and deal with the anger in ways that is not destructive. That does not mean internalization, suppression, and poisoning my psyche. It means expressing it in less harmful ways, perhaps even symbolic in nature, like tossing a pillow on the floor, etc. There are times when anger is appropriate, but that is not when it comes at its own choosing and controls one. It is when it is the appropriate response to a situation, like a parent disciplining a child in certain situations, or a manager with a subordinate. It is a tool, a technique, not an overpowering passion. > I don't mind >being "criticized", as an political activist I've been so for almost all of >my life (since 1954), but I don't like being "insulted" and I really believe >there's a difference. Criticism is constructive, insult is destructive. But you can play 'spin-doctor' to someone's apparent insult, making it into something else, and even affecting the other person's attitude towards you in the process. >>There is a certain pleasure in responding with clever, >>sharp words in response to someone's angry blast, but that >>pleasure is quickly buried as one get's one's feelings burned >>yet again! There is a greater pleasure, I've found, in setting >>aside all angry responses, and responding to others as though >>they've never said an unkind word. >That, Eldon is altogether too Saintly for me to even attempt. I think you >can testify, based upon my correspondence with you, that I try to deal with >things in a reasonable way, and I believe that with both you and Daniel I >have, so far as it's in me. But, I am not a Christian and so I am not at all >interested in "turning the other cheek" for in my experience it only gets >"smitten" too. It would be saintly to expect anyone to do it all of the time. But rather than exhausting one, it can save one lots of energy! Especially when one is in bad traffic with drivers that seem out to get one, it's easy to get burned. But why bother? Who really cares if you or I get mad at something? Getting mad in response to something some said, if it was ill-willed, is letting the other person get their way. (I'm not talking about taking abuse from others, just about letting them enrage one.) >>I usually find them glad too to leave the anger behind, and >>then it's possible to move forward -- with a great sense of >>relief! There's enough wonders in life to admire and share >>with people, that no one needs to look for the ugly side of >>life in people. Both sides of life exist, but which do we want >>to put our energy into? > >But Eldon, if we pretend the "ugly side" doesn't exist, what's >to put an end to it? It exists, but can be starved to death through lack of attention and energy. It feeds on the cycle of anger and angry response. Nothing harms it more than someone laughing it off in a friendly sort of way, and letting the energy-cycle die. >How does one differ from Roman Catholicism if one maintains that >there is only one view of Theosophy? If one maintains that there is one word-formulation that we must all learn and parrot, it would be exactly the same, because we'd understand it no more than they understand the heart of Christianity. But that does not mean that there is not an esoteric or hidden understanding of life, something that is real and can be learned, even if it cannot be readily communicated to people without some form of inner experience. >The difference between you and I, as I see it, is that your >accept the theosophical hypothesis as axiomatic rather than >theoretical, and that you have "faith" in the various "founders" >and the "Masters of The Wisdom". I accept that there are Mystery Teachings, and that HPB and "The Mahatma Letters" refer to them, conveying some fragmentary understanding to the serious student. But I also accept that the Mysteries are found elsewhere, and are understood and realized by individual inner effort, of which an intellectual study of the books is only a very small first step. >I on the other hand accept the theosophical hypothesis as >hypothesis (or why would I call myself a Theosophist?), and, >where they don't contradict knowledge and experience, both like >and admire the "founders". The difference here, perhaps, is that you consider Blavatsky as offering an interesting set of theories, much like a speculative philosopher. I see her in the role of an university student acting as an instructor in a community college extension class. I see her as presenting valid knowledge, albeit in simplified and predigested form, based upon the knowledge and experience of a great university tradition. >The primary source of our differences is that for me, the Third >Object isn't at all hypothetical, but experiential, and, as I see >it, you either don't "approve" of that, or don't actually "believe >in it as a possibility". But I *do* accept it. I just accept "latent powers" to refer to powers of mind, consciousness, and enhanced sentience, different powers than those that enable one to see auras, to astral project, or to talk to spirits. I consider a different set of powers to be of paramount importance, and seek them: the intellectual-spiritual powers of which I like to write at times. >I also think that you're the kind of person I can discuss those >differences with, but you mustn't expect me ever to accept either >HPB or "The Masters" as ultimate and un appealable authorities. You can discuss things with me because I'll always, as best I can, approach you and others with the respect that I'd like to be accorded. I'll ignore any actual or apparent hurtful words, and continue to write about what I value the most, and to reinforce the best in what I find in your writings, and in the writings of others that I respond to. Although you are not impressed by citations to HPB or the Mahatmas, in a careful, intellectual study of the theosophical philosophy, such citations can be helpful. They allow the discussion to keep focused, and to keep participants on an equal basis as students, rather than any one pontificating to the others. I would not use a quotation with you, because you are approaching discussions from a different standpoint, and it would not be an appropriate way to respond to you. On the other hand, an interesting quotation may catch my attention and lead me to carefully consider a point, because I might consider the writer to be a knowledgable source of information on the Mysteries. In the final analysis, though, I would have to internalize the information, before it would really be of value to me. -- Eldon From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Sat May 4 03:20:35 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 20:20:35 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9605040320.AA25776@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL JHE >> A student borrowed my only copy of ~Cosmic Fire~ and I >>just realized that he never returned it. Kim: >Really Jerry, 15000 volumes in your library and no "Cosmic >Fire"! JHE Yeah, that's the problem of loaning books to students when there is only one copy. Now I will have to find another. At least it is in print. Kim >I think I will defend the terminology and leave any subtler >points. JHE I will be interested to learn exactly how you mean this. Kim > The diagrams are: >CF., p. 56 - a chart from "Theosophist", december 1899. Showing >the triple logos, tanmatras, tattvas, planes. > >CF., p. 94 - a chart from "Theosophist", january 1900. Also >seven planes, triple logos and tattvas. > >CF., p. 1230 - a chart from "Theosophist", december 1899. >Showing the seven Cosmic planes and defining the seventh cosmic >as "prakritic"- the exact claim I made in my previous post >based on a chart by HPB. > > Maybe someone could identify the author of these articles? JHE The pagination of the December 1899 ~Theosophist~ runs from pp. 129-192. The January number commences with page 193, so the page numbers you are suggesting are impossible. However, for those two months, I did find three charts that seems to fit your descriptions. The one showing the triple logos, tanmatras, tattvas, planes is on page 150 (Dec. 1899). At the head of the chart is the word "PARABRAHM." The Second chart (p 155, Dec. 1899) also shows a triple logos, seven planes and tattvas. It is labeled: "EVOLUTION OF MATTER." The third chart is a foldout (page 203, Jan. 1900) and is labeled "Logos of a Solar System." All three charts come from the same article entitled: "Study of the Relation of Man to God" written by A. Schwarz. Schwarz calls the article "a resume of the fundamental teachings...compiled from our best theosophical writers." I've looked through the article and find that Schwarz is Primarily dependent upon Besant, where he draws from ~Esoteric Christianity~, ~Ancient Wisdom~, articles from ~Theosophical Review,~ and extensive references to indebted to CWL's ~The Christian Creed~ and with one reference to CWL's ~The Astral Plane.~ There are two token reference to HPB's ~The Secret Doctrine,~ Vol. 1. One for page 31, and the other for page 44. There are other token references. One to the (which as you may know, was material Sinnett received from a trance medium), and a mention or two of GRS Mead. I'm quite positive above charts are not CWL's though they show his influence. They are rather a syncretism of CWL's and Besant's early writings when she was just beginning to fall under CWL's influence. The charts are probably original with Schwarz. Perhaps I should mail you copies of CWL's charts--which are quite different, yet you will find some familiar elements in them. Kim: >The most "apparently irreconcilable" of all is the various >enumerations of seven principles of man or the universe.It is >generally also the favorite intellectual exercise of >theosophists to create such tabulations. It is a very abstruse >subject and it would take years merely to cover all the >material in the works of HPB. I suggest we use diagrams of both >authors to make the subjects clearer to ourself and the readers >of this. We can then add quotes so support the murkier points. JHE I agree that tabulations are abstruse and may not in themselves be very instructive. However, both CWL and HPB changed their terminology. CWL's reason seems to be pretty straight forward--Besant wanted the terminology "simplified" and told him to change it. In HPB's case, she had to work with the terms Sinnett had published in ~Esoteric Buddhism,~ even though some of them where misleading. She eventually corrected all of Sinnett's errors and substituted more correct terms, but it took awhile. Kim: >A standstill will mean that both views can be supported. This I >will consider a victory, since I am on the defending side of >this argument :-) JHE For me, a victory is in the learning and deeper understanding I achieve by reviewing the material while considering new points of view. Therefore my victory is assured. Perhaps you will have one too :-) Kim: >>>If your view was correct we all aught to abandon all the works >>>of not only CWL but also AB, AAB and many 20th century >>>theosophical writers instantly! A few mistakes would be >>>acceptable, but not a completely flawed understanding. JHE: >>I try not to take such a hard line view. Kim: >I always do, but fear not: this will not be the result of our >discussion. JHE How can you know this? Kim: >My point is that at least some of the ideas of CWL can be >prooven consistent with the system of HPB. Especially the points >you hold to be the weaknesses of his system. JHE No doubt some of CWL's ideas are consistent with HPB's. At least I believe this to be so. But I'm more concerned with the compatibility of his overall system with HPB's. This becomes a problem. >Kim: >The vital points are: > >Can the position be held - > >a) that our solar system (and hence our planetary chain) are >part of the seventh and lowest part of seven universal planes or >principles? JHE How do you define "universal planes"? What do you mean by "principles" here? Do you mean the principles of man? Are you saying that the "universal planes" and the principles of man are the same? Kim >b) that the principles of man are on various planes of existence >within this solar system? And that these seven human principles >has a connection far stronger than a mere correspondence with >the seven principles of the solar system? JHE Certainly CWL's interpretation. I think HPB was clear that it was otherwise in Instruction IV, but you say that you read it differently. I will check for supporting evidence, but I don't believe there is much more one way or the other. Kim >c) that both the systems of HPB and CWL (and every other >esoteric philosopher) can be explained satifactory from this >position? This is a subjective interpretation, but the only one >possible when the terminologies are differing. JHE I don't follow your meaning here. Which position? JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From eldon@theosophy.com Sat May 4 10:36:08 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 03:36:08 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960504103608.006ae1c0@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Eldon on Theo. Groups Keith: >I can only speak for myself, but I wonder if many get frustrated with this or >that approach because it doesn't address the core issue of the spiritual >development of the individual in practical terms as opposed to theoretical and >historical issues. That is because the approach promoted in theosophical groups is more subtle than that. It gives guidelines, but then has us studying the spiritual books. And you know what? Without realizing it, our elevated thought life has infected us with an unexpected transformational power, and our lives start to change on their own accord! >In other words, how do the notions of the cycles of manifestation, reincarnation >and karma help one develop all of the vehicles. How do we stop arguing the >ideas and live the life? We live the life by living the life. It sounds circular, but it's no different than anything else. How do we pick up a coffee cup on the table? We reach out our arm and pick it up. How do we make a friend? We get to know someone and just do it. How do we awaken inner fires that start our lives cooking? By standing close to someone's already burning flame, or by patiently striking one's flint until a spark can be obtained, then with tinder nurtured into a fully-bruning flame! >I have been forced to focus on the need to regenerate the incessant demands of >my kama-manas or desire-mind. This has strengthened my belief in reincarnation >in that I can see how these issues came over from another life and I have been >given the opportunity to pay karmic debts by suffering to restructure myself a >little at a time. Christina Grof has written about the spiritual emergence >movement and has started a network to help those in a spiritual crisis. That regeneration can be an ordeal, like a "dark night of the soul", or it can be a happy letting go of the garbage of the past, like "eternal delight". The first approach is more often experienced in the west, because we're so caught up in the western psyche, with an abnormal and overly-developed sense of personal self. The second approach is more easy for easterners, not having the same psychic baggage to dispose of. >Transpersonal psychology, deep ecology and other movements are addressing >issues beyond mental analysis. Simply explaining it in words would be mere mental analysis. But there are other ways of using the mind, where the "mental analysis" is a co-process with deeper changes in one, and not empty and lacking in meaning. >I am brainstorming, but I think that many feel this and >may be looking for answers in karma yoga, bakti yoga, hatha yoga >and tantra because rational analysis has reached a kind of dead >end crisis. Rational analysis *without a total saturation in the spiritual* is, as you say, a dead-end. But any approach without understanding and comprehension, is mindless, instinctual, and lacking in depth. >This could lead to a new type of irrationality of cults, drugs, violence, >gangs, terrorism etc. or type of transrationality we all dimly expect >and even glimpse, but have trouble making it practical perhaps. The rejection of the mind and the intellect is certainly as much of a dead-end as a purely arid mind-based approach. >Unity consciousness at one with everyday consciousness is the philosopher's >stone and jewel of great place and like the grail seems "occult" in a special way. And this unity arises in our everyday awareness as we transcend the personality as we know it. It is with a great sigh of relief that we cast off it's shadow upon our mind and heart, and see things from the standpoint of the greatest good. We are not omniscient and omnipotent, but we have then become more than ourselves. We can know things that we would not have ordinarily comprehended, and have become able to do things that weren't possible to us before. We're still like baby chicks, needing to peck through the eggshells, the confining personalities, and find our birth into a wider field of life. -- Eldon From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 03:48:45 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 23:48:45 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960503234844_390102307@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Eldon on Theo. Groups Keith, It could be that our portion of humanity has reached one of those peculiar and scary crossroads that occur every so often in history. It may be that we are on the verge of a new form of consciousness, or it could be that we are heading into a new middle ages. Only time will let us know which it is. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 03:49:30 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 23:49:30 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960503234930_390103072@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Wilber and Hero Worship John, It's a good thing your cows are sane, because not many of your people seem to be. Why else would they live in that climate? :-) :-) Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 03:49:38 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 23:49:38 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960503234937_390103141@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: More on World Service-Wesak Keith, Don't feel guilty about indulging in a little self-pity. When life gives us disasters it becomes a normal response. I hope you get what you need. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 03:50:20 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 23:50:20 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960503235019_390103639@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Membership in the Gang of Four Alex, For all his many faults John Algeo has a very good sense of humor, which can tend to the wicked at times. As far as the old bat goes, it is not worth commenting on. Actually, the idea of me being an agent of the ES might be more annoying to them than to me. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 03:50:22 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 23:50:22 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960503235022_390103677@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Wilber and Hero Worship Alex, In popular parlance, the word "fruitcake" does not refer to sexual orientation, but to sanity, or lack thereof, coming from the phrase "nutty as a fruitcake." I'm sure Keith meant nothing else than to say that Bubba Free John (as opposed to the Bubba Pay JOhn they have in the train station) was crazy. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 03:50:27 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 23:50:27 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960503235026_390103747@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Doctrine Greg, Stick around. What the list and those of us on it are going through is just something that happens on these e-mail things every once and while. It'll settle down pretty soon. Besides, just because somebody else thinks your ideas are "repugnant" is no reason not to express them. ON the contrary, it may be a compliment, sort of like being called a heretic. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 03:50:26 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 23:50:26 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960503235024_390103711@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: your signature to Danny Boy Alex, The story as I read it about thirty years ago was that a knight under Simon asked him the question after the battle. Oh well, it made a great T shirt. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 4 00:22:12 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 19:22:12 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960503192440.268faa10@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: FW: 5th Graders Want E-mail (fwd) Hi - Again this is off the topic, but..... ...doss >From: "Jensen, Jeanne-Anne" >To: listening-l >Subject: FW: 5th Graders Want E-mail (fwd) >Date: Fri, 03 May 96 14:46:00 PDT >Encoding: 25 TEXT > > >I realize this is completely off the topic of Krishnamurti, but . . . > > --- Here is the original message --- > >>>Forwarded message: >>>From: nbravo@smtpgw.lcp.com >>>To: Coyoteugly@aol.com, TMooney691@aol.com >>>Date: 96-04-24 17:24:03 EDT >>> >>>Subject: science fair >>> >>>Hi, our names are Stevie and Amanda. We are in the 5th grade at the >>>Phillipston Memorial school, Phillipston, Massachusetts, USA. We are >>>doing a science project on the Internet. We want to see how many responses >>>we can get back in two weeks. (We are only sending out 2 letters). >>>Please respond and then send this letter to anyone you communicate >>>with on the Internet. Respond to smc@tiac.net. >>> >>>1. Where do you live (state and country)? >>>2. From whom did you get this letter? >>> >>>Thank you, >>> Stevie and Amanda >>> > From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 12:46:35 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 08:46:35 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960504084634_528009819@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Second? Alan, OK, largest, then, but keeping track of five million members is going to be a job! Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 12:47:38 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 08:47:38 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960504084738_528010077@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: sibling and how to sible Alan, YES!!! Wash your ears! Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From SeussInUse@gnn.com Sat May 4 09:30:14 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 09:25:35 From: SeussInUse@gnn.com (Virginia Behrens) Message-Id: <199605041330.JAA23847@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: nucleus of "Brotherhood" On Fri, 3 May 1996 19:05:25 -0400, Kim Poulsen (poulsen@dk-online.dk) wrote: >Easily, Liesel. It may be that the idea cannot be rendered >satifactorily in english. It is the *idea* I like. Alan put the >"universal" back in, which is a great improvement. "Brother-" is >obviously hopeless. >In friendship, >Kim When, Kim, did Alan put the "universal" back in? The first vote on the objects of TI that I have record of is dated April 13, 1996. In that message the first object was worded: To form a nucleus within the universal human family,....(etc.). Are you referring to an earlier version of these objects or wording in other places, such as a web site? I'm glad to hear you think "Brother-" is hopeless. In my experience English does make definite gender distinctions. When I read theosophic, occult, esoteric, and other such authors who wrote in the 19th and first half of 20th centuries, I get a strong impression that when they say they are using "brother" to mean "everyone" and "man" to mean "humanity" they are not being honest. To me, what comes through their words is that they really did mean what they said - people of male gender. I'm speaking here about authors who were themselves in female as well as male bodies when they wrote. It is my observation that authors who sincerely mean to include all genders did not appear in writing on such topics until the second half of this century. Indeed, to me, times have changed! Virginia Behrens TI, TSA From SeussInUse@gnn.com Sat May 4 09:30:33 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 09:25:53 From: SeussInUse@gnn.com (Virginia Behrens) Message-Id: <199605041330.JAA01393@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: to follow through Liesel - you wrote: >After I sent off your message, I thought of clearer terms for >"substance" and "phenomena". Substance is the thing itself, & >"phenomena" are the effects it creates. It's just like they call >certain small particles neutrinos, but only know them by their >effects. They're too small to be visible. V., This is great! Thank-you. This helps my thinking a bunch. >L., >It may have been in the AT. V., Thanks - I'll keep this message and perhaps get a chance to track it down. >L., > The one I'm in touch with is Nick Porreco, nlporreco@bpa.gov. I >would think that someone in that group would be able to answer >some of your questions, whether they have ESP or not. V., Thanks again for pointing me to a possible source. >L., >Yes, I meant Dora. She wrote a book or an article together with >Dr. Shafica Karagulla (I think I spelled the name right). V., Is this the same Dora who is living in the Seattle area (state of Washington, US) and is connected to Ocras Island? >L., >If you're interested in "chi" (prana) I have a good book about it. >In case you haven't come across it, it's Serge Kahili King's >"Earth Energies". V., I'll keep this reference too. >L., >Funny yoou should mention it. Just this afternoon I was at my >acupuncturist, & she straightened out my chi blockages some. V., I love it when this happens - either from me or to me. With gratitude, Virginia From poulsen@dk-online.dk Sat May 4 20:18:25 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 18:18:25 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB39E6.377B2820@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: A nucleus of Brotherhood Encoding: 22 TEXT >Kim, >How do you like "a nucleus of humanity"? Is that any better for you than >"human family"? >LFD I fear one of the two meanings is lost for good. The other meaning is rendered best by "universal family". "Universal Brotherhood" can be the (unlucky) description of an all-inclusive wonderful feeling (I have never excluded sisters from this like you), but "humanity" alone would destroy the second meaning as well. >Re: terminology >Seems to me you haven't thought through the issue. ??!!?? You posted this as a reply to my regret that essential meaning was lost and my consolating pad on the shoulder to Rudy. Now I am depressed, who will pad *my* shoulder? in friendship, Kim From poulsen@dk-online.dk Sat May 4 20:40:10 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 18:40:10 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB39E9.21D83000@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: nucleous of brotherhood Encoding: 30 TEXT Virginia: >When, Kim, did Alan put the "universal" back in? The first vote on >the objects of TI that I have record of is dated April 13, 1996. >In that message the first object was worded: To form a nucleus >within the universal human family,....(etc.). >Are you referring to an earlier version of these objects or wording >in other places, such as a web site? Actually I am not clear on this (help Alan!). Somewhere I saw a version recently without the word "universal" and thought: "Now the sentence and 1st object has become meaningless". >I'm glad to hear you think "Brother-" is hopeless Oh thank god you read it, I have descriped it as "hopeless", "silly", "unhappy" and "unlucky" without making much impression. But my point is that the idea which the term was *intended* to cover has some meanings not yet translated. But I agree perfectly with your objections. I speak a tongue where fx. "human" is always neutral like in german "mensch" but without gender of any kind (and never as man). I normally treat defects in english with a complete lack of interest. Or - when I see the terms "man", "mankind" I think: Interesting, they have retained much of the original sense of "manu", the thinker. It would have been much simpler to always put a "sister" alongside the "brother" from the beginning. In friendship, Kim From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 4 19:02:43 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 15:02:43 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605042007.QAA11659@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: corrected Moscow FAX number We couldn't get through with the Fax number I'd sent in a few days ago, so went back to AT&T. This time, they had the foresight to give me their international office, & this time we got through with the corrected number. So the right number from the US is 011 7 095 205 2228 There's an 0 in front of 95 Sorry 'bout that. Please write! Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 4 19:14:44 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 15:14:44 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605042019.QAA17016@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: nucleus nomenclature >I get a strong >impression that when they say they are using "brother" to mean >"everyone" and "man" to mean "humanity" they are not being honest Virginia, I like to give them the benefit of the doubt. I interpret the ladies saying "man", "he", to mean all humankind, but they were so used to thinking of men as the big shots, as the only ones who really counted, that they just automatically said "he". I know that I still, to this day, when I hear about a person in charge, an authority figure, automatically picture the person as a man. As for instance, our head building maintenance mechanic is retiring, & I heard that he was being replaced by a woman. My first reaction was "A woman can't do that job!" Very automatically, very ingrained. I think it's more that which we find in the older literature. Women just didn't count for much in the way of authority, and so even they tended to think of "humanity" as "man". Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 4 19:17:48 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 15:17:48 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605042022.QAA22139@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: A nucleus of Brotherhood Hi, Kim, I'll pat your shoulders. I didn' mean to make you feel bad. "Human Family" wold be ok by me. Shalom Liesel .......................................................................... >>Kim, >>How do you like "a nucleus of humanity"? Is that any better for you than >>"human family"? >>LFD > > I fear one of the two meanings is lost for good. The other meaning is >rendered best by "universal family". "Universal Brotherhood" can be the >(unlucky) description of an all-inclusive wonderful feeling (I have never >excluded sisters from this like you), but "humanity" alone would destroy >the second meaning as well. > >>Re: terminology > >>Seems to me you haven't thought through the issue. > > ??!!?? You posted this as a reply to my regret that essential meaning >was lost and my consolating pad on the shoulder to Rudy. > Now I am depressed, who will pad *my* shoulder? > >in friendship, > >Kim > > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 4 19:25:27 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 15:25:27 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605042030.QAA22725@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Brotherhood nomenclature Kim This is really splitting hairs, but just see how ingrained it is. We're talking about these things, & you're trying hard not to offend, & here you go with "Mensch". It's *der* Mensch, not das Mensch. Shalom Liesel From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 4 21:42:58 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 22:42:58 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <3Mg7QsAi98ixEwL0@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: A nucleus In-Reply-To: <01BB39E6.377B2820@x.dko.global-one.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <01BB39E6.377B2820@x.dko.global-one.dk>, Kim Poulsen writes > Now I am depressed, who will pad *my* shoulder? > >in friendship, > >Kim Pad, pad, pad, pad .... Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 4 21:45:03 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 22:45:03 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Universal In-Reply-To: <199605041330.JAA23847@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199605041330.JAA23847@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com>, Virginia Behrens writes >When, Kim, did Alan put the "universal" back in? The first vote on >the objects of TI that I have record of is dated April 13, 1996. >In that message the first object was worded: To form a nucleus >within the universal human family,....(etc.). "Universal" has been there since the very first articulation of TI. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 4 21:35:43 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 22:35:43 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <$cj5kgAv28ixEwrs@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Second? In-Reply-To: <960504084634_528009819@emout19.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960504084634_528009819@emout19.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >OK, largest, then, but keeping track of five million members is going to be a >job! You'll cope. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 4 21:36:58 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 22:36:58 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <$Mm5wlA638ixEwKt@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Ears In-Reply-To: <960504084738_528010077@emout19.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960504084738_528010077@emout19.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >YES!!! Wash your ears! > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 million Pardon? --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 4 22:04:31 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 23:04:31 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <5CDikEAvR9ixEwbf@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: German! In-Reply-To: <199605042030.QAA22725@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199605042030.QAA22725@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. deutsch" writes >It's *der* Mensch, not das Mensch. > >Shalom > Nothing to do with theosophy, but I recall in school our German teacher took us through a German poem which translated into English as "And then the man the tiger ate." Even in the German it was impossible to tell who ate who. German tourist in English restaurant: "Waiter! I have been here since half an hour! When do I become sausages!?" Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sun May 5 00:04:30 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 18:04:30 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: German! In-Reply-To: <5CDikEAvR9ixEwbf@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 4 May 1996, Alan wrote: > > > Nothing to do with theosophy, but I recall in school our German teacher > took us through a German poem which translated into English as > > "And then the man the tiger ate." > > Even in the German it was impossible to tell who ate who. > > German tourist in English restaurant: "Waiter! I have been here since > half an hour! When do I become sausages!?" Even less to do with theosophy, but my ancestry is primarily slavic, german and english, which a friend once told me meant that my life would be spent using inborn spiritual powers to achieve domination over others in order to force them to eat really bland lunches. -JRC From poulsen@dk-online.dk Sun May 5 04:05:35 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 02:05:35 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3A27.70B890A0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: Brotherhood nomenclature Encoding: 27 TEXT >This is really splitting hairs, but just see how ingrained it is. We're >talking about these things, & you're trying hard not to offend, & here you >go with "Mensch". It's *der* Mensch, not das Mensch. >Shalom >Liesel Liesel, thank The Great Law you stopped signing yourself LFD, you had me worried for a moment (and Alan had to pad my shoulder). I said *like* in mensch but without the gender, there are no gender in danish (just ask Bee): menneske. Et menneske. Et menneske without regard to sex, colour, etc. that is what we are here. > I didn' mean to make you feel bad. Actually it is the last month here which made me feel bad. I think it is getting better day for day though (and thanks for the pad both). Shalom too and plenty of it! In friendship, Kim From alexei@slip.net Sat May 4 05:16:59 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 22:16:59 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960504051659.006aa50c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Repugnant Doctrines At 05:16 PM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >Greg writes: >> The worst was the use of "repugnent" to describe >>individuals, groups and their ideas. > > I think that we have all agreed to confine such >attributes as "repugnant" to ideas rather than people. In >many ways, it seems harsh to even consider such a name >for ideas, but here is the fact of it: although we are all under >the theosophical umbrella, certain sections of the fabric do >seem repugnant to those standing under other sections. >There have been more than one posting (on ethics, for >example) that practically make me barf, and I feel >horrified that theosophists could think such silly things. >So, I crusade away against what I consider repugnant >ideas, theosophical or otherwise, while trying to keep >the personalities out of it. Sometimes I miss, but I do >try. I don't see any other way of maintaining such a >free-wheeling list such as this one. Any ideas? > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Thank you Jerry. Attitude was what I was referring to and "his attitude is repugnant to me" is what I said. It is quite possible< I think, to find attitudes and concepts repugnant and not be a terrible person. I for instance find Adolf Hitler's ideas perfectly repugnant. And no I am not comparing the ULT with Adolf Hitler, but I find their ideas repugnant too, not as repugnant as Hitler's of course, but certainly as repugnant as Pat Robertson's. It seems to me there's a double standard active among certain people who are posting remarks on this list. For instance, it is apparently perfectly "theosophical" to christen some of us "The Gang of Four" which has heretofore always been viewed as a pejorative, it is perfectly "polite" and "unaggressive" to label me, and others, "heretics" and "blasphemers" and "hostile to HPB" but when we, or rather when I respond to that by saying I find such labeling and the attitude which goes with them both repugnant and pharisaical I am immediately condemned as Attila the Hun. Well, as far as I'm concerned, I don't like being a "target", this one can "fire back" and will! It is important to keep this list an open medium for the exchange of ideas, even totally dichotomous ideas. One cannot have such an open channel when one side takes liberties and then engages in emotional blackmail and "ganging up" on the other side for objecting. Like you I try to keep personalities out of the discussion but when I am personally attacked, not being a Christian, I do not "turn the other cheek" nor do I "love those who hate me". I think that in the time on this board I have learned one lesson extremely well, there are some people on this board, to whom I can do no right, say nothing valid, and who have but one desire, to see me gone. I was, for a while terribly tempted to gratify their wishes, as I lead a busy life and I really don't have time for petty people with petty spites,but Chuck reminded me that I don't stay to fight again, they'll win and so, unpleasant as I find it, I'm going to hang around and keep saying what i believe. When people are polite to me, I can be equally polite in return but I have always believed in returning everything "in kind" thanks for the opportunity to get this off my chest alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Sat May 4 05:20:59 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 22:20:59 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960504052059.006a05d8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: DNA Shows Human And Chimps...... At 05:01 PM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >>I saw this and remembered that HPB and more so GdeP said that apes were descended from man rather than the other way round. I have looked up the >quotes but I won't post them unless requested. Science may be getting >closer to the SD in yet another area. >> Reuter >> >> SYDNEY (May 3) - Gorillas and chimpanzees should be reclassified into the >> same species group as humans because of the closeness of their DNA, >> according to a team of Australian and New Zealand scientists. >> >> The scientists on Friday called for a formal revision of the genus homo and >> for species classification to be based on DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). >> >> "If you compare other mammal groups, like genus ratus (rat) there is much >> more divergence in DNA than there is between humans and chimpanzees," >> Australian scientist Simon Easteal, from the John Curtin School of Medical >> Research in Canberra, told Reuters on Friday. >> >> "If the (species) classification is to have any sort of meaning and >> standard we should be in the same genus," said Easteal, a member of a team >> of Australian and New Zealand scientists who presented a paper "Human >> Origins and Evolution" at the Australian Academy of Science in Canberra on >> Friday. >> >> Using a nuclear DNA test the scientists found humans diverged from >> chimpanzees about 3.6 to four million years ago and the two had diverged >> from gorillas between four and five million years ago. >> >> "There is only 1.6 percent difference between our nuclear DNA and that of a >> chimpanzee, and only 1.7 percent difference from a gorilla," Easteal said. >> "The coding DNA is closer still and some DNA shows absolutely no >> differences at all." >> >> Eastel said the DNA test indicated that both chimpanzees and humans had a >> common ancestor who walked upright. >> >> Developments in DNA research meant that the old rules of classification of >> species based on appearance was now obsolete, as changes in DNA sequences >> were a more reliable way to classify animals than outward appearances >> because DNA appeared to change more evenly. >> >> "I think classification should be based on DNA distances. This (genus homo) >> is just one case of that," he said. >> >> DNA is the substance that functions as the chemical bearer of hereditary >> characteristics. > >-- > > > > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L > > >Bee: Thanks for that posting it's fascinating and to me kind of wonderful. If you want to read a really wonderful book read:"When Elephants Weep" by Jeffrey Mousseiff Masson. it makes one laugh and weep. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Sat May 4 05:24:08 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 22:24:08 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960504052408.006931b0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Bubba-Free John At 04:41 PM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >>While surfing the www, I came across Ken Wilber's endorsement of his >>teacher/guru Adi Dama (or something) who I think was once called Bubba Free >>John (???). He give an endorsement of this guy as a guru worthy of bakti-yoga. >>As far as I could see, the way to enlightenment is the sacrifice of the ego and >>the linking to Unified Primal Mind by adoration of this man. I hope I am not >>getting this right. >> >>Does anyone know about this guru? > > I have read two books by Bubba-Free John, and I like him. >Better than Wilber. However, bakti-yoga is simply not my style, and as >Alexis says, he seems rather stuck on himself. I know nothing of his >sexual activities. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Jerry: Have you read "Knee of Listening" by Franklin Jones (his real name)? If not do, you'll have a better view of him. I ran across him in San FRancisco in the early 70's when he was calling himself Da Free John and was terribly underwhelmed. He's just a terribly good con artist. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Sat May 4 05:35:17 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 22:35:17 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960504053517.00693204@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Theory vs Practice At 04:39 PM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >>I can only speak for myself, but I wonder if many get frustrated with this or >>that approach because it doesn't address the core issue of the spritual >>development of the individual in practical terms as opposed to theoretical and >>historical issues. >> >>In other words, how do the notions of the cycles of manifestation, >reincarnation >>and karma help one develop all of the vehicles. How do we stop aruging the >>ideas and live the life? > > Keith, you have touched a theosophical nerve here. There have >been many many good theosophists over the years who have left for >this very reason. TSs are strong on theory, and weak on practical >application. Altruism and good deeds (karma yoga) only go so far. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >The trouble is, Jerry and Keith too, that when those of us who have sought and found practival applications of spirit, come out and say so we are derided by "classical core theosophy". I agree that T.S.ers are "strong on theory and weak on practical application" But as an active Shaman I have come up with the following questions based on experience: I. Do the "notions of the cycles of manifestation, reincarnation, and Karma" actually represent some kind of reality? 2. Does anything the physical conscious entity do have much effect on the spiritual development of that entity? 3. What does "live the life" actually mean and does it really depend on theosophical hypothesis? 4. Do the "notions of the cycles of manifestation etc." actually simply represent signposts pointing to an understanding of reality and the human condition that one must find for one's self? It is true that altruism and good deeds only go so far, and they probably have nothing to do with the realm of spirit, but the do address Buddha's concerns regarding the suffering of human beings. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Sat May 4 05:39:14 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 22:39:14 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960504053914.006ac880@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Doctrine At 05:33 PM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >> You don't >>have to read what I write, but I am very tired of being the "fall guy" for >>every so-called traditionalist on this list. > > Don't give up now, Alexis. You are taking all the hits >that I used to take. I feel like I am on respite or R&R. No one >even notices my mild-mannered postings anymore. Yours have >made me a pussy cat. In retrospect, I haven't had a single >flame since you joined the list. Thanks. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Pant pant - puff -puff Just let me wipe the blood off...there...Glad to be of service Jerry. Alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Sat May 4 05:44:53 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 22:44:53 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960504054453.0069660c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What is the definition of "fruitcake"? At 06:41 PM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >See my latest comment to Alexis at the end of this posting. Daniel >>>>>>cut<<<<<<< > >I have read allegations that Mr. F.J. also had sex with some of his female >disciples. Does >this make him a bi-sexual? > >DHC > > Not necessarily Dan, many Gay people "have their moments" and have bi-sexual relations, but to be an actual bi-sexual your activities need to be fairly evenly divided between the two. As I understand it Franklin Jones is so terrified of AIDS that he has forbidden his disciples to be anything other than celibate. alexis d. From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sat May 4 05:41:38 1996 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 23:41:38 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Yes, DOCTRINE In-Reply-To: <960503192412_286662220@emout19.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Too bad ASCII won't let one change font size. Then it could be written twice as big and apparently then be twice as true. -JRC From alexei@slip.net Sat May 4 05:55:18 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 22:55:18 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960504055518.00694d08@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Doctrine At 07:51 PM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>cut<<<<<<< > >This, sir, is another ripple in a long stream of the nastiest invective I >have ever read in my short experience on the Internet. You suggest that one >may use the "delete" key but in fact your personal remarks, which seem aimed >to hurt the PERSON and not just discuss the ideas, draw the whole group into >the malestrom. How do I delete all of that? I certainly feel you are >entitled to your opinion, but why the nasty, personally-aimed barbs? I >certainly don't feel welcome here to a nucleus of Brotherhood, and I too >would like to sign off if this is typical of this discussion. I suppose my >views will also make me one of the "repugnant" ones? > >JPR > O.K. One more time. I call people Pharisees who have called me "heretic" "blasphemer" "anarchist","Atheist" and a "denigrator of H.P.B." This all resulted because I have a somewhat different view of what theosophy is all about than they do. I have also been dubbed a member of "The Gang of Four" which I hope you will remember originated in China as a very strong pejorative. Now after trying to deal as reasonably as a person can with differences of opinions, and after complaining bitterly about what I'd been called, I respond by terming those who directed those comments to me Pharisees! I did so because Pharisees are the kind of people who call other people heretics...and then, instantly I am changed form mere heretic to Attila the Hun. Oh well he was one of my ancestors. I'm sorry but I will not be a passive "punching bag". How is it you cannot see that the terms directed towards me are also personal and hurtful? alexis d. > > From alexei@slip.net Sat May 4 06:05:14 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 23:05:14 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960504060514.006a2690@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Wilber and Hero Worship At 09:55 PM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >I'm tellin' ya ... it's retrograde mayhem! > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- > >Responding to Keith's posts, Alexis writes, > >> Now I do want to say this, Franklin (that's his real name) is fat, he's >> anglo, and he is a gay man, but the word "Fruitcake" is no more acceptable >> than the word "Nigger! If you're going to sign your messages with "Namaste" >> you'd best mean it for everybody. I'm not the only Gay person on this list >> and I take very strong exception to words like "fag" and "fruitcake"! I > >Geez, chill out ! I did not get the sense Keith was using the word >"fruitcake" in a way that had anything to do with gays ! I understood Keith >to mean that this guru fellow looks very strange. Fruitcake has a lot of >meanings, you know? > >And Keith did NOT use the word "fag." Boy. How quickly one can assume they >are being called names. I wonder if in a day or two Alexis is going to run >around writing that he's personally been called "heretic" "blasphemer" and >"fag" to boot. > >Oh, the evils of Theos-hell ! > >Oh now you chill out Donna. I didn't say Keith used the word "fag" I was objecting to his use of the word "fruitcake" which most "Gay" men in the parts of this country in which I have lived, have heard used in reference to themselves, and I was comparing it to the word "fag" which is no better. As a woman you have obviously never been called either, perhaps if you had been you'd be a little more sensitive to other people's "sore spots". I've been fighting for Gay equality since 1950 and I've got lot's of sore spots. This discussion has nothing to do with theosophy or with theos-list it is personal and between Keith and myself but so far everybody but Keith has responded. As to your last sentence it is utterly gratuitous and I resent it bitterly! alexis d. From eldon@theosophy.com Sat May 4 12:53:08 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 05:53:08 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960504125308.0069754c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Doctrine-----Who are the true Revisionists? Daniel: My turn for a few quotes ... KH> In reference to your wonder that the views of the three KH> mystics "are far from being identical," what does the fact KH> prove? Were they instructed by *disembodied, pure, and KH> wise Spirits ... would not the teachings be identical? The KH> question rising: "May not Spirits as well as men differ KH> in ideas?" ... if ... different ... contradictory doctrines KH> are propounded, these doctrines cannot contain the Truth, KH> for Truth is *One*, and cannot admit of diametrically KH> opposite views. [ML, 3rd ed., 49] This is just stating the obvious: that different, contradictory doctrines cannot contain the Truth. There is a difference between personal opinion and facts and views based upon the status quo of life. This is why it's important to pass on in an unaltered form those Mystery Teachings which we've been entrusted with, those that we haven't yet personally realized, and are able to speak about with the conviction based upon personal experience. KH> ... it is neither nature nor an imaginary Deity that has to KH> be blamed, but human nature made vile by *selfishness* ... KH> work out every cause of evil you can think of and trace it KH> to its origin and you will have solved *one-third* of the KH> problem of evil. [page 57] KH> I will point out the greatest, the chief cause of nearly two KH> thirds of the evils that pursue humanity ever since that KH> cause became a power. It is religion under whatever form and KH> in whatsoever nation ... Remember the sum of human misery KH> will never be diminished unto that day when the better portion KH> of humanity destroys in the name of Truth, morality, and KH> universal charity, the altars of their false gods. [page 58] This part we've discussed, that selfishness and superstition are the main cause of evil and suffering in the world. But then we read: M> Those who have believed and followed us have had their reward. M> Mr. Sinnett and Hume are exceptions. Their beliefs are no M> barrier to us for they have *none*. They may have had M> influences around them, ... but all this is physical and M> material impediments which with a little effort we could M> counteract and even clear away ... Not so with the magnetism M> and invisible results proceeding from erroneous and sincere M> beliefs. Faith in the Gods and God, and other superstitions M> attracts millions of foreign influences, living entities and M> powerful agents around them, with which we would have to use M> more than ordinary exercise of power to drive them away. [page 455] From this I read that erroneous but sincere beliefs are the biggest barrier to our participating in the spiritual work. These beliefs can bring with them untold negative influences, which can only darken one's nature and hold one back. If there is one Truth, albeit expressed in different forms in different approaches to the spiritual, and if false-but-sincere beliefs are a barrier, then it is of considerable importance for people to search out valid "veins of gold", valid sources of Mystery Teachings to train oneself in. And it is also important that one work to end suffering by becoming unselfish, by working to free people from the thought-control imposed by religions. (And by political and cultural systems as well!) And finally, it is important to help people move beyond their false but sincere beliefs, to study the Mysteries with a fresh, open, unstained mind and heart, a mind that is restored to its virgin state where it is untouched by fixed opinion and pettiness! -- Eldon From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 4 06:04:01 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 01:04:01 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Yes, DOCTRINE In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Just wait. With graphical interface in Windows and multimedia, we can see large fonts dancing with music and noise as loud as you want. We can entertain everybody. ...doss On Sat, 4 May 1996, JRC wrote: > Too bad ASCII won't let one change font size. Then it could be written > twice as big and apparently then be twice as true. > -JRC > From alexei@slip.net Sat May 4 06:22:07 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 23:22:07 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960504062207.006c3aa0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Wilber and Hero Worship At 11:52 PM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >In popular parlance, the word "fruitcake" does not refer to sexual >orientation, but to sanity, or lack thereof, coming from the phrase "nutty as >a fruitcake." I'm sure Keith meant nothing else than to say that Bubba Free >John (as opposed to the Bubba Pay JOhn they have in the train station) was >crazy. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: I have lived in New York City where it clearly means a variant on "fruit" I have lived in Boston where it is used thesame way, now in both places when used to mean "crazy" it is part of the phrase "nutty as a fruitcake"...and most of all I have served in the Army where it was also used that way...Jim Meier assures me that in Texas where Keith lives it is never used as a reference to Gay men, and I'm willing to accept that. But I'd really like to hear it from Keith. You see, I've been called a "fruitcake" usually in conjunction with "fuckin fag" or "queer bastard" and so perhaps I'm a little sensitive. alexis d. From Richtay@aol.com Sat May 4 06:19:02 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 02:19:02 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960504021902_390188655@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: TI brotherhood clause Rodolfo Don writes and Alan responds, > >If you read Theosophy International first object, the way it stands on the > >web now (the revised version), it could apply to any of the criminal gangs > >that we have here in California and elsewhere. "To form a nucleus within > >the universal human family, without distinction of sex, sexual orientation, > >creed, class, or color." > > > >This is very sad, and I refuse to be part of it. > > None of us can opt out of the human race, or the human condition. That > such criminal gangs exist is a mark of human failure, but the people who > are in such gangs are, whether we like it or them, still members of the > human family within which we hope to create a more harmonious and co- > operative example they may come to appreciate and follow. Without doubt > (surely?) the founders intended their "nucleus" to reach out to *all* > beings, in which the idea of "class" would include the "criminal class" > - not just those of whom we happen to approve. Um, Alan -- you've totally missed Rodolfo's point. He didn't mean to say that criminal gangs should be excluded from our ideas about brotherhood. He meant that a gang could write a constitution for its existence based on the very same platform you have based TI on. I quite agree. The TI platform is extremely watered down, and says almost nothing specifically about Theosophy. From alexei@slip.net Sat May 4 06:23:48 1996 Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 23:23:48 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960504062348.006ceb54@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: your signature to Danny Boy At 11:53 PM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >The story as I read it about thirty years ago was that a knight under Simon >asked him the question after the battle. Oh well, it made a great T shirt. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: What was the Knight doing "under simon" and what were they wearing? alexis From eldon@theosophy.com Sat May 4 13:18:03 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 06:18:03 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960504131803.006a74c8@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: visiting theos-hell (a story) It late at night here in California. The wife and children are in bed. I'm alone at the keyboard as the full moon shines overhead. My mind is willing, my heart is brave, but still I hesitate. Shall I dare visit theos-hell??? There have been stories told of this place. Stories that would keep little children up at night, stories that would give many a grown man or woman a sleepless night. It is said that many an adventurous soul has wandered into this hell-realm, this place of suffering, this tala where one's deepest feelings can get stomped upon and one's most cherished beliefs can be ripped from one's cowering mind! Dare I approach this realm? Many a theosophist has spoken of this place. They have heard of visitors having dared subscribe, then descend into the email and actually read postings that mention them by name! With ears turning red, pulse rising, then red in face and trembling hands, they fumble to quickly type out their replies, responding to the demons, some sly and impish, that dominate this sad world. A voice calls out from the other room, "Eldon, would you get to bed?" And I respond, "Just a minute." Having come this close to the laya center, I prepare to take the plunge into the sub-abyss, and venture into this lower plane of matter. I stand before the portal and wonder, "Dare I enter here?" But then I remember the bodhisattva vow, and decide I should go there, no matter what the risk, and no longer hesitate. Passing through the portal, I find the world darken and see about myself the most hideous demons! Dark, red, glowing eyes stare at me, and I can hear the heavy breathing of deadly creatures that stalk the unprepared in the darkness of night. But then I hold out my hand and break a smile. And the light from my smile brightens the place, and daylight quickly appears. About me now is a springtime meadow, teeming with youthful life. There are no monsters now, just nobles and wise ones. Somehow it is no longer a hell world. All it had been lacking was that one smile, and now its original life has been restored. It now gets later, and I must leave this world. Passing again through that portal, I reenter my home in Los Angeles. I am back to my mundane world, my everyday life in California. But I am a better man for the experience. And I've left something of value behind in theos-hell, something that will brighten the world for those still dwelling therein. -- Eldon, visitor to theos-hell From Richtay@aol.com Sat May 4 07:08:53 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 03:08:53 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960504030852_484102871@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Denizen of theos-hell Eldon writes, > >Oh, the evils of Theos-hell ! > > Without repeating the message and reply, I think that you've > come up with a brilliant term here. Something that is as > noteworthy as my previously coined term "gang of four" or > Chuck's "barbarians". > > What a good nickname for 'theos-l': 'theos-hell'. A world > we descend into, in order to be ground over by the forces > of nature, to suffer, and to eventually redeem ourselv Sorry, it wasn't in fact Alexis. I wrote it, stealing it baldly from Nicholas Weeks in a private communication. (Sorry Nicholas, but it is a good epithet.) :) From Richtay@aol.com Sat May 4 07:08:56 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 03:08:56 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960504030855_484102882@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Repugnant Doctrines Alexis writes, > Well, as far as > I'm concerned, I don't like being a "target", this one can "fire back" and will! Um, has this become a war? Now we're "firing" on each other? > but > Chuck reminded me that I don't stay to fight again, they'll win Wow. Guess so. Please, though, what are the "sides" and whom should I look for to find my "enemies"? From Richtay@aol.com Sat May 4 07:09:00 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 03:09:00 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960504030859_484102898@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Yes, DOCTRINE > Too bad ASCII won't let one change font size. Then it could be written > twice as big and apparently then be twice as true. > -JRC It's a good quip, John. But is that your only response to what Greg posted? I think there is no question that Theosophy was offered to the world with a doctrine. And if folks choose not to accept that doctrine, so what? They may be called "Theosophists" all the same. But I sense from your response that have have no retort to the SUBSTANCE at issue. From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 12:47:24 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 08:47:24 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960504084724_528010021@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The Ol Toad Spell Jerry, Very true. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 12:47:33 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 08:47:33 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960504084733_528010058@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: What is the definition of "fruitcake"? Alex, My friend and fellow heresiarch, you, of all people, know that I am not going to disparage anyone's sexual orientation, my own tastes being what they are as well as my activist status in the alternative lifestyle community, but I have never in any context heard the word "fruitcake" applied in any way other than refering to the amount of nuts loose on the earth, except of course for the inedible xmas concoction. Now maybe slang is different where you are, in which case we must defer to your experience, and I would never deliberately use a word that I knew offended you unless I was very, very, very, very pissed, but this time you may be just a bit overboard. I doubt that Keith meant it in any way other than to say that Bubba Free John is a loon, which he is. Let's just consider the word a miscommunication and put an end to this thread. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 12:47:36 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 08:47:36 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960504084735_528010071@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Ringing the bell Alan and Alex, Unfortunately, horses have a problem with trenches and machine guns. And it helps to know if the enemy is really out there or are you attacking a friend by mistake. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 12:47:41 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 08:47:41 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960504084740_528010088@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Denizen of theos-hell Eldon, Theos -hell! I love it. Now where did I leave my horns and pitchfork? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From poulsen@dk-online.dk Sat May 4 20:13:32 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 18:13:32 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB39E6.338D9A40@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL Encoding: 101 TEXT Kim: >>I think I will defend the terminology and leave any subtler >>points. JHE: > will be interested to learn exactly how you mean this. The basic framework, principles, planes - their order, enumeration and relation without for example going into a discussion of the after-death experiences of the kama-rupa - the subtler points were subjects like analyzing the seven skandhas, etc. I am merely concerned about your time. JHE > Perhaps I should mail you copies of CWL's charts--which are quite >different, yet you will find some familiar elements in them. Kim: Please do so. It will save me a journey to Copenhagen. I will then post my evaluation of them as consistent or not with the system of HPB. Or better - I will prepare a table of correspondence between the designations. ....................... Kim: >>I always do, but fear not: this will not be the result of our >>discussion. JHE >How can you know this? Kim: I have a very strong case with the material from your initial objections and the ES papers of HPB. You can alway bring more objections up, but please let us go through the initial ones in detail. JHE: > No doubt some of CWL's ideas are consistent with HPB's. At >least I believe this to be so. But I'm more concerned with the >compatibility of his overall system with HPB's. This becomes a >problem. Kim When we started the discussion I was not aware you intended to differ between the system of AB and CWL. A few photocopies will be appreciated - or a brief description of the overall system. JHE > How do you define "universal planes"? Kim As states of being external to our solar system. JHE >What do you mean by "principles" here? Do you mean the principles of >man? Are you saying that the "universal planes" and the principles of >man are the same? Kim No, but "principles" is a term which may be applied to various differentiations. The seven elements are the seven principles of the One element just as the seven planes or states of being may be called the seven principles of being. I often assume manifestations to develop from a unity into 3 primary "aspects" and 7 secondary "principles". Kim >>b) that the principles of man are on various planes of existence >>within this solar system? And that these seven human principles >>has a connection far stronger than a mere correspondence with >>the seven principles of the solar system? JHE > Certainly CWL's interpretation. I think HPB was clear that >it was otherwise in Instruction IV, but you say that you read it >differently. I will check for supporting evidence, but I don't >believe there is much more one way or the other. Kim: I suggest we start interpretating the statements by HPB relating to our subject. Kim >>c) that both the systems of HPB and CWL (and every other >>esoteric philosopher) can be explained satifactory from this >>position? This is a subjective interpretation, but the only one >>possible when the terminologies are differing. JHE > I don't follow your meaning here. Which position? (sorry, this is something like a game of chess to me) The idea of the planes of our solar system as being the lowest part of seven universal planes. This is clearly described by Subba Row and apparent from the ES papers of HPB. In lack of clear, direct information we will have to make an initial working hypothesis. If both the explanations of HPB and CWL will fit our hypothesis - then our hypothesis will have become a possible solution. In friendship, Kim From alexei@slip.net Sat May 4 16:45:15 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 09:45:15 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960504164515.00682444@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What is the definition of "fruitcake"? At 08:49 AM 5/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >My friend and fellow heresiarch, you, of all people, know that I am not >going to disparage anyone's sexual orientation, my own tastes being what they >are as well as my activist status in the alternative lifestyle community, but >I have never in any context heard the word "fruitcake" applied in any way >other than refering to the amount of nuts loose on the earth, except of >course for the inedible xmas concoction. Now maybe slang is different where >you are, in which case we must defer to your experience, and I would never >deliberately use a word that I knew offended you unless I was very, very, >very, very pissed, but this time you may be just a bit overboard. I doubt >that Keith meant it in any way other than to say that Bubba Free John is a >loon, which he is. >Let's just consider the word a miscommunication and put an end to this >thread. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > > >Do you remember earlier on when we had a little discussion vis a vis "regional differences in language",Well, apparently this is one of them. In my experience it is just a euphemism for "fruit" and thusly offends me. Obviously in Texas it isn't, or in Chicago either apparently. But it certainly was back when I was in the Army. In any case I'd be happy to end this discussion but I would have liked to hear from Keith saying"Alex that's not how I meant it". I know that you personally would never ever either offend me or any Gay person gratuitously. I trust you Chuck. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat May 4 16:46:27 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 09:46:27 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960504164627.00691aa4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Ringing the bell At 08:49 AM 5/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alan and Alex, >Unfortunately, horses have a problem with trenches and machine guns. And it >helps to know if the enemy is really out there or are you attacking a friend >by mistake. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA MG of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >OOOPs...I'm lost! to what are we referring? alexis From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat May 4 17:40:35 1996 Date: 04 May 96 13:40:35 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: RE: Is it real? Better measure Message-Id: <960504174035_74024.3352_BHT60-1@CompuServe.COM> .Sally writes: > And, says the Rochester Review, "Mandel's team has shown experimentally that > quantum mechanics wins again: There *is* no reality until a measurement is > made." > Says professor Mandel- > "Many people accept the notion that reality is something separate from the > information we take through our own detectors - our senses. Our results run > counter to that thinking, in emphasizing that there is no reality in the > absence of measurement. Even Einstein had trouble accepting that this was > true." > Whoosh....... > Does this mean that the world really might go away when we aren't looking? > Are you all my imagination? Am I having a bad dream and need to wake up? > mutter, mumble ......... > Sally Ann Smith > Encore9016@aolcom > > Keith: Those of us interested in lucid dreaming sometimes called out of body experience, skryying and other things have noted that in our dreams everything is strangely hard and strangely decomposable (mist like) according to expectaions and maybe some other things. For instance, I had a lucid dream last night. When I "woke up" in my dream to the fact that I was dreaming I was excited about doing "experiments". I proved to myself I was dreaming by jumping into the air. I floated to the top of the ceiling, but didn't go through it nor could I go through a glass door like a ghost . It was hard and when I bumped it was exactly what I expected and I didn't want to break it because I knew it would cause a lot of pain if it cut me. It seems like all is Maya, but this Maya can really hurt (it seems we can learn karmic lesson in dreams and do as often suggested). I also noticed that when I walked through doors, the perspective (3-d reality) was exactly what I would expect in waking consciousness, but there was a little lag, a little time lapse as if the special effects man was a second or two behind combining images. The effect was like the image maker in my dreaming mind was getting overloaded and was dragging behind. I guess we are converging on the possiblity that we are creating our own reality and playing it back to ourselves on all the levels and planes whether- dreaming/astral, quantum mechanics/ physical subplane etc. and that "reality" is just waiting to get caught with its pants down and we get to see the Wizard of Oz, ourselves, pulling all those levers behind the curtain. And then what? I keep waking up or is it going to sleep and then waking up and then... Namaste Keith Price From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sat May 4 18:27:55 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 12:27:55 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Repugnant Doctrines In-Reply-To: <960504030855_484102882@emout09.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 4 May 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > Alexis writes, > > > Well, as far as > > I'm concerned, I don't like being a "target", this one can "fire back" and > will! > Um, has this become a war? Now we're "firing" on each other? > > but > > Chuck reminded me that I don't stay to fight again, they'll win > > Wow. Guess so. Please, though, what are the "sides" and whom should I look > for to find my "enemies"? > You could start with all those you call "deluded" - a term that is the intellectual analog of a shot across the bow. You are certainly free to engage in all the missile exchanges you wish - but please don't stand back and pretend to be some innocent who just gets beat up and has never attacked others, or initiated an exchange. You hardly have some sort of moral high ground here. -JRC From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sat May 4 18:51:30 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 12:51:30 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Yes, DOCTRINE In-Reply-To: <960504030859_484102898@emout10.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 4 May 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > > Too bad ASCII won't let one change font size. Then it could be written > > twice as big and apparently then be twice as true. > > -JRC > > > It's a good quip, John. But is that your only response to what Greg posted? > I think there is no question that Theosophy was offered to the world with a > doctrine. And if folks choose not to accept that doctrine, so what? They > may be called "Theosophists" all the same. But I sense from your response > that have have no retort to the SUBSTANCE at issue. Actually, I have a very substantive response, which may take a bit of time to write - though I am questioning why the energy should be expended. In *my* opinion there is "no question" that the Adepts wished *primarily* to inculcate the idea of the "Universal Brotherhood of Humanity" throughout the world ... and the TS was to be the *agent* of this particular project - and that their greatest *fear* was that the TS would turn in on itself, and become little more than small groups of people meeting to study occultism because of their own personal interest in it ... or because of the thought that by doing so they might *for themselves* achieve initiation into the "mysteries". I've tried several times since I've been involved in Theosophy to make this case. And I certainly understand that it is a minority opinion. I fear I could write endlessly about it (and for every quote of Greg's I could respond with a quote of my own ... but ... why?). Fact is, those who want to make Theosophy into into something composed of intricate discussions about the finer points of the "Doctrine" will simply ignore anything I say. And those Theosophical organizations that wish to actually institutionally *impose* the study of this "Doctrine" as a condition will *vehemently* ignore anything I say ... especially when in thus saying (and backing with as many quotes as anyone else) I am asserting that Theosophy has now become precisely what the Adepts greatly feared it would collapse into - a small cult of interest to only a few, and having virtually no effect at all on a world that now *desperately needs* a strong articulation of the principle of a "Universal Family of Humanity". Regards, -JRC From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sat May 4 18:58:44 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 12:58:44 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: TI brotherhood clause In-Reply-To: <960504021902_390188655@emout07.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 4 May 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > Rodolfo Don writes and Alan responds, > > > >If you read Theosophy International first object, the way it stands on the > > >web now (the revised version), it could apply to any of the criminal gangs > > >that we have here in California and elsewhere. "To form a nucleus within > > >the universal human family, without distinction of sex, sexual > orientation, > > >creed, class, or color." > > > > > Um, Alan -- you've totally missed Rodolfo's point. He didn't mean to say > that criminal gangs should be excluded from our ideas about brotherhood. He > meant that a gang could write a constitution for its existence based on the > very same platform you have based TI on. I quite agree. > > The TI platform is extremely watered down, and says almost nothing > specifically about Theosophy Ah, but this is a big point. What is *now* called Theosophy by *some* is not mentioned in (nor, it should be noted, excluded by) the TI Objects. But I might point out that what is *now* called Theosphy is not metioned in the *orginal* Objects either. -JRC From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat May 4 19:32:14 1996 Date: 04 May 96 15:32:14 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: More Pain vs. Suffering Message-Id: <960504193214_74024.3352_BHT148-1@CompuServe.COM> Eldon writes (Keith>quoted) (Keith Responds>>) ELDON: In your posting you write about the benefits of suffering and how it is something that cannot be avoided. I'd use a different word: "pain". Pain is the mirror of pleasure. Both are a part of the experience of life. But suffering is not. Suffering is a state of mind that we don't have to approach our experiences with. If I were jogging, and my legs hurt as I ran, there would be pain. But I could be enjoying the run, and not think about the way that my legs feel. Paying attention to the pain, I could wish to be doing something else, and let myself suffer. Or ignoring the pain and enjoying the run, I could have the identical experience, minus any sense of suffering. KEITH>> .>>Thus pain is information, yet suffering is still the self-conscious response and awareness of MY pain and cannot always be ignored. Buddhism would call the cause of suffering to be the attachment to our expectations. We fail to recognize the impermanence of life, and want to repeat or hold onto experiences that have previously brought us pleasure. This clinging to the past and failing to embrace the present, this wanting to be someone and somewhere else, is the cause of suffering. >>Paradoxical nature of our level of consciousness exposed. We always want, want, want! Even wanting not to want! >>This desire to be somewhere else not suffering may be a desire to be unconscious (oblivion-THANATOS) or super-consciouss beyond the current level of self-consciouss humanity (desire for evolution-EROS) >1) suffering is a tool for spiritual growth >>Selfconscious dissatisfaction may be a calling to evolution or death. Change is unavoidable. If we cooperate with planning and directing it, we remain somewhat in control and don't have to suffer. >>Pain consciousness is feedback loop (like pleasure) on state of system. It is an awareness of levels of structure information (COSMSOS) or disippation-entropy ( CHAO) A Janus headed portait appears! >3) suffering is necessary as the shadow of good >>Suffering feels like entropy and may be, but it is information. Suffering is the feeling that we don't want to be in life as we find ourselves at the moment. It comes from *denial* and lack of cooperation with the processes of change. It's not the shadow of good, it's the shadow of living in harmony and cooperation with the eternal law of change. Each of us, though, is a nucleus of one. When our barriers drop and we accept others, we are a living center of brotherhood. We don't need a theosophical group to do this work. >How many have been called to the path by suffering more than by >complacency, boredom or simple curiosity? Until the Buddha stepped >out of the palace and Christ out of the carpenter's shop spirituality was >superfluous to the enjoyment and struggles of life. Suffering was the >initiation fee, so to speak. Unexpected pain in life (which you call suffering), like physical illness, is the last and most primal attempt of life to get one's attention. If we were more inattentive, we could resolve the inner conflicts and deal with the issues in a more effective manner, before things get to that stage. But pain is also an inseparable part of life, and itself is not suffering, but rather the "bitter" in the "bitter-sweet" flavor of life. Just as there is a "music of the spheres", a sound-quality to life, there is likely a "flavor of experience", a taste-quality to life as well. And we can savor the taste, rather than spit it out of our mouths and say "I don't like life." -- Eldon ------------------------------ Keith to Eldon: Thanks for the thoughtful response to my questions of suffering. Not to put words in your mouth, Eldon, but to add my own ideas to yours, "pain" as you use it seems abstract, impersonal, value-freee, cleansed of human emotion, something that can be measured scientifically like synaptic uptake of nuerotrasmitters of X (pain molecule). This is a valueable perspective from a detached perspective. Detachment seems a type of goal. Yet compassion is even more mysterious. How do I feel your pain? This ablity to pick up another's dangers and respond gives us most of the examples of the proof of ESP. "I knew the baby was in trouble, I felt it?" are common expressions that show a linking to the higher connected consciousness through the linking with the essential danger of another. Clinton has very adeptly used this expression of mass sympathy; "I feel your pain!" to evoke a feeling of connectedness. Pain and accidents don't really bother most of us. It is deliberately and often spitefully inflicted pain by one human on another or even self-destruction. This reveals spiritual exchanges that are really hard to accept like wars and suicides and serial thrill killing and one could go on. Humanity seem to be capable of inflicting sprititual suffering of an advanced level that foreshadow the higher levels as much as unitive bliss (many would disagree). Neoplatonism (reduced to the absurd perhaps) seems to offer a " take your medicine (really good for you) even if it tastes bad (!) because it will help you later" platitude. Gnosticism seems to take the extreme oppostite stance that there is nothing good about suffering, that it only reminds us of our loss of the complete bliss and unlimited power of the heaven world. It is a cruel reminder of our enslavement to evil spiritual forces that have seduced us and that salvation is an escape from prison. I admit I have held on to a gnostic attitude because, as critics of gnosticism perhaps rightly suggest, it gives one an excuse for excesses and shifts issue of responsibility It also gives one a misguided (I now believe) since of superiority and specialness. The gnostics are the chosen, the elect and as such are granted special dispensations perhaps -- rebels with a cause, criminals on a mission like Robbinhood, the mask of superiority of the misfit. Eldon seems to suggest that change does not allow our final judement of the world process by our limited consciousness, but demands that the awareness of pain and pleasure are part of the energy flow in time and are forces to be cooperated with for growth in the long run or suppressed or gone against or misused with long term consequences. The ability to experience my pain and by inference your suffering leads to an expansion of consciousness. Still, it may take many lifetimes not just to hear it, analyze and even to feel it, but to be detached and committed at the the same time--satisfied with the impossiblity of satisfaction because we are not separate from any of it. Namasate Keith Price From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 4 19:02:43 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 15:02:43 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605042007.QAA11659@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: corrected Moscow FAX number We couldn't get through with the Fax number I'd sent in a few days ago, so went back to AT&T. This time, they had the foresight to give me their international office, & this time we got through with the corrected number. So the right number from the US is 011 7 095 205 2228 There's an 0 in front of 95 Sorry 'bout that. Please write! Liesel From eldon@theosophy.com Sun May 5 03:07:06 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 20:07:06 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505030706.006a3c58@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Doctrine and Brotherhood *Both* JRC: [writing to Rich Taylor] >Fact is, those who want to make >Theosophy into something composed of intricate discussions about the >finer points of the "Doctrine" will simply ignore anything I say. They might ignore it, because they are focusing on something different. If they're into an intellectual study of the philosophy, and you want to promote the wider-reaching work of universal brotherhood, they see nothing wrong with what you are doing, and simply wish you well. Can you see nothing wrong with what they are doing, according them a mutual respect to follow the path they find most beneficial? >And those Theosophical organizations that wish to actually institutionally >*impose* the study of this "Doctrine" as a condition will *vehemently* >ignore anything I say The theosophical community is wide and varied. There are many groups, and non-groups of independent people. Some groups focus on a study of the philosophy. They would find your focus to be counterproductive to their goals, and would obviously oppose it. Others would not only welcome your support, but might open their ranks and allow you to take a leadership role. If a group is *dedicated* to a specific approach, and you are not in harmony with that approach, then you would be in discord and face rejection. And the opposite is true as well. If you are in harmony with the approach of a group, you'll get along fine. Some theosophical groups have a stronger focus than others, and you'll find from them varying reactions to your approach. Is you concern that the Adyar T.S., as a particular theosophical group, take a specific position along your favorite lines, something along spiritual social work (promoting harmony and compassion and other qualities that "universal brotherhood" denotes)? You don't want an exclusivity in the Adyar T.S. focused upon an intellectual study of the philosophy. You point to other things that are obvious concerns in the world. You don't want those things shut out of the T.S. I would support there being room within the Adyar T.S. and other theosophical groups for the practice and promotion of brotherhood *in addition to* any work in support of promulgation of the philosophy. I don't see it as an either/or situation. >... especially when in thus saying (and backing >with as many quotes as anyone else) I am asserting that Theosophy has now >become precisely what the Adepts greatly feared it would collapse into - >a small cult of interest to only a few, and having virtually no effect at >all on a world that now *desperately needs* a strong articulation of the >principle of a "Universal Family of Humanity". Keep at work in articulating those principles that are needed in the world! Be the highest good to everyone that you can. And likewise accord those of us with different approaches the same right to be the highest good to the world *in our own way*. With encouragement and hopefully in mutual respect, Eldon From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat May 4 20:14:57 1996 Date: 04 May 96 16:14:57 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Let them eat cake-not fruits! Message-Id: <960504201456_74024.3352_BHT148-2@CompuServe.COM> >Kieth: There is absolutely nothing positive I can tell you about Bubba Free John (aka Adi Dama). He is a phenomenon of the early Seventies in San Francisco-Berkeley. For many years I was associated with "The Meeting of The Ways" an association of groups in the Guru Tradition, and I know for sure that the Bubba Free Johnites weren't welcome in it. There's a lot of real junk books he wrote all telling in great detail how incredibly wonderful he is. Now I do want to say this, Franklin (that's his real name) is fat, he's anglo, and he is a gay man, but the word "Fruitcake" is no more acceptable than the word "Nigger! If you're going to sign your messages with "Namaste" you'd best mean it for everybody. I'm not the only Gay person on this list and I take very strong exception to words like "fag" and "fruitcake"! I think you'd best apologize if it was a thoughtless misstatement. But if it wasn't and you ARE a homophobe then forget about being a Buddhist because being an anything phobe is hardly what Buddha taught! alexis d. Keith: Well, I have Pluto conjunct Mercury conjunct the Midheaven which means I like to communicate in a bold, impulsive, sometimes crude manner and use astrology to justify all my shortcomings too boot! :) Lighten up already! Not everyone who says nigger is a racist, or bitch is a sexist or queer is a homophobe, but those that demand apologies and judge the spirtituality of others from one or two words, well, perhaps could look inside at their own insecurites and touchiness. I think this freedom of speech is all right as long as you agree with me and if not I'll call you a name attitude, is worse than calling one a name, I think(?), or none of this namecalling is very buddhic. Well homophobe is a name too and doesn't lilt off the tounge either:) By the way, I meant fruitcake, in the sense of "airhead", kook, obvious eccentric in dress and appearance. But to be honest, I started out with fruit and added cake. So digest what you can and throw back the rest! Yes, it is cruel to categorize one and inspire prejudice and perpertrate unfair stereotypes. But sometimes you have got to use the word that fits-my first thought was fruitcake and almost everyone has confirmed I was right! So hang me! Because one is homosexual would not make one any less or more of a spiritual being (this is a topic in itself) from this fact alone. But one has a right to freedom of expression of impressions and feelings, just as one has a right to freedom of sexual expression. You can use anger and intolerance to fight anger and intolerance, but it doesn't change anyone, at least not on a deep level. You can only silence all free expressions of viewpoints! Your mother wears army boots, Keith Price Sticks and stones may break my bones, but Namaste anyway! From Richtay@aol.com Sat May 4 20:54:41 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 16:54:41 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960504165441_484335837@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Repartee versus substance JRC writes, > You are certainly free to > engage in all the missile exchanges you wish - but please don't stand > back and pretend to be some innocent who just gets beat up and has never > attacked others, or initiated an exchange. You hardly have some sort of > moral high ground here. Okay, John. But I don't see them as "missile exchanges" nor am I interested in a war. I don't feel "innocent," and I am not complaining about the personal hits I have taken -- and continue to take. I have stated my opinions extremely forthrightly, and I will continue to do so, and I am not whining about the price. I will say that the deluded comment was not aimed at any particular individual. There was no one or two people I hoped would be HURT by my comments. Rather, I was talking about a way of approaching the philosophy which ignores the fact that there is a body of teachings which were offered Theosophists to study. This approach is -- I maintain -- deluded. It misses the central reason HPB even bothered to show up. Not brotherhood merely, but IDEAS rule the world, and HPB attempted to deliver new ideas that would help us build a new understanding of the universe we live in. The PHILOSOPHY ITSELF supports the practice of brotherhood. And yet so many seem interested in Theosophy, yet can't stand the philosophy. I will agree with you that brotherhood is the single most important doctrine among the bunch. I must also add, however, that this IDEA has become prevalent in much of society today. Many, many groups are teaching this. PRACTICE would be even better. But Theosophy has no monopoly on brotherhood. However --- and this is the important point --- Theosophy teaches many things which NO ONE ELSE to my knowledge is offering. Ideas about cyclic evolutionary progress of the Monad which are hinted at in Buddhist and Hindu and Egyptian writings, but not spelled out. The seven-fold constitution, anthropogenesis, the understanding of cosmic manifestation -- all these are unique to Theosophy in the form given, and these are the very ideas that are so often put down as silly or worse on this board. So I speak up for those doctrines, demonstrate them in light of current science to the extent that they can be demonstrated, and engage in discussion to deepen my understanding of those teachings. I have learned a tremendous amount from some people on this list. But I will stand by my assertion that the words "heresy" and "blasphemy" were never used as weapons against those who now feel persecuted. They were first used in jest by Chuck -- back me up here Chuck -- who was making fun of the way he PERCEIVED the so-called "fundamentalists" to be reacting to his and other's writings. Soon it was imagined that such epithets had been hurled as "weapons." Then it got ugly. I am not afraid to be made fun of, and I welcome all such personal shots. They do nothing to address the SUBSTANCE of what is being discussed, and in fact leave the impartial observer with the sense that personal shots are an attempt to distract from the issue at hand. It is very easy to engage in repartee, but takes considerably more work to stake out a position and present reasonable argumentation as to why it is tenable. More than quotes, too, though I appreciate Greg's and Daniel's posts of those as well. If you can come up with similar, but opposite quotes, John, well then what are we to do with them? Do we imagine that the Masters are giving out mixed messages? How are we to sift through diverse quotes and arrive at an understanding that seems reasonable and likely? From Richtay@aol.com Sat May 4 21:06:56 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 17:06:56 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960504170656_287182465@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Let them eat cake-not fruits! Keith wrote, > I think this freedom of speech is all > right as long as you agree with me and if not I'll call you a name attitude, is > worse than calling one a name, I think(?), or none of this namecalling is very > buddhic. Well homophobe is a name too and doesn't lilt off the tounge either:) > Yes, it is cruel to categorize one and inspire prejudice and perpertrate unfair > stereotypes. But sometimes you have got to use the word that fits-my first > thought was fruitcake and almost everyone has confirmed I was right! So hang me! > Because one is homosexual would not make one any less or more of a spiritual > being (this is a topic in itself) from this fact alone. But one has a right to > freedom of expression of impressions and feelings, just as one has a right to > freedom of sexual expression. You can use anger and intolerance to fight anger > and intolerance, but it doesn't change anyone, at least not on a deep level. > You can only silence all free expressions of viewpoints! > > Your mother wears army boots, > Keith Price > Sticks and stones may break my bones, but Namaste anyway! Now that is the FUNNIEST response I have read in a while. Welcome to Theos-hell, Keith, where ANYTHING can and will be used against you in a court of law. And my law is ALWAYS holier-than-thou. From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 21:38:13 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 17:38:13 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960504173811_390556060@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Doctrine-----Who are the true Revisionists? Eldon, Ouch! This is one of the times I find myself wondering what the real agenda of the Masters was in writing that. Given the historic fact that when people think they have the REAL TRUTH they have this unpleasant tendency to try to kill everyone who they think has a not so real truth, why would KH even write such a thing? Would it not have made more sense from their point of view to say "Look, everyone makes mistakes, but you get oodles of incarnations (an oodle being defined as a number equal to one-fifth the total matter of the physical universe) to work them out. If you go off on a spiritual tangent this time, you'll fix it later on." When people start talking about who is a real Theosophist, they remind of a an inicident at Olcott in 1992. As a prelude to World Parliament of Religions the next year, a sort of symposium took place in a tent on the grounds during a public gathering at the end of summer school. The idea was to bring all kinds of people onto the grounds, show them a good time, expose them to the TS and maybe get some more victims-er-members. Anyway, it also brought in an infestation of Jews for Jesus, who proceeded to make complete and utter nuisances of themselves. And at the symposium, after the representatives of some different (and a couple very different) local religious bodies spoke, one of the plague asked the Lutheran minister what he was doing on a panel with "false religions"? At that point John Algeo, who had the misfortune of chairing the thing, started to turn red in the face and sputter and looked at me with the obvious thought of "Chuck, you're right, we shouldn't be doing this." There may very well be one ultimate spiritual truth but there are as many paths to it as there are people. If we start judging who has the one, true, Theosophy, we are going to get ourselves into terrible trouble and while I am very skeptical about Karma, if there is such a thing my personal guess is that it will heavier on those who judge those whose spiritual paths are different from their own than on those who follow the different path. It's a damned big universe out there and we really know very little, to little to say who is right. Your last paragraph said it all. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, Heretic, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 21:38:14 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 17:38:14 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960504173813_390556089@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Wilber and Hero Worship Alex, Your sensitivity is understandable and I am surprised that Keith has not responded to you. Maybe you terrify him. In any event, this is a case where the time lag in receiving and getting postings on the list is playing havoc with conversation. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 21:38:17 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 17:38:17 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960504173816_390556111@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TI brotherhood clause Rich, Uh, embarrassing as it may sound, the same can be said for the TS three objects. What is going on here is a difference in the definition of Theosophy. You apparently see it as a body of doctrine based on the core writings, for whence comes the authority for the organized espression of the doctrine. I see it much differently, respecting the core material but not seeing in them, or any other material, an ultimate authority because I am convinced in spiritual matters no such authority can exist. Hence I see Theosophy as a broader framework. That is why we have different Theosophical Societies. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 21:38:19 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 17:38:19 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960504173818_390556143@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: your signature to Danny Boy Alex, I think the knight was standing next to Simon who was still on horseback and at that point they were wearing long chain mail things, surcoats and pot helmets which meant that after a battle they had terrible headaches and did not hear real well. You didn't think I was going to fall for that one, did you? Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 21:38:22 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 17:38:22 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960504173821_390556186@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: visiting theos-hell (a story) Eldon, Fascinating. But it could not have been me that you saw. I don't have glowing eyes. Now if it had been a large, glowing nose... Chuck the Devil MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 21:38:25 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 17:38:25 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960504173824_390556208@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Denizen of theos-hell Rich, I know Alex thinks of it as an insult, but I really liked the "Gang of 4" line. It was so accurate and funny. Now if only Nick Weeks would do something about those dreadful quotes in his sig line. They are insulting. Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 4 21:38:26 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 17:38:26 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960504173826_390556235@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Repugnant Doctrines Rich et al. Now wait just a cotton-pickin' minute here! The idea is to get everyone to stop insulting each other for a while so we can get back to discussing boring things like rounds, chains, (no Alex, I'm not going to write the word you just expected me to because they are not boring :-)) and karma. I need a rest! Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker Chief Devil, Theos-Hell From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 4 21:10:53 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 22:10:53 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: TI platform In-Reply-To: <960504021902_390188655@emout07.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960504021902_390188655@emout07.mail.aol.com>, Richtay@aol.com writes >The TI platform is extremely watered down, and says almost nothing >specifically about Theosophy. Nor do the three objects of the Theosophical Society. Presumably they too are extremely watered down? Is it your *intention* to be denigratory? TI members may think that the TI platform is the very opposite of "watered down." AB --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 4 20:52:04 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 21:52:04 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Theory vs Practice In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960504053517.00693204@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960504053517.00693204@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >I have >come up with the following questions based on experience: I. Do the "notions >of the cycles of manifestation, reincarnation, and Karma" actually represent >some kind of reality? IMO these are three separate notions. My view is that there may be cycles of manifestation, though the term is very vague: manifestation of what? As for reincarnation, the *evidence* is sketchy, but has some merit, but there are alternative explanations for it. It does not appear to be cyclic, unless perhaps (insufficient data) a student's subjective view of it *inserts* a cyclic interpretation. Karma: I went on an outing up the river to join in a firend's birthday celebrations, and we had tea and scones at Bee's Tea Rooms (!) on the riverside before coming back. It was an organised outing, and we were told, as we took our tea and scones, "It will all be paid for at the end." Just like life, I thought. Maybe Karma is a bit like that, but cyclic? Only if it is tied in to the notion of reincarnation. In my philosophy it isn't tied in like that, so my view is different. TANSTAAFL. > 2. Does anything the physical conscious entity do have >much effect on the spiritual development of that entity? Maybe, maybe not - how can we tell? Go look for the spiritual development, perhaps. Decide first what we (I) mean by "spiritual" and so forth. Try to be aware *as* spiritual entity. It works for me, but I have to define my parameters and catalog my experience at the same time as I travel along "The Path." *The Path* - Wow! :-) > 3. What does "live >the life" actually mean and does it really depend on theosophical >hypothesis? If it depends on theosophical anything, surely it depends on one's perception of theosophical teachings? If so, living the life means following those teachings in daily life. Personally I would recommend caution, though, and look for empirical backup evidence. If someone unexpectedly smacks me in the mouth, am I *getting* karma or is the other person *starting* some. I wouldn't care for God's karma! :-) > 4. Do the "notions of the cycles of manifestation etc." actually >simply represent signposts pointing to an understanding of reality and the >human condition that one must find for one's self? I think all the teachings are signposts, but signposts can be misleading, as well as informative. When motorists come from south to north from Southampton to Bristol on route A36, the signposts for Bristol actually take them on a long detour via the city of Bath. This is to make sure they avoid the scenic route, which is also the shorter, but potentially more dangerous one. Also, the villages along it like a quiet life. >It is true that altruism and good deeds only go so far, and they probably >have nothing to do with the realm of spirit, but the do address Buddha's >concerns regarding the suffering of human beings. .. which has to be a good thing. > Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 4 21:14:47 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 22:14:47 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Denizen of theos-hell In-Reply-To: <960504084740_528010088@emout08.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960504084740_528010088@emout08.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Eldon, >Theos -hell! I love it. Now where did I leave my horns and pitchfork? You left them at my place last month. I still have them, as they refuse to burn. Please advise. Satan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 4 21:08:50 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 22:08:50 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: TI brotherhood clause In-Reply-To: <960504021902_390188655@emout07.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960504021902_390188655@emout07.mail.aol.com>, Richtay@aol.com writes >Um, Alan -- you've totally missed Rodolfo's point. He didn't mean to say >that criminal gangs should be excluded from our ideas about brotherhood. He >meant that a gang could write a constitution for its existence based on the >very same platform you have based TI on. I quite agree. So could almost any group of people. How do you know I have totally missed Rodolfo's point? Have you asked him? He hasn't told me this himself? This is not the first time you have made assertions about my perceptions without corroboration. And here you are again, it seems to me, telling me what I have misunderstood, and what Rudy really meant. Is it a surprise that I find your posting potentially divisive and disinformative? *I* have not based the TI platform on anything. I and 35 others have. From your remark, however, I appear as the sole architect. As for your heading, TI does not have a "brotherhood" clause, so why the heading? AB --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 4 21:20:21 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 22:20:21 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Assertation In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , JRC writes >I am asserting that Theosophy has now >become precisely what the Adepts greatly feared it would collapse into - >a small cult of interest to only a few, and having virtually no effect at >all on a world that now *desperately needs* a strong articulation of the >principle of a "Universal Family of Humanity". > Regards, -JRC Well asserted! :-) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 4 21:49:10 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 16:49:10 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Yes, DOCTRINE In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII John: Count me in as one who is totally with you in your analysis. There are many others, may be a small minority who feel the importance of the Brotherhood and have found the "doctrines" help them to apply the principle of Brotherhood in daily life in our interaction with other human beings. Here I have to share my personal experience. It is only after being exposed to the lectures, books, videos of J Krishnamurti,that I came to the realization that the point of emphasis is Brotherhood. I saw parallel in his statements and statements of HPB in Key to Theosophy. Whether the Theosophical Organizations like it or not, the idea of Brotherhood and need to do things that improve the quality of life of everything is catching up. One indication of the number of publications that I find in Book Stores in comparison with those on Theosophy. Sooner all of us here recognize the importance of Brotherhood and help our fellow humans and all other living entities, better all of us will be. As things improve for the world, we too as part of the world derive the benefit. ...doss ===================================================== On Sat, 4 May 1996, JRC wrote: > On Sat, 4 May 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > > > > Too bad ASCII won't let one change font size. Then it could be written > > > twice as big and apparently then be twice as true. > > > -JRC > > > > > > It's a good quip, John. But is that your only response to what Greg posted? > > I think there is no question that Theosophy was offered to the world with a > > doctrine. And if folks choose not to accept that doctrine, so what? They > > may be called "Theosophists" all the same. But I sense from your response > > that have have no retort to the SUBSTANCE at issue. > Actually, I have a very substantive response, which may take a > bit of time to write - though I am questioning why the energy should be > expended. In *my* opinion there is "no question" that the Adepts wished > *primarily* to inculcate the idea of the "Universal Brotherhood of > Humanity" throughout the world ... and the TS was to be the *agent* of > this particular project - and that their greatest *fear* was that the TS > would turn in on itself, and become little more than small groups of > people meeting to study occultism because of their own personal interest > in it ... or because of the thought that by doing so they might *for > themselves* achieve initiation into the "mysteries". I've tried several > times since I've been involved in Theosophy to make this case. And I > certainly understand that it is a minority opinion. I fear I could write > endlessly about it (and for every quote of Greg's I could respond with a > quote of my own ... but ... why?). Fact is, those who want to make > Theosophy into into something composed of intricate discussions about the > finer points of the "Doctrine" will simply ignore anything I say. And > those Theosophical organizations that wish to actually institutionally > *impose* the study of this "Doctrine" as a condition will *vehemently* > ignore anything I say ... especially when in thus saying (and backing > with as many quotes as anyone else) I am asserting that Theosophy has now > become precisely what the Adepts greatly feared it would collapse into - > a small cult of interest to only a few, and having virtually no effect at > all on a world that now *desperately needs* a strong articulation of the > principle of a "Universal Family of Humanity". > Regards, -JRC > From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 4 22:07:09 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 17:07:09 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Yes, DOCTRINE In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 4 May 1996, m.k. ramadoss wrote: > John: > > Count me in as one who is totally with you in your analysis. > There are many others, may be a small minority who feel the importance of > the Brotherhood and have found the "doctrines" help them to apply the > principle of Brotherhood in daily life in our interaction with other > human beings. > > Here I have to share my personal experience. It is only after being > exposed to the lectures, books, videos of J Krishnamurti,that I came to > the realization that the point of emphasis is Brotherhood. I saw parallel > in his statements and statements of HPB in Key to Theosophy. > > Whether the Theosophical Organizations like it or not, the idea of > Brotherhood and need to do things that improve the quality of life of > everything is catching up. One indication of the number of publications > that I find in Book Stores in comparison with those on Theosophy. The above should have read: One indication is the number of publications of JK that I find in Book Stores in comparison with those of Theosophy. It is generally 20:1 in the book stores I have visited in San Antonio. ...doss From RIhle@aol.com Sat May 4 22:54:17 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 18:54:17 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960504185416_484386076@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance Rich Taylor writes> >However --- and this is the important point --- Theosophy teaches many things >which NO ONE ELSE to my knowledge is offering. Ideas about cyclic >evolutionary progress of the Monad which are hinted at in Buddhist and Hindu >and Egyptian writings, but not spelled out. The seven-fold constitution, >anthropogenesis, the understanding of cosmic manifestation -- all these are >unique to Theosophy in the form given, and these are the very ideas that are >so often put down as silly or worse on this board. > > Richard Ihle writes> Hi, Rich. Alexis once put you, Eldon, and me together in "The Gang of Three" for some reason so I think we should be able to get along. I am *very* interested in the "cyclic evolutionary progress" idea you mentioned. If my premise is correct that cosmogenesis and anthropogenesis are both "analogical/metaphorical/mythological" derivatives of a basic theosophical method which involves adept observation of the sequential states of consciousness one passes through in meditation (and sleep, if one can stay Self-aware long enough), it would follow that a similar pattern, at least in some form, would show up in other esoteric writings. Thus, I was keenly interested by your passing references to Egyptian, Buddhist, and Hindu scriptures. Although I realize that you said the cyclic ideas were not quite "spelled out" in these places, are there some specific writings you have in mind which might be worthy of further study as possible "H.P.B. precursors"? Thanks. Godspeed, Richard Ihle From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 4 21:53:55 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 22:53:55 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Sticks and stones In-Reply-To: <960504201456_74024.3352_BHT148-2@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960504201456_74024.3352_BHT148-2@CompuServe.COM>, Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> writes >Sticks and stones may break my bones, but Namaste anyway! "Sticks and stonesmay break my bones but words can break my heart." - Donna Fargo, Country Singer. Just a thought. :-| Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Sun May 5 01:50:05 1996 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 18:50:05 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9605050150.AA13168@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL Kim: >>>I think I will defend the terminology and leave any subtler >>>points. JHE: >> will be interested to learn exactly how you mean this. Kim >The basic framework, principles, planes - their order, >enumeration and relation without for example going into a >discussion of the after-death experiences of the kama-rupa - the >subtler points were subjects like analyzing the seven skandhas, >etc. I am merely concerned about your time. JHE Thank you. I think this is an excellent place to start whether time is a consideration or not. I think that a mutual understanding of the basic vocabulary is a vital prerequisite to any meaningful communication. But how are you going to define these terms without checking them against CWL's writings in order to assure that you are consistent with him? If you want to leave it up to me to supply CWL quotes, that is OK too. But that leaves you to draw your quotes from HPB, without really knowing if they are consistent with CWL. JHE >>Perhaps I should mail you copies of CWL's charts--which are >>quite different, yet you will find some familiar elements in >>them. Kim: >Please do so. It will save me a journey to Copenhagen. I will >then post my evaluation of them as consistent or not with the >system of HPB. Or better - I will prepare a table of >correspondence between the designations. JHE Great. I will make copies over the weekend and send them by air. Kim: >>>I always do, but fear not: this will not be the result of our >>>discussion. JHE >>How can you know this? Kim: >I have a very strong case with the material from your initial >objections and the ES papers of HPB. You can alway bring more >objections up, but please let us go through the initial ones in >detail. JHE Sounds like you are very confident in your position. My own experience has been that to prove even a simple and seemingly clear cut point to someone with another point of view almost always requires the submission of at least ten times the evidence that would have been required to convince someone who is neutral on the subject. I've been through this before. At the bottom of it, I really don't care whether someone has a different view or not. For me, the rewards of this discussion comes from what I learn during the process. If you feel that you have a "strong case," then I will be happy to look at it and give you my response. But once I give a response and back it up with documentation, I don't want to get into a long debate if the object is merely to convince the other. Believe me, this type of debate is grueling, and in my opinion, not worth the effort regardless of who "wins." Further, my experience has been that people form opinions and attitudes for reasons that go beyond the evidence or any intellectual considerations. I've learned that it is almost always better not to interfere with that part of their lives. JHE: >>No doubt some of CWL's ideas are consistent with HPB's. At >>least I believe this to be so. But I'm more concerned with >>the compatibility of his overall system with HPB's. This >>becomes a problem. Kim >When we started the discussion I was not aware you intended to >differ between the system of AB and CWL. A few photocopies will >be appreciated - or a brief description of the overall system. JHE Yes, I'm sure it is a surprise to you, that I make distinctions between CWL and AB. However, I did touch upon this subject with you in private correspondence. I realize that in theos-l posts, I normally refer to "neo-Theosophy" or Besant/Leadbeater Theosophy without indicating a distinction between them. But, here I'm coming from a peculiar historical perspective that I believe justifies me in do so in this context. But in truth, Theosophical doctrine changes from period to period. The neo- Theosophy I'm referring to above reached its perfection around 1925, and does represent a syncretation of AB and CWL. This Theosophy was the one promoted by the ES until about fifteen years ago. Radha Burnier and Greg Tillett were the two major forces that brought about a change, but that is another story. The reason why I often allude to this neo-theosophy syncretism in my theos-l posts is because its kama-rupa still haunts the TS, and I believe that it is a major issue that the members need to recognize and deal with. For the purpose of our more high powered discussion, however, I think we need to be less superficial and acknowledge that the public and ES doctrines presented to the members from 1875 to the present are an evolving thing. From my own investigation, I divided these expositions of Theosophical doctrines into five main periods, which in turn have sub-periods, which I won't go into here: 1. 1875-1885: First introduction of primary ideas primarily through Blavatsky and Sinnett. Primary documents: ~Isis Unveiled~; "Fragments of Occult Truth"; ~Occult World~; ~Esoteric Buddhism~ 2. 1885-1891: Development of Blavatsky's system into a comprehensive philosophy, and the differentiation from Sinnett's system. Development of Subba Row's system. Primary documents: 3. 1891-1894: Besant's extensive commentary and exposition of Blavatsky's system. Primary documents: ~The Seven Principles of Man~ E.S. Commentaries on Blavatsky's ~E.S. Instructions~ 1-6. 4. 1894-1908: Several stages of the combining of Blavatsky's, Leadbeater's, Subba Row's and Sinnett's Theosophies a single system. Primary Documents: ~Man and his Bodies~; ~The Astral Plane; ~The Ancient Wisdom~; ~The Self and its Sheaths~; ~Thought Forms~; ~Man Visible and Invisible~; ~Esoteric Christianity~; The Devachanic Plane; ~Clairvoyance~; ~Secret Doctrine ("volume III"); ~A Study in Consciousness.~ This is the period from which came those charts by Schwarz that you mentioned in your last post. It is also in the context of this period and (to a lessor extent) the next from which I submit that Alice Bailey drew her information. 5. 1908-1929: Further development and perfection of a new Theosophy that began in the last period. Emphases on discipleship and devotion to Krishnamurti. Primary documents: Extensive E.S. material concerning the seven rays, meditation and consciousness (psychology); ~Man Whence How and Whither~; Therefore, when I see a chart or a piece of writing, I always want to know from the top: 1. Who wrote/made it? 2. What was the date of writing and which publication? 3. Place of publication? 4. How does it fit with the author's other writings? 5. How does it fit with the extant writings at the time of production and publication? 6. What was the extant of influence of this work? Of course, by asking these questions, I'm taking the much disparaged "historical view" that is criticized almost on a weekly bases on theos-l. It seems that Dan Caldwell and Myself are the sole contributors that have ever attempted to defend this approach on theos-l. Nevertheless, I offer no apologies for this approach. It is an accepted one in academia, and has been endlessly illuminating for me in my Theosophical studies. This approach neither denies nor affirms whether Theosophy is a system sui genius that came to us by progressive revelation. But it does show that the nature and depth of information published about Theosophy changed over the years, and that the nature of the information published correlates with historical events and interchanges between the various theosophical writers. This is vitally important to realize when looking at the works of different writers at different periods. From my perspective, to disregard the historical context and operate solely out of the assumption of the existence of an unchanging system is a little too close to Ireneaus' argument that there are only four Gospels because there are four pillars supporting the earth, and four winds.... Theosophy then becomes an item of faith that cannot be questioned. JHE >>How do you define "universal planes"? Kim >As states of being external to our solar system. JHE What is the extant of these "universal planes"? Do you have a term for planes "external" to the "universal planes"? What do you call the planes of the solar system? What do you call the planes for the earth's system of globes? What do you call the planes for the sun's system of globes? What do you call the planes where are to be found the human principles? I'm asking you these questions to help me understand your meaning when you use these terms. JHE >>What do you mean by "principles" here? Do you mean the >>principles of man? Are you saying that the "universal planes" >>and the principles of man are the same? Kim >No, but "principles" is a term which may be applied to various >differentiations. *The seven elements ~are~ the seven principles >of the One element* just as the seven planes or states of being >may be called the seven principles of being. I often assume >manifestations to develop from a unity into 3 primary "aspects" >and 7 secondary "principles". JHE Am I correct in understanding from your above statement that principles and planes are essentially interchangeable terms? (Note the part of your statement I starred for emphases). Kim >>>b) that the principles of man are on various planes of >>>existence within this solar system? And that these seven human >>>principles has a connection far stronger than a mere >>>correspondence with the seven principles of the solar system? JHE >>Certainly CWL's interpretation. I think HPB was clear that >>it was otherwise in Instruction IV, but you say that you read >>it differently. I will check for supporting evidence, but I >>don't believe there is much more one way or the other. Kim: >I suggest we start interpreting the statements by HPB relating >to our subject. JHE Yes. This is what I had in mind for "supporting evidence." Kim >>>c) that both the systems of HPB and CWL (and every other >>>esoteric philosopher) can be explained satisfactory from this >>>position? This is a subjective interpretation, but the only >>>one possible when the terminologies are differing. JHE >>I don't follow your meaning here. Which position? Kim >(sorry, this is something like a game of chess to me) >The idea of the planes of our solar system as being the lowest >part of seven universal planes. This is clearly described by >Subba Row and apparent from the ES papers of HPB. In lack of >clear, direct information we will have to make an initial >working hypothesis. If both the explanations of HPB and CWL >will fit our hypothesis - then our hypothesis will have become >a possible solution. JHE Subba Row in his Lectures on the Bhagavad Gita 1886-87 clearly stated that he rejected HPB's seven principle classification because it is a "very unscientific and misleading one" and because the "seven principles do not correspond to any lines of cleavage, so to speak in the constitution of man" (6). He also stated that a "considerable portion" of HPB's system is "almost unintelligible to Hindu minds" therefore he advocated the "time honored" classification of "four principles" which are associated with the "upadhis" and are further associated with "four distinct states of consciousness" (7-8). Since Subba Row clearly opposed HPB (There are commentaries where HPB commented on Subba Row's opposition to her teachings, but Olcott did not see fit to include HPB's comments on this matter in Subba Row's ~Esoteric Writings.~ Yet Olcott did select some of HPB's most conciliatory replies to Subba Row's system.), it seems inconsistent to invoke Subba Row as an interpreter of HPB. I think that it is clear from Subba Row's writings, from 1886 on, that he was trying to outline a system distinctly different from HPB's. Subba Row even referred to her as "his opponent." You are welcome to form a hypothetical system for yourself to harmonize HPB and CWL, but this strikes me as a bit circular. I make this suggestion because behind your above reasoning is the a priori assumption that they do harmonize. I cannot make the assumption that any occult system harmonizes with any other, let alone HPB's with CWL's. Rather, my underlying assumption is that every writer comes from a unique understanding and expression. And that even when they are expounding upon someone else's system, they are merely giving their own interpretation of it, which may or may not be full of misunderstandings. Before I could say that two systems harmonize, I would need to see internal evidence of the harmony between the systems without resorting to hypothesizing a third system. Hypothesizing a third system just opens the question as to whether that new system was intended by either party. At best, such a question is unanswerable. To return to my previous example: even though voodoo is a comprehensive system that embraces Roman Catholicism and Yoruba Tribal religion, its comprehensiveness is not evidence that R.C. and Y.T.R. religions were ever originally conceived to be two parts of such a harmony. In the case of HPB and CWL, I believe that even the historical evidence tends to argue against such a harmony. Well, I think six pages are more than enough for now. I will get those charts to you. In the mean time, I have posed some questions above for you to define. In those definitions, it would be better for you to support them with illustrations, citations and quotes from HPB--and CWL if you can. My citations concerning Subba Row's animosity to HPB's system would be an example. Best Jerry ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Sun May 5 00:49:05 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 17:49:05 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <318BFB01.2EE9@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: DNA Shows Human And Chimps...... References: <2.2.32.19960504052059.006a05d8@mail.slip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit alexis dolgorukii wrote: > > At 05:01 PM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote: > >>I saw this and remembered that HPB and more so GdeP said that apes were > descended from man rather than the other way round. I have looked up the > >quotes but I won't post them unless requested. Science may be getting > >closer to the SD in yet another area. > >> Reuter > >> > >> SYDNEY (May 3) - Gorillas and chimpanzees should be reclassified into the > >> same species group as humans because of the closeness of their DNA, > >> according to a team of Australian and New Zealand scientists. > >> > >> The scientists on Friday called for a formal revision of the genus homo and > >> for species classification to be based on DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). > >> > >> "If you compare other mammal groups, like genus ratus (rat) there is much > >> more divergence in DNA than there is between humans and chimpanzees," > >> Australian scientist Simon Easteal, from the John Curtin School of Medical > >> Research in Canberra, told Reuters on Friday. > >> > >> "If the (species) classification is to have any sort of meaning and > >> standard we should be in the same genus," said Easteal, a member of a team > >> of Australian and New Zealand scientists who presented a paper "Human > >> Origins and Evolution" at the Australian Academy of Science in Canberra on > >> Friday. > >> > >> Using a nuclear DNA test the scientists found humans diverged from > >> chimpanzees about 3.6 to four million years ago and the two had diverged > >> from gorillas between four and five million years ago. > >> > >> "There is only 1.6 percent difference between our nuclear DNA and that of a > >> chimpanzee, and only 1.7 percent difference from a gorilla," Easteal said. > >> "The coding DNA is closer still and some DNA shows absolutely no > >> differences at all." > >> > >> Eastel said the DNA test indicated that both chimpanzees and humans had a > >> common ancestor who walked upright. > >> > >> Developments in DNA research meant that the old rules of classification of > >> species based on appearance was now obsolete, as changes in DNA sequences > >> were a more reliable way to classify animals than outward appearances > >> because DNA appeared to change more evenly. > >> > >> "I think classification should be based on DNA distances. This (genus homo) > >> is just one case of that," he said. > >> > >> DNA is the substance that functions as the chemical bearer of hereditary > >> characteristics. > > > >-- > > > > > > > > Bee Brown > > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > > Theos Int & L > > > > > >Bee: Thanks for that posting it's fascinating and to me kind of wonderful. > If you want to read a really wonderful book read:"When Elephants Weep" by > Jeffrey Mousseiff Masson. it makes one laugh and weep. > > alexis d. Thanks I will keep a look out for it. I have not heard of it before/ -- Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 5 16:19:36 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 12:19:36 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960505121935_391003503@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Second? I'll need a bigger computer. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 5 16:20:26 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 12:20:26 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960505122025_391003962@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Ears I think Great grandma's ear trumpet is around here somewhere. I think Grandma kept in in the ark of the covenant in the basement. I'll have to dig it out for you if I can find where I hid the Breastplate of Aaron. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 5 16:20:36 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 12:20:36 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960505122035_391004053@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: German! Alan, Fragment of conversation in house in Berlin: "Throw papa down the stairs his hat." Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 5 16:20:40 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 12:20:40 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960505122039_391004089@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: German! John German food is nowhere near as bland as Scandanavian. I once had this Norwegian girlfriend... But God has been merciful to all of them. " He has created them without tastebuds." (Sorry Victor.) Of course now you realize that you will probably be numbered among the ES agents sent to destroy the internet for talking about something besides pure theosophy, whatever that may be. Chuck the Barbaric Gourmand MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "Take two tons of Blavatsky and a ton and a half of chutney" The Theosophical Cannibal Cookbook From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun May 5 20:10:05 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 21:10:05 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: German! In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , JRC writes >Even less to do with theosophy, but my ancestry is primarily slavic, >german and english, which a friend once told me meant that my life would >be spent using inborn spiritual powers to achieve domination over others >in order to force them to eat really bland lunches. > -JRC Is it working? Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Mon May 6 01:17:57 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 19:17:57 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: German! In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 5 May 1996, Alan wrote: > In message , > JRC writes > >Even less to do with theosophy, but my ancestry is primarily slavic, > >german and english, which a friend once told me meant that my life would > >be spent using inborn spiritual powers to achieve domination over others > >in order to force them to eat really bland lunches. > > -JRC > Is it working? Only on myself. And not even very well at that. Tee hee, -JRC From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 5 04:15:25 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 00:15:25 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960505001525_390789124@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: What is the definition of "fruitcake"? Alex, Thank goodness. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 5 04:15:34 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 00:15:34 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960505001534_390789227@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Ringing the bell Alex, I dunno. Chuck the Confused From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 5 04:15:37 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 00:15:37 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960505001537_390789245@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance Rich, If my memory is correct, you're right. I was the first to use "heresy and blasphemy" as a way of having some fun with things that were getting us all a little upset. Of course what happened then... Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker "But I thought the bucket had water, not kerosine!" Mrs. O'leary's housekeeper From alexei@slip.net Sun May 5 05:59:05 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 22:59:05 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505055905.006b0db4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Repugnant Doctrines At 02:30 PM 5/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >On Sat, 4 May 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote: >> Alexis writes, >> >> > Well, as far as >> > I'm concerned, I don't like being a "target", this one can "fire back" and >> will! >> Um, has this become a war? Now we're "firing" on each other? >> > but >> > Chuck reminded me that I don't stay to fight again, they'll win >> >> Wow. Guess so. Please, though, what are the "sides" and whom should I look >> for to find my "enemies"? >> >You could start with all those you call "deluded" - a term that is the >intellectual analog of a shot across the bow. You are certainly free to >engage in all the missile exchanges you wish - but please don't stand >back and pretend to be some innocent who just gets beat up and has never >attacked others, or initiated an exchange. You hardly have some sort of >moral high ground here. > -JRC > >JRC: The thing I like least about this is when metaphor gets twisted into reality. I am so very tired of being "Spin doctored". I'm very good at English and I have never met so many people who were so good at twisting words and meanings. A"target" as I meant it is a passive thing to shoot arrows or bullets at, I was just attempting to use metaphor to imply that I am not willing to be passive, and this gets turned into "war". I think anyone with a Harvard P.H.D. could have chosen to read my words that way, but the choice was made to be as damaging as possible. The saddest thing is that I am beginning to feel forced into exchanges I never wanted and don't want, and I'm wondering if there's any hig ground left for anyone. Frankly, if a number of people hadn't made very strong cases for me remaining subscribed to this list, I'd be out of here. I think that, in the future, when I feel impelled by anger or resentment to write things that will continue this exchange, I'm just going to remain silent and stay nothing and hope others may see fit to respond in my place. I will respond only in cases in which I can be of service to someone. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Sun May 5 05:59:07 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 22:59:07 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505055907.00694064@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Let them eat cake-not fruits! At 04:23 PM 5/4/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Keith: > >Well, I have Pluto conjunct Mercury conjunct the Midheaven which means I like to >communicate in a bold, impulsive, sometimes crude manner and use astrology to >justify all my shortcomings too boot! :) >Lighten up already! Not everyone who says nigger is a racist, or bitch is a >sexist or queer is a homophobe, but those that demand apologies and judge the >spirtituality of others from one or two words, well, perhaps could look inside >at their own insecurites and touchiness. I think this freedom of speech is all >right as long as you agree with me and if not I'll call you a name attitude, is >worse than calling one a name, I think(?), or none of this namecalling is very >buddhic. Well homophobe is a name too and doesn't lilt off the tounge either:) > > >By the way, I meant fruitcake, in the sense of "airhead", kook, obvious >eccentric in dress and appearance. But to be honest, I started out with fruit >and added cake. So digest what you can and throw back the rest! > >Yes, it is cruel to categorize one and inspire prejudice and perpertrate unfair >stereotypes. But sometimes you have got to use the word that fits-my first >thought was fruitcake and almost everyone has confirmed I was right! So hang me! >Because one is homosexual would not make one any less or more of a spiritual >being (this is a topic in itself) from this fact alone. But one has a right to >freedom of expression of impressions and feelings, just as one has a right to >freedom of sexual expression. You can use anger and intolerance to fight anger >and intolerance, but it doesn't change anyone, at least not on a deep level. >You can only silence all free expressions of viewpoints! > >Your mother wears army boots, >Keith Price >Sticks and stones may break my bones, but Namaste anyway! > Keith: 'Thank you for your kind response. sometime, if you meet someone from ACT-UP or QUEER NATION, repeat what you just said, and you will learn that I am a moderate. But nevertheless, I am assured by others that "Fruitcake" doesn't mean in Texas what it means in New York City and so I apologize for my outburst. Someday you may comprehend what living with prejudice does to one, in the interim I can't expect you to understand and it's obvious you don't empathize. Once again sorry for my mistake: alexis d.> > From alexei@slip.net Sun May 5 06:46:31 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 23:46:31 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505064631.00687fe4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Wilber and Hero Worship At 05:40 PM 5/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Your sensitivity is understandable and I am surprised that Keith has not >responded to you. Maybe you terrify him. >In any event, this is a case where the time lag in receiving and getting >postings on the list is playing havoc with conversation. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >As you now know, Keith responded privately to me and now all is copacetic. The trouble with us elderly activists is that sometimes we operate on autopilot. In retrospect I should have gone back and asked him HOW he meant it and told him of my own experience with the word. But in the long run, no harm done. I just find it very interesting and educational how many people grabbed the opportunity to flame me for it. (Not you!) alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun May 5 06:50:11 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 23:50:11 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505065011.006b6b7c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Denizen of theos-hell At 05:41 PM 5/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >Rich, >I know Alex thinks of it as an insult, but I really liked the "Gang of 4" >line. It was so accurate and funny. >Now if only Nick Weeks would do something about those dreadful quotes in his >sig line. They are insulting. > >Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > > > >Chuck: the only reason I think it insulting is that approximately 2 billion Chinese do, and who am I to argue with 2 billion Chinese? Another, and I think, equally good reason is that it refers to Chiang Ching and her pals and she, I think, is far more Attila the Hun than I am. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Sun May 5 06:51:03 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 23:51:03 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505065103.006bd0f4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: your signature to Danny Boy At 05:40 PM 5/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I think the knight was standing next to Simon who was still on horseback and >at that point they were wearing long chain mail things, surcoats and pot >helmets which meant that after a battle they had terrible headaches and did >not hear real well. >You didn't think I was going to fall for that one, did you? > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >I never miss an opportunity! alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Sun May 5 06:52:26 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 23:52:26 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505065226.006940e8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Repugnant Doctrines At 05:41 PM 5/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >Rich et al. >Now wait just a cotton-pickin' minute here! The idea is to get everyone to >stop insulting each other for a while so we can get back to discussing boring >things like rounds, chains, (no Alex, I'm not going to write the word you >just expected me to because they are not boring :-)) and karma. >I need a rest! > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker >Chief Devil, Theos-Hell > >So do I. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Sun May 5 06:56:20 1996 Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 23:56:20 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505065620.0069d808@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI platform At 05:50 PM 5/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <960504021902_390188655@emout07.mail.aol.com>, >Richtay@aol.com writes >>The TI platform is extremely watered down, and says almost nothing >>specifically about Theosophy. > >Nor do the three objects of the Theosophical Society. Presumably they >too are extremely watered down? Is it your *intention* to be >denigratory? TI members may think that the TI platform is the very >opposite of "watered down." > >AB >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan my dear: Do you know you're a really qualified candidate for Sainthood? "A soft word turneth away wrath". I don't think it's watered down. I gave my copy of "Ruminations" to Rudolfo Don at dinner tonight. When I get the money together send me one extra. fondly alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Sun May 5 07:13:45 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 00:13:45 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505071345.0069ba50@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Theory vs Practice At 05:50 PM 5/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960504053517.00693204@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>I have >>come up with the following questions based on experience: I. Do the "notions >>of the cycles of manifestation, reincarnation, and Karma" actually represent >>some kind of reality? > >IMO these are three separate notions. My view is that there may be >cycles of manifestation, though the term is very vague: manifestation of >what? As for reincarnation, the *evidence* is sketchy, but has some >merit, but there are alternative explanations for it. I have long been working on the idea that perhaps both the theosophists and the spiritualists are "wrong" and yet "right". My excarnate colleague and I have come up with a notion that perhaps the reality of the matter lies somewhere in between. I think it's covered in my book, in part one which you have. It does not >appear to be cyclic, unless perhaps (insufficient data) a student's >subjective view of it *inserts* a cyclic interpretation. Karma: I went >on an outing up the river to join in a firend's birthday celebrations, >and we had tea and scones at Bee's Tea Rooms (!) on the riverside before >coming back. It was an organised outing, and we were told, as we took >our tea and scones, "It will all be paid for at the end." Just like >life, I thought. Maybe Karma is a bit like that, but cyclic? Only if >it is tied in to the notion of reincarnation. In my philosophy it isn't >tied in like that, so my view is different. TANSTAAFL. I think that if one views "Karma" as in any way retributive or even as consciously educational, one is probably on the wrong track. I have come to the notion that "Karma" per se, as a word, may be entirely misleading. I think that in the course of its serial manifestation the manifesting entity creates a flavor or tone and that effects further manifestations. Perhaps we can see it as individual and unique expressions of a "Creative word", very much like the "word" that brings the cosmos into manifestation, and that "tone" changes and evolves over time and as it does the manifestations do too. That's my view of "Karma". > >> 2. Does anything the physical conscious entity do have >>much effect on the spiritual development of that entity? > >Maybe, maybe not - how can we tell? Go look for the spiritual >development, perhaps. Decide first what we (I) mean by "spiritual" and >so forth. Try to be aware *as* spiritual entity. It works for me, but >I have to define my parameters and catalog my experience at the same >time as I travel along "The Path." *The Path* - Wow! :-) As I think I've made clear, to me, "spiritual" has only one meaning and that is non-carnate! If it's an intelligence center, and it hasn't got a body, it's a spirit. I cannot accept that certain concepts or actions by physical beings are more or less "spiritual" there's nothing real except energy in any case. But Democritus knew that an awful long time ago! > >> 3. What does "live >>the life" actually mean and does it really depend on theosophical >>hypothesis? > >If it depends on theosophical anything, surely it depends on one's >perception of theosophical teachings? If so, living the life means >following those teachings in daily life. Personally I would recommend >caution, though, and look for empirical backup evidence. If someone >unexpectedly smacks me in the mouth, am I *getting* karma or is the >other person *starting* some. I wouldn't care for God's karma! :-) Luckily there is no biblical busybody type "God", for that creature's Karma would be infinitely worse than Hitler's. I fully agree with you about "Living The Life with caution". One, I think, lives out the "hand" destiny and genetics deals one, as best one knows how, and to the best of one's abilities and hopes for the best. > >> 4. Do the "notions of the cycles of manifestation etc." actually >>simply represent signposts pointing to an understanding of reality and the >>human condition that one must find for one's self? > >I think all the teachings are signposts, but signposts can be >misleading, as well as informative. When motorists come from south to >north from Southampton to Bristol on route A36, the signposts for >Bristol actually take them on a long detour via the city of Bath. This >is to make sure they avoid the scenic route, which is also the shorter, >but potentially more dangerous one. Also, the villages along it like a >quiet life. I fully agree. > >>It is true that altruism and good deeds only go so far, and they probably >>have nothing to do with the realm of spirit, but the do address Buddha's >>concerns regarding the suffering of human beings. > >.. which has to be a good thing. >> >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > It sure does. alexis d.> From alexei@slip.net Sun May 5 07:17:41 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 00:17:41 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505071741.006b9a68@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Assertation At 05:51 PM 5/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message , >JRC writes >>I am asserting that Theosophy has now >>become precisely what the Adepts greatly feared it would collapse into - >>a small cult of interest to only a few, and having virtually no effect at >>all on a world that now *desperately needs* a strong articulation of the >>principle of a "Universal Family of Humanity". >> Regards, -JRC > >Well asserted! :-) > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >JRC: Very well said as usual. But I think that the articulation to which you refer will have to be through some new vehicle. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Sun May 5 07:16:02 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 00:16:02 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505071602.006b5c68@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI brotherhood clause At 05:51 PM 5/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <960504021902_390188655@emout07.mail.aol.com>, >Richtay@aol.com writes >>Um, Alan -- you've totally missed Rodolfo's point. He didn't mean to say >>that criminal gangs should be excluded from our ideas about brotherhood. He >>meant that a gang could write a constitution for its existence based on the >>very same platform you have based TI on. I quite agree. > >So could almost any group of people. How do you know I have totally >missed Rodolfo's point? Have you asked him? He hasn't told me this >himself? This is not the first time you have made assertions about my >perceptions without corroboration. And here you are again, it seems to >me, telling me what I have misunderstood, and what Rudy really meant. >Is it a surprise that I find your posting potentially divisive and >disinformative? > >*I* have not based the TI platform on anything. I and 35 others have. >>From your remark, however, I appear as the sole architect. As for your >heading, TI does not have a "brotherhood" clause, so why the heading? > >AB >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan my dear: Now you see how I feel when he "get's started" on one? That's why I "filtered" him. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Sun May 5 07:23:42 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 00:23:42 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505072342.006addf4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Sticks and stones At 07:23 PM 5/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <960504201456_74024.3352_BHT148-2@CompuServe.COM>, Keith >Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> writes >>Sticks and stones may break my bones, but Namaste anyway! > >"Sticks and stonesmay break my bones but words can break my heart." - >Donna Fargo, Country Singer. Just a thought. :-| > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan: All is "patched up" I have apologized and explained, Keith has apologized and explained and now everything is fine. We're probably going to end up friends. So "a soft word had turned away wrath". alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Sun May 5 07:58:15 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 00:58:15 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505075815.006a1580@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: DNA Shows Human And Chimps...... At 09:56 PM 5/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >alexis dolgorukii wrote: >> >>>>>cut<<<<<<< >> > >> >Bee: Thanks for that posting it's fascinating and to me kind of wonderful. >> If you want to read a really wonderful book read:"When Elephants Weep" by >> Jeffrey Mousseiff Masson. it makes one laugh and weep. >> >> alexis d. > >Thanks I will keep a look out for it. I have not heard of it before/ >-- > > > > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L > > >Bee: Jeffrey Mouseieff Masson is a relatively famous psychiatrist, and the book was sent to us through a book club so it should be relatively available. I can't get at it now, but if you'd like, I'll send you the publisher etc. tomorrow morning. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Sun May 5 07:58:57 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 00:58:57 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505075857.006da0b4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What is the definition of "fruitcake"? At 12:18 AM 5/5/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Thank goodness. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"Goodness" had nothing to do with it! alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Sun May 5 07:59:52 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 00:59:52 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505075952.006b70d4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Ringing the bell At 12:19 AM 5/5/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I dunno. > >Chuck the Confused > Hunh? Neither do I. alexis the even more confused. what are we talking about? From Richtay@aol.com Sun May 5 08:29:55 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 04:29:55 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960505042954_484587642@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance Richard Ihle writes, > Thus, I was keenly interested by your passing references to Egyptian, > Buddhist, and Hindu scriptures. Although I realize that you said the cyclic > ideas were not quite "spelled out" in these places, are there some specific > writings you have in mind which might be worthy of further study as possible > "H.P.B. precursors" Hmm. A big topic, my friend. Most of what (little) I know about the subject I learned from the big girl herself. Yup, HPB. The SECRET DOCTRINE (with index ffrom Theos. Co.) is a pretty good reference for most of what I would consider parallel sources -- the Corpus Hermeticum, The Gnostic writings, Buddhist (and especially Bonpo) cosmology -- particularly the Dzogchen material, and the Hindu cosmology which is roughly laid out in the Puranas (Vishnu esp.) and gotten at in more detail through some of the Sanskrit commentaries on those texts. What would be REALLY helpful is to track down the actual MSS sources of HPB's VOICE OF THE SILENCE (which in my opinion is the most obviously Buddhist of all HPB's writings) as well as the Senzar (?) source for her Stanzas of Dzyan. Dzyan by the way is the Tibetan word for "meditation" cognate to the Sanskrit "dhyana." So I really do believe that most of HPB's sources lie most directly in Tibetan Buddhism, though the Masters were not slack in tracing out some of the parallels in other cultures. If we can get in touch with this Kalzang Rinpoche that I wrote about last week -- and a considerable progress has been made on that front, including tracking down the address of the lama's monastery in Kham province Tibet -- we may find out more about Master Morya. This would give us a little more concrete evidence in the form of Tibetan MSS than Paul Johnson has been able to provide in his circumstantial speculations (no insult intended, Paul, if you are reading this). If in fact HPB's primary sources -- and Teachers -- were Tibetan Buddhist, the Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Senzar originals should exist and turn up eventually. Poor David Reigle out in Colorado has a whole Institute prepared for the arrival of the original MSS for the Stanzas of Dzyan, and I for one agree with him that they can't be far behind. The Kalachakra Tantra cycle hgas remarkable parallels with a lot of the S.D., but only the outer and some of the inner part of that cycle of texts has been revealed by the Tibetan lama custodians. The rest of the inner and the entire "secret" sections of those texts remain -- to my knowledge -- inaccessible at this time. Maybe we can chat more about parallel sources to Theosophy in private posts, I think the list will get bored of this right quick. From Richtay@aol.com Sun May 5 08:29:58 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 04:29:58 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960505042958_484587653@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL JHE writes to Kim, > Therefore, when I see a chart or a piece of writing, I > always want to know from the top: 1. Who wrote/made it? 2. What > was the date of writing and which publication? 3. Place of > publication? 4. How does it fit with the author's other > writings? 5. How does it fit with the extant writings at the time > of production and publication? 6. What was the extant of > influence of this work? > Of course, by asking these questions, I'm taking the much > disparaged "historical view" that is criticized almost on a > weekly bases on theos-l. It seems that Dan Caldwell and Myself > are the sole contributors that have ever attempted to defend this > approach on theos-l. You are right that only you and Dan defend this position, but I for one wholeheartedly support it. I simply don't have the MSS resources or the incredible background you and Dan Caldwell have to make most of my cases this way. I think the questions you are asking and the proedure you are following is the only way to explain how original Theosophy differs from neo-Theosophy, and goes a long way toward explaining WHY they differ. Though often silent on this point, I am behind you 110% in spirit. From Richtay@aol.com Sun May 5 08:30:02 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 04:30:02 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960505043001_484587656@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance Chuck writes, > Rich, > If my memory is correct, you're right. I was the first to use "heresy and > blasphemy" as a way of having some fun with things that were getting us all a > little upset. > Of course what happened then... And Chuck -- I too thought it was funny at first. The very idea that YOU would feel persecuted, rather than the PERSECUTOR. But then, you are one who can take what you dish out, and I have never ONCE seen you whine that people were being mean to you. And even though we are often on different sides of issues, and you have pulled many a gag on (at) me, I respect your ability to take it all in stride. From Richtay@aol.com Sun May 5 08:30:06 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 04:30:06 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960505043005_484587668@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Repugnant Doctrines Alexis writes, > A"target" as I meant it is a passive thing to shoot > arrows or bullets at, I was just attempting to use metaphor to imply that I > am not willing to be passive, and this gets turned into "war". I think > anyone with a Harvard P.H.D. could have chosen to read my words that way, > but the choice was made to be as damaging as possible. Let's get one thing straight, here, kiddo. I went to Harvard, but I do not have a Ph.D. yet -- from anywhere. I am tired of "Harvard" being brought up as yet another tool with which to beat me. Harvard is neither here nor there, and I have NEVER staked any of my comments, opinions, or positions on the fact that I went to Harvard Divinity School or any other education I have been fortunate to receive. I make my points based on my understanding of primary source material, and I make no special claims for myself based on a unique birth or personal history. "Harvard" is a moot point, and I don't see why it should continually be brought up AGAIN and AGAIN. I wish I were anonymous on this board and NOTHING about my personal life were known by anyone. Wouldn't that make it more difficult to get distracted? As far as the "war" situation, let me quote Alexis so there can be no misunderstanding: >> > I'm concerned, I don't like being a "target", this one can "fire back" and will! >> > but Chuck reminded me that I don't stay to fight again, they'll win This talk of "winning" and "losing" was begun by Alexis, and coupled with the idea of being a target and "firing back" there is only one possible interpretation of his comments. From Richtay@aol.com Sun May 5 08:30:10 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 04:30:10 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960505043009_484587679@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Denizen of theos-hell Chuck wrote and Alexis responded, > >I know Alex thinks of it as an insult, but I really liked the "Gang of 4" > >line. It was so accurate and funny. > >Now if only Nick Weeks would do something about those dreadful quotes in his > >sig line. They are insulting. > > > >Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 > >Heretic > >Troublemaker > > > > > > > >Chuck: the only reason I think it insulting is that approximately 2 billion > Chinese do, and who am I to argue with 2 billion Chinese? Another, and I > think, equally good reason is that it refers to Chiang Ching and her pals > and she, I think, is far more Attila the Hun than I am. > > alexis d. There are just slightly over 1 billion people in China today. But Eldon -- was your remark meant to allude to the Chinese sitatuation? Or yet another case of mistaken identity and resultant personal offence? From poulsen@dk-online.dk Sun May 5 15:24:42 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 13:24:42 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3A86.767924A0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (Subba Row) Encoding: 55 TEXT Dear Jerry, to make the discussion more readable I think I will answer your letter in parts. Thank you for going into detail. As stated earlier I will bring in supporting material outside the rules of the discussion, which you can just ignore. JHE: > Subba Row in his Lectures on the Bhagavad Gita 1886-87 >clearly stated that he rejected HPB's seven principle >classification because it is a "very unscientific and misleading >one" and because the "seven principles do not correspond to any >lines of cleavage, so to speak in the constitution of man" I have earlier explained on Theos-l (ABC+D thread, january) what the differences arose from. On p. 607 of CW XII you will find the true explanation in the diagram with the sentence: "..these Four and Three have been called Seven Principles, to faciliate the comprehension of the masses." Three in One primaries (and 3 mere aspects). On p. 289 of "Esoteric Writings" of Subba Row he demonstrates the seven-fold correlation of three primaries and says: "Now, according to the adepts of ancient aaryaavarta *seven principles* are evolved out of these *three* primary entities. For the identity of the esoterism and the difference in name only of a buddhistic and hinduistic nomenclature there are several well-known remarks in the ML. Now far, far more important than any tabulations and diagrams you will have to watch the modus operandi of these chelas which is exactly the same as fx. the analysis in the Bhagavad Gita 7.29-8.1 made by Arjuna. The difficulties arise from the interlinked correlation between the various principles of man, solar system and universe. In short - "to faciliate the comprehension of the masses" HPB used a system where Subba Row used "the time-honoured" one. This has nothing to do with the seven principles of manifestation - but the fact that Subba Row tried to explain the system "in motion", the method of investigation where HPB set out with a finite, semi-exoteric tabulation. >Subba Row even referred to her (HPB) as "his opponent." opponent in the discussion, a bit like us ,Jerry - something which may be done in a very amiable fashion. >it seems inconsistent to invoke Subba Row as an interpreter of HPB. May seem so, but they were chelas of the same master. The spirit guiding their minds (in vital moments, during higher understanding, etc.), the force directing their thought-forms would lead them in a similar direction, not necessarily the initial ideas. Your idea of the life-long evolving system of thought is correct, but this does not mean that the initial system was very far from truth. --------------- In friendship, Kim From 72724.413@CompuServe.COM Sun May 5 11:46:16 1996 Date: 05 May 96 07:46:16 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Role of the ES/ Staying with TI Message-Id: <960505114615_72724.413_FHP35-1@CompuServe.COM> Alexis writes: " I think that, in the future, when I feel impelled by anger or resentment to write things that will continue this exchange, I'm just going to remain silent and stay nothing and hope others may see fit to respond in my place. I will respond only in cases in which I can be of service to someone." Alexis, I am one of majority of TI members and Theos-L subscribers who are lurkers. Part of it is that some of us just do not have the time to read, let alone respond, to all the messages. But the Theos bulletin boards and TI are an invaluable means for theosophists to keep in touch with one another. Without it, we would only have our personal friendships around the country/world and the missives coming from the various umbrella headquarters organizations which are intended, more often than not, to ignore or stifle debate on significant issues. Alexis, many of your postings are thoughtful and incisive. As I am involved in TSA politics as a Lodge president and national director candidate, I am for now especially interested in views about the TS itself. I am mindful of your posting of May 2, 1996 "Re: Everyone is Excluded" to which I had not yet responded because I have been giving a great deal of thought to what you wrote. I refer to your comments about the Esoteric School (E.S.) which you characterize as the "Eminence gris" of the T.S. Although not an E.S. member myself, not having felt the need for it in my own spiritual discipline, I have in general had the greatest respect for theosophists who wish to dedicate themselves to service to the T.S. It was my understanding that it is just this that is, or should be, the motivating factor for E.S. membership, and not some misguided personality driven need to have a connection to the Masters (Illuminati) through such membership. I am beginning to wonder if you may not be correct about your current characterization of the E.S. and perhaps its leadership. It appears to me that E.S. leaders may be abusing their standing to manipulate good and loyal people, through threat of expulsion and with it some nonsense about being abandoned by the Masters, if they do not toe the line as set down by the E.S. leaders. I find it difficult to otherwise explain the nonsensical rationalization put out to justify the retroactive disencfrachisement of TSA members from voting in the current national election, as well as the earlier illegal attempt to abrogate the autonomy of TSA Lodges through flawed bylaw changes. As President of a Lodge with 120 members, 3 of whom are E.S. members, I have a responsibility for all our members including those who choose to also participate in the E.S. I know the current thinking of the E.S. members who are in our Lodge. We could undoubtedly have more E.S. enrollees from amongst our membership, but we need to know wny. We need to know the agenda of the E.S. I would very much like to hear from other E.S. members about the role of the E.S. in its relationship to T.S.A. or for that matter any other theosophical umbrella groups if you are inolved in any others. Here are some questions about the E.S. Do you seek to and effectively control the T.S.(Adyar) and the T.S.A. both of whom are headed, coincidentally or not, by E.S. members? Are you truly dedicated to service to the T.S.? If so, what does that service mean? Do you see yourself as a kind of elite within the T.S.? Do you see other T.S. members who are not also E.S. members as less than equal? Are you unflinchingly loyal to an E.S. hierarchy? Are you willing to abrogate the 2nd & 3rd declared objects of the T.S., to protect the E.S.? For example, would you expel a T.S. Lodge for studying the Alice Bailey or Sai Baba teachings? I would appreciate a thoughtful dialogue on the role of the E.S., especially from those who participate in it. In my one on one questions to members and officers of the E.S., I feel that I have largely gotten obfuscated answers. Sy Ginsburg, President The Theosophical Society in Miami & South Florida From poulsen@dk-online.dk Sun May 5 16:07:08 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 14:07:08 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3A8D.77EF6CC0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance Encoding: 22 TEXT Rich: >Maybe we can chat more about parallel sources to Theosophy in private >posts, I think the list will get bored of this right quick. Dear Rich, you are quite mistaken here. Please keep them on the list. If Alexis (and the rest of the gang) and you (and no offence intended) perhaps could argue in private instead.... (since it seems unrelated to theosophy). With this said I would love to participate in a discussion on the MSS which served as a basis for "Voice of Silence" and "Secret Doctrine." Since both works are described as secret, we would have to expect them to be not extant nor even widely distributed and known in Tibet. They may of course turn up in the future. I?d suggest a close examination of the seven extant works of Asanga for similarity with the precepts of "Voice of Silence". The mode of translation employed by HPB is very different from the traditional and of great interest. In friendship, Kim From placy@freenet.columbus.oh.us Sun May 5 13:57:09 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 09:57:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Polly Lacy Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance In-Reply-To: <960505042954_484587642@emout12.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I've done a lot of clipping below but wanted you to be able to tell which msg I was responding to. Prob. should have clipped more. This is my first day on this list and I, for one, would be interested in your keeping this discussion on the list, rather than private. From a good number of the rest of the messages I downloaded to read, this sure beats a discussion on "wars" and flaming, etc. in the list. THOSE should have been kept private, IMHO. I was curious to see what this list was about and this thread, to me, is more what I hoped it would be about. Thanks! On Sun, 5 May 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > Richard Ihle writes, > Thus, I was keenly interested by your passing references to Egyptian, > > Buddhist, and Hindu scriptures. Although I realize that you said the > > Hmm. A big topic, my friend. Most of what (little) I know about the subject > I learned from the big girl herself. Yup, HPB. The SECRET DOCTRINE (with > those texts remain -- to my knowledge -- inaccessible at this time. > > Maybe we can chat more about parallel sources to Theosophy in private posts, > I think the list will get bored of this right quick. From poulsen@dk-online.dk Sun May 5 18:48:39 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 16:48:39 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3AA2.B9B3C560@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (terminology) Encoding: 142 TEXT JHE >>>How do you define "universal planes"? Kim >>As states of being external to our solar system. JHE > What is the extant of these "universal planes"? Kim: Extent? Who knows? Did you read my recent post on extension as a property of space, an answer to Liesel? Do you want support for this idea of universal planes, I consider it well-known? >Do you have a term for planes "external" to the "universal planes"? I have never seen anywhere material on anything *external* to these. Any decent philosopher treats only of the 6th and 7th of these planes - they are the white circle plane in the black field. The 6th is completely unknown. The vedantins place their Parabrahm on the first plane, the seventh being prakritic, the 5th universal mind. > What do you call the planes of the solar system? I do not call them anything. I like to use the terminology of the author. I use numbers. In CW XII p. 658 the 3 lower (Figure B) are called Jivic ("egoic" also mental), Astral and Objective (physical) If I may choose, I choose the terminology of AAB which remains the same from her first volume to her 24th and last. >What do you call the planes for the earth's system of globes? 4 lower planes of the solar system also called planes of the 4 ethers (AAB). see again CW XII p. 658 for grossest globe (ours) on 7th or objective plane. >What do you call the planes for the sun's system of globes? Our planetary chain ARE one of our sun's systems of globes (at least affiliated with this solar system)? Or do you mean the sacred planets? >What do you call the planes where are to be found the human principles? On all planes of the solar system and hence the planes of the planetary chain except the highest. The important principles are the relation between monad and ego - ending with the mental plane, the 5th. These constitute the buddhist skandhas and the correlations of atma, so to speak, in hinduism. They are correlation of force or spirit rather than correlation of elements, elementals. The knowledge of these principles constitute a whole science for itself. JHE >>>What do you mean by "principles" here? Do you mean the >>>principles of man? Are you saying that the "universal planes" >>>and the principles of man are the same? Kim >>No, but "principles" is a term which may be applied to various >>differentiations. *The seven elements ~are~ the seven principles >>of the One element* just as the seven planes or states of being >>may be called the seven principles of being. I often assume >>manifestations to develop from a unity into 3 primary "aspects" >>and 7 secondary "principles". JHE > Am I correct in understanding from your above statement that >principles and planes are essentially interchangeable terms? >(Note the part of your statement I starred for emphases). No. But if you read p. 289 of Esoteric Writings you will find each of the differentiated universals on its own plane. 1, 3 and and 7 are the primary. It would be possible to name the planes after these principles. If you wish to use principles as designating only 7 differentiated states of an entity or certain types of manifestation it will be Ok. There is much subtlety in the fact that you want to want to agree on a fixed terminology. This was in my opinion the real cause behind the change you call neo-theosophy. It remains for us to form an opinion whether an adept impressed this on the minds of various theosophical writers or someone dreamed it up. ........................... JHE: >I think that a mutual understanding of the basic vocabulary is a vital >prerequisite to any meaningful communication. But how are you going to >define these terms without checking them against CWL's writings in order >to assure that you are consistent with him? If you want to leave it up to >me to supply CWL quotes, that is OK too. But that leaves you to draw >your quotes from HPB, without really knowing if they are consistent with >CWL. Well, I will wait for your photocopies to arrive to elaborate on CWL (and thank you), but since you have raised a great amount of vital questions, I will be rather busy. Buy the way I certainly do not feel a need to be consistent with CWL - I would like to show the overall system of the approximately similar philosophies of AB, CWL, and AAB to be consistent with HPB. If it is not prooved here I would still advocate students to take this position. >My own experience has been that to prove even a simple and seemingly >clear cut point to someone with another point of view almost >always requires the submission of at least ten times the evidence >that would have been required to convince someone who is neutral >on the subject. How can somebody like us be neutral on the question of esoteric philosophy? It is not like researching subjects where one can hold back an opinion untill all facts are evaluated. In esoteric philosophy it is necessary to accept the preliminary propositions for the time being. If this is not done no progress will be done in this direction whatsoever. I have carried definite ideas in my mind for over a decade on these subjects and would rather undergo surgery than extract these forms from my thoughts. Neither of us are really neutral, but CWL is sort of neutral ground :-) >But once I give a response and back it up with documentation, I don't want >to get into a long debate if the object is merely to convince the other. I have spend tens of thousands of working hours on the works of HPB and especially the Secret Doctrine, nothing new is likely to turn up to surprise either of us. We can agree or disagree on our interpretation of the documentation and then drop it to avoid a useless yes-no argument. The object - my object is to convince the readers here and plant the germ of reasonable doubt in your own mind. >Further, my experience has been that people form opinions and attitudes >for reasons that go beyond the evidence or any intellectual considerations. >I've learned that it is almost always better not to interfere with that part of >their lives. Very well put. The exact reason why I rarely attack a viewpoint. That "reason that go beyond the evidence or any intellectual considerations" is the very force that make me trust or reject material on spiritual matters - but it is impossible to use such reasoning both in scholarly circles and here. And feel free to interfere with my beliefs, I am enjoying myself thoroughly. In friendship, Kim From RIhle@aol.com Sun May 5 14:56:07 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 10:56:07 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960505105606_106997618@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance Kim writes> >Dear Rich [Taylor], >You are quite mistaken here. Please keep them on the list. If Alexis >(and the rest of the gang) and you (and no offence intended) perhaps could >argue in private instead.... (since it seems unrelated to theosophy). > With this said I would love to participate in a discussion on the MSS >which served as a basis for "Voice of Silence" and "Secret Doctrine." Since >both works are described as secret, we would have to expect them to be not >extant nor even widely distributed and known in Tibet. They may of course >turn up in the future. Richard Ihle writes> Kim, much wisdom in your words as usual. Now, let me try to tap some of your excellent knowledge as well. One of the things which caught my eye many years ago was H.P.B.'s way of wording the well-known Kabalistic saying. Her version: "The Breath becomes a stone; the stone, a plant; the plant, an animal; the animal, a man; the man, a spirit; and the spirit, a god." (I had previously heard versions which left out *Breath* and/or used *angel* for *spirit*.) Now, this seemed significant to me because H.P.B.'s rendering seemed much more in keeping with my own meditative observation of the "sequence of differentiated consciousnesses." It also seems to correspond nicely with the "Eastern terminology" I provided Eldon a while back: >[quoting earlier post] All this [the general problem of one's own theosophy not quite matching up with conventional definitions for terminology etc.] notwithstanding, here is a little table of correspondences (*Chronological Age* [potential egoic delusions of the next Cycle begin at the mid-point of the present]; *Cycle*; *Possible Eastern Term* [; Kabalistic Term]): 1-7. . . . .Animating. . . . .*Prana* [Breath] 7-14. . . . .Physical. . . . .*Sthula* [stone] 14-21. . . . .Desire-Feeling. . . . .*Kama* [plant] 21-28. . . . .Desire-Mental. . . . .*Kama-Manas* [animal] 28-35. . . . .Mental. . . . .*Manas* [man] 35-42. . . . .Spirit-Mental. . . . .*Buddhi-Manas* [spirit] 42-49. . . . .Spirit. . . . .*Buddhi* [god] > Kim, it seems clear to me that the foregoing table looks at things from an individual "Psychogenetic" perspective rather than the more macro Cosmogenetic or Anthropogenetic. My question to you is this: Is H.P.B.'s inclusion of *Breath* in the scheme an innovation on her part, or is *Breath* (or something equivalent) also present in original Kabalistic or Eastern writings that you are aware of? (I.e., were the other versions I heard first simply the result of people passing along the incomplete saying?) Thanks. (And thanks for remaining a "dry" theosophist in every kind of "weather". . . .) Godspeed, Richard Ihle From am455@lafn.org Sun May 5 15:34:45 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 08:34:45 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199605051534.AA04330@lafn.org> Subject: Eastern precursors >Richard Ihle writes, > >> Thus, I was keenly interested by your passing references to Egyptian, >> Buddhist, and Hindu scriptures. Although I realize that you said the >cyclic >> ideas were not quite "spelled out" in these places, are there some specific >> writings you have in mind which might be worthy of further study as >possible >> "H.P.B. precursors" Rich: [....] >Maybe we can chat more about parallel sources to Theosophy in private posts, >I think the list will get bored of this right quick. Not so, not so! Let us hear more. If I can find it, I will post David Reigle's short paper on a 100 year cycle he found in some Hindu writings. -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From eldon@theosophy.com Sun May 5 22:39:27 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 15:39:27 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505223927.0068ce78@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance Rich: [writing to JRC] >I will agree with you that brotherhood is the single most >important doctrine among the bunch. This statement of Rich's is important, something that we overlook far too often. The idea of "universal brotherhood", under whatever sanitized words we want to call it, *is a doctrine*. Just like reincarnation and karma, the universality of life, spiritual evolution, the seven principles, etc., it is a doctrine. It is a collection of ideas about life based around certain seed thoughts. It can be studied in the abstract, or work its way into our everyday experience. We can study it or make it a part of our lives. As far as doctrines go, it is not any more supreme than any of the others. It can, though, be discussed in as great a depth as any of the others, going from superficial, casual descriptions into views that are profoundly occult. Perhaps some of the strong advocates of this particular doctrine could attempt to spell out with some detail and substance how they understand the doctrine. It would be also interesting to hear how they might be anti-doctrine except for this one. -- Eldon From am455@lafn.org Sun May 5 15:51:27 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 08:51:27 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199605051551.AA08407@lafn.org> Subject: Re: Subba Row vs HPB [...] JHE>>Subba Row even referred to her (HPB) as "his opponent." Kim: >opponent in the discussion, a bit like us ,Jerry - something which may be >done in a very amiable fashion. >>it seems inconsistent to invoke Subba Row as an interpreter of HPB. > > May seem so, but they were chelas of the same master. The spirit guiding >their minds (in vital moments, during higher understanding, etc.), the >force directing their thought-forms would lead them in a similar direction, >not necessarily the initial ideas. Quoting KH in ML #85: "*Upasika* (Madame B.) and Subba Row, though pupils of the same Master, have not followed the same Philosophy -- the one is Buddhist and the other an Adwaitee." My reading of Subba Row's attitude during his debates with HPB was that this was not (to him) an intellectual exercise of two brother chelas. He was genuinely convinced that HPB had done something terrible (re the 7 principles and revealing too much in general). HPB had the larger heart & mind and could see the "spirit guiding their minds" -- Subba Row could not. Thus his fierce attempt to destroy Theosophy as put forth by HPB. Best, -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From ramadoss@eden.com Sun May 5 15:58:52 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 10:58:52 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Role of the ES/ Staying with TI In-Reply-To: <960505114615_72724.413_FHP35-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sy: On any and all questions you have raised, the one and only person who can respond is Mrs. Radha Burnier. It may not be a bad idea to write to her direct; just a suggestion because by doing so there is a great likelyhood of getting some response. Any official response from ES is very very rare indeed. The one I say was a response from N. Sri Ram which was published in the Canadian Theosophist years ago. Has any one has any ideas? ...doss On Sun, 5 May 1996, Sy Ginsburg wrote: > Alexis writes: > > " I think that, in the future, > when I feel impelled by anger or resentment to write things that will > continue this exchange, I'm just going to remain silent and stay nothing and > hope others may see fit to respond in my place. I will respond only in cases > in which I can be of service to someone." > > Alexis, I am one of majority of TI members and Theos-L subscribers who are > lurkers. Part of it is that some of us just do not have the time to read, let > alone respond, to all the messages. But the Theos bulletin boards and TI are an > invaluable means for theosophists to keep in touch with one another. Without > it, we would only have our personal friendships around the country/world and the > missives coming from the various umbrella headquarters organizations which are > intended, more often than not, to ignore or stifle debate on significant issues. > > Alexis, many of your postings are thoughtful and incisive. As I am involved in > TSA politics as a Lodge president and national director candidate, I am for now > especially interested in views about the TS itself. I am mindful of your > posting of May 2, 1996 "Re: Everyone is Excluded" to which I had not yet > responded because I have been giving a great deal of thought to what you wrote. > I refer to your comments about the Esoteric School (E.S.) which you characterize > as the "Eminence gris" of the T.S. Although not an E.S. member myself, not > having felt the need for it in my own spiritual discipline, I have in general > had the greatest respect for theosophists who wish to dedicate themselves to > service to the T.S. It was my understanding that it is just this that is, or > should be, the motivating factor for E.S. membership, and not some misguided > personality driven need to have a connection to the Masters (Illuminati) through > such membership. > > I am beginning to wonder if you may not be correct about your current > characterization of the E.S. and perhaps its leadership. It appears to me that > E.S. leaders may be abusing their standing to manipulate good and loyal people, > through threat of expulsion and with it some nonsense about being abandoned by > the Masters, if they do not toe the line as set down by the E.S. leaders. I > find it difficult to otherwise explain the nonsensical rationalization put out > to justify the retroactive disencfrachisement of TSA members from voting in the > current national election, as well as the earlier illegal attempt to abrogate > the autonomy of TSA Lodges through flawed bylaw changes. > > As President of a Lodge with 120 members, 3 of whom are E.S. members, I have a > responsibility for all our members including those who choose to also > participate in the E.S. I know the current thinking of the E.S. members who are > in our Lodge. We could undoubtedly have more E.S. enrollees from amongst our > membership, but we need to know wny. We need to know the agenda of the E.S. I > would very much like to hear from other E.S. members about the role of the E.S. > in its relationship to T.S.A. or for that matter any other theosophical umbrella > groups if you are inolved in any others. Here are some questions about the E.S. > > Do you seek to and effectively control the T.S.(Adyar) and the T.S.A. both of > whom are headed, coincidentally or not, by E.S. members? > Are you truly dedicated to service to the T.S.? > If so, what does that service mean? > Do you see yourself as a kind of elite within the T.S.? > Do you see other T.S. members who are not also E.S. members as less than equal? > Are you unflinchingly loyal to an E.S. hierarchy? > Are you willing to abrogate the 2nd & 3rd declared objects of the T.S., to > protect the E.S.? > For example, would you expel a T.S. Lodge for studying the Alice Bailey or Sai > Baba teachings? > > I would appreciate a thoughtful dialogue on the role of the E.S., especially > from those who participate in it. In my one on one questions to members and > officers of the E.S., I feel that I have largely gotten obfuscated > answers. > > Sy Ginsburg, President > The Theosophical Society in Miami & South Florida > > From eldon@theosophy.com Sun May 5 22:53:19 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 15:53:19 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505225319.0069c004@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Denizen of theos-hell Rich: With regard to the "Gang of Four" comment, >But Eldon -- was your remark meant to allude to the Chinese >situation? Or yet another case of mistaken identity and >resultant personal offence? I was thinking in terms of what seemed to be a funny caricature, and it was take as such by most of the people reading it. As I was writing phrase to comment on how Alexis and three others were fighting for a particular position on 'theos-l', I thought, here were four people in China that had power and had their way for a time, but were later overthrown and fell into disfavor. From this angle, it would say, "enjoy your power while you have it, for all things come to an end." Chuck and some of the others may have taken "gang" in another context, like gangsters, or those that operate in defiance of civil and legal authority. As "gang of four" or "gang of five" came to take on a life of its own, it evolved its own meaning, based upon how it was used on theos-l. I wouldn't hold it to whatever stray thought passed my mind when I mentioned the phrase, nor Alexis' initial reaction to the term. -- Eldon From ramadoss@eden.com Sun May 5 16:03:04 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 11:03:04 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Polly: Glad to see your message. Please feel free to post anything you want and we all would like to hear differing views on any topic which will help Humanity. ....doss On Sun, 5 May 1996, Polly Lacy wrote: > > I've done a lot of clipping below but wanted you to be able to tell which > msg I was responding to. Prob. should have clipped more. This is my > first day on this list and I, for one, would be interested in your keeping > this discussion on the list, rather than private. From a good number of the > rest of the messages I downloaded to read, this sure beats a discussion on > "wars" and flaming, etc. in the list. THOSE should have been kept > private, IMHO. I was curious to see what this list was about and this > thread, to me, is more what I hoped it would be about. Thanks! From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 5 16:20:34 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 12:20:34 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960505122032_391004033@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Denizen of theos-hell Dear Satan, Thanks. I must have left them there when I was fixing the air-conditioner. Chuck the Devil MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 5 16:20:38 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 12:20:38 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960505122037_391004076@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Sticks and stones Alan, Sometimes it helps if one has a heart to break, but your point is well taken. Now if theosophy were to actually acquire a heart... Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From ramadoss@eden.com Sun May 5 16:20:42 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 11:20:42 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance In-Reply-To: <01BB3A8D.77EF6CC0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 5 May 1996, Kim Poulsen wrote: > Rich: > >Maybe we can chat more about parallel sources to Theosophy in private > >posts, I think the list will get bored of this right quick. > > Dear Rich, > > you are quite mistaken here. Please keep them on the list. If Alexis > (and the rest of the gang) and you (and no offence intended) perhaps could > argue in private instead.... (since it seems unrelated to theosophy). > With this said I would love to participate in a discussion on the MSS > which served as a basis for "Voice of Silence" and "Secret Doctrine." Since > both works are described as secret, we would have to expect them to be not > extant nor even widely distributed and known in Tibet. They may of course > turn up in the future. > I?d suggest a close examination of the seven extant works of Asanga for > similarity with the precepts of "Voice of Silence". The mode of translation > employed by HPB is very different from the traditional and of great > interest. > > In friendship, > > Kim > Kim: If anyone is able to get to the monastery, by presenting the general substance of both Voice of Silence and Secret Doctrine, it is possible that the head of the monastery may open up having been surprised to find some of the important doctrines being made available to the West more than one hundred years ago. It is also possible that the information may be available in some sort of written manner and if this is the case, it would open up possibilities. If for example these written documents can be shown to predate both Voice of Silence and Secret Doctrine, it will be very valuable for those doubters. The reason I say this is because of a very interesting episode relative to the founding of TS. In S. India, a well known Saint tried to start an organization based on Brotherhood in early 1800s. It was a time when there was widespread feelings of caste and creed divisions. After a couple of years, he folded up his enterprise with the comment that he opened the shop and there were no customers. So he is closing his shop. But he added that Mahatmas from beyond Himalayas will send people from America and Russia (he was very specific about these two countries) and when they come and preach Brotherhood, everyone will listen. This episode took place years before HPB herself know of the future plans of starting TS. Obviously the Saint had some connections with the Mahatmas. Otherwise how else he could accurately predict the future. There are some who even speculated that the Saint himself may be a Mahatma. So I would be very optimistic and wait and see what we can find in the monastery. ....doss From ramadoss@eden.com Sun May 5 16:23:42 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 11:23:42 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Role of the ES/ Staying with TI In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 5 May 1996, m.k. ramadoss wrote: > Sy: > > On any and all questions you have raised, the one and only person who can > respond is Mrs. Radha Burnier. It may not be a bad idea to write to her > direct; just a suggestion because by doing so there is a great likelyhood > of getting some response. > > Any official response from ES is very very rare indeed. The one I say was > a response from N. Sri Ram which was published in the Canadian > Theosophist years ago. This should read: The only one I have seen in the last couple of decades is a response from N Sri Ram which was published in the Canadian Theosophist. Sorry for the correction. ...doss From blafoun@azstarnet.com Sun May 5 17:12:55 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 10:12:55 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199605051712.KAA14772@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (terminology) Kim writes: Buy the way I certainly do not feel a need to be consistent with CWL - I >would like to show the overall system of the approximately similar >philosophies of AB, CWL, and AAB to be consistent with HPB. If it is not >prooved here I would still advocate students to take this position. > > Daniel replies: I have been following this discussion and I thought the main intent was to look at what HPB/CWL says on these subjects. This is quite a job in itself. But now it seems that you want to widen the discussion even more!!! Kim writes: > How can somebody like us be neutral on the question of esoteric >philosophy? It is not like researching subjects where one can hold back an >opinion untill all facts are evaluated. In esoteric philosophy it is >necessary to accept the preliminary propositions for the time being. If >this is not done no progress will be done in this direction whatsoever. I >have carried definite ideas in my mind for over a decade on these subjects >and would rather undergo surgery than extract these forms from my thoughts. > Neither of us are really neutral, but CWL is sort of neutral ground :-) Daniel replies: You mean to say that you cannot try to step back from your own "thought-forms" and try to see them from a different angle? "...I...would rather undergo surgery than extract...." Kim writes: > I have spend tens of thousands of working hours on the works of HPB and >especially the Secret Doctrine, nothing new is likely to turn up to >surprise either of us. We can agree or disagree on our interpretation of >the documentation and then drop it to avoid a useless yes-no argument. > The object - my object is to convince the readers here and plant the germ >of reasonable doubt in your own mind. Daniel replies: Well, Kim, if your object is to convince readers like me, then you will have to be more focused in what you say than what I have read in the last post or two. You speak in very, very general terms....that's okay. But it doesn't get down to the nitty gritty. Maybe you and Jerry need to severely limit what you are attempting to do. Your discussion is ranging all over the board. Another point. I am somewhat confused. I thought the object of this discussion was to compare HPB to CWL on certain topics. You say you have spent thousands of hours on HPB but what about CWL? Have you read his works? Do you have access to his books? It appears to me (please correct me if I am wrong) that you really know very little about what CWL teaches on these subjects under discussion. So why not change the focus to HPB/AAB? It is my understanding that you have studied her works in depth and have her books, right? Also, back to a previous point, I would hope since your object is to plant the germ of reasonable doubt in Jerry HE's mind, that you would also challenge your own understanding of the subject. I am also hoping Jerry HE would do the same. But unless both of you severely focus your discussion, I fear that both of you will go round and round in a circle. Could you and Jerry HE maybe post a few extracts from Vol. XII of HPB's writings on the subject under discussion, and then each of you give your understanding of what HPB is conveying? This might be a starting point then from which you two could then bring in material from CWL or AAB. In summary, it is my opinion that if the discussion is not limited, if terms are not carefully defined, and if relevant quotes from the original writers are not given, your joint efforts will be mostly wasted. Plus interested readers will find themselves in a confusing fog due to the vague, generalizing nature of the discusssion. Hoping for the success of your joint endeavor with Jerry HE. Daniel From am455@lafn.org Sun May 5 17:34:06 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 10:34:06 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199605051734.AA00112@lafn.org> Subject: Doubled postings Today I rcvd two copies of my posting "Eastern precursors". Did the rest of you also get two? I wrote to JEM a couple of days ago about other dual postings I'd seen from other folk. Maybe it will be fixed soon. -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sun May 5 17:44:57 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 11:44:57 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Who's the real "Gang"? In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960505225319.0069c004@mail.deltanet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 5 May 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > > >But Eldon -- was your remark meant to allude to the Chinese > >situation? Or yet another case of mistaken identity and > >resultant personal offence? > > I was thinking in terms of what seemed to be a funny > caricature, and it was take as such by most of the people > reading it. As I was writing phrase to comment on how > Alexis and three others were fighting for a particular > position on 'theos-l', I thought, here were four people > in China that had power and had their way for a time, but > were later overthrown and fell into disfavor. From this > angle, it would say, "enjoy your power while you have it, > for all things come to an end." I guess since I was named as one of the "gang" I should say something, though I've hesitated to respond up to now - presuming (hoping) the remark was simply a jest (though in really bad taste). But a bit of history might be illuminating. The "Gang of Four" never really had power. Chiang Ching (Mao's wife) did effectively lead the "Cultural Revolution", and others of the gang seperately had various sorts of power, but it was only after Mao's death when Chiang Chang and the three others made a play for power - just a month after Mao's death she claimed the chairmanship for herself, and the positions of Premier and head of the National People's Congress for two of the others (Chang Chun-chiao and Wang). They were immediately taken from the meeting to prison. The interesting thing is that they based their claims on scraps of paper they said Mao had written - and claimed they had the authority to rule based on his wishes. If there is any analog to the "Gang of Four" in Theosophical circles, it would probably not be four people who a century after HPB's death make a little ruckus on a small Internet list, but those who *did* claim the right to lead, and have imposed their wills on the TS ever since. In the TS the "Gang of Four" was not taken immediately to prison, they were successful in their siezure of power. Fact is, Rahda and Algeo are behaving a *lot* more like the members of the Chinese Gang of Four actually behaved than the four on this list are - during the Cultural Revolution she dominated Chinese Culture ... imposing one particular view on the "masses" (which she claimed were undisciplined idiots), siezing control over newspapers and magazines (what person attempting to impose power doesn't sieze control over the avenues of communication), and determining what was to be studied in schools - appearing often with Kang Sheng (the chief of the secret police), whose platform she adopted for her speeches ("Do you want to study the Communique and the Sixteen-Point Directive? Do you want to study them again and again? Do you want to learn them thoroughly? Do you want to understand them?"). This does sound uncomfortably like some activity in Theosophical circles - but its not the activity of those named the "Gang of Four" - none of whom have any power to speak of, nor would ever be permitted to (its unlikely any of us will be published through the TPH, nor see articles published in the AT ...); most of us have been (at best) effectively marginalized by the powers that be, and certainly don't have any more power on this list than anyone else does ... and that's probably only because the nature of the medium is such that those with institutional power can't shut us up - though they can (and do) make sure our voices and views stay corralled within the confines of this small list ... and certainly are not given a hearing through the larger avenues of information dissemination (none of *my* views on the "intentions" in the Three Objects are likely to be mailed to the membership, now are they?). Probably none of us fear, as you say, being "overthrown and falling into disfavor", because none of us has ever had the throne, or even been "favored" in the first place. We are not analogous to the Gang of Four - rather, if anything, to the people who put the Gang on trial, charging them with the attempt to totally control Theosophical "culture", and with using institutional force to do so. And it is to *this* group that your words might more profitably be addressed: Enjoy your power while you have it, for all things come to an end. -JRC From am455@lafn.org Sun May 5 18:26:34 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 11:26:34 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199605051826.AA10768@lafn.org> Subject: Ramalinga a chela Finally found the quote, but not from a Mahatma letter. HPB in an interview in the "Pall Mall Gazette" (BCW 6, 310) says: "Ramalinga is represented as if he were a Mahatma, while everyone knows that he is only a Chela..." -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From alexei@slip.net Sun May 5 18:35:49 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 11:35:49 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505183549.006a0cdc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Role of the ES/ Staying with TI At 07:48 AM 5/5/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<<<<< >I refer to your comments about the Esoteric School (E.S.) which you characterize >as the "Eminence gris" of the T.S. Although not an E.S. member myself, not >having felt the need for it in my own spiritual discipline, I have in general >had the greatest respect for theosophists who wish to dedicate themselves to >service to the T.S. It was my understanding that it is just this that is, or >should be, the motivating factor for E.S. membership, and not some misguided >personality driven need to have a connection to the Masters (Illuminati) through >such membership. Sy: I completely empathize with your position. I, for one, am certain that Helena Blavatsky was probably an "entry level" illuminata and that H.P.B. was a high level illuminatus and that they were indeed in contact with others of that class of intelligences. I have been involved in Theosophy some twenty three years or so (in and out) and I have never seen any even slight evidence that others connected with H.P.B. Esoteric Section" were so connected. I am pretty sure William Quan Judge was also so connected and while I much admire many of the things he wrote I am not so inclined to believe that Gottfried de Peruker was so connected. As to the "average" member, I have known and cared deeply for many E.S. members because they were kind, loving, and sincere people, but I am much afraid that others of the membership are primarily motivated by ego, and "spiritual ambition" which can only be described as an oxymoron. If what's going on at both Adyar and Olcott is a valid indication, the E.S> (as a group) is manipulative and elitist and dishonest.Dishonest in that they conceal their activities under a veil of euphemism and secrecy. This disenfranchisement, for example, is completely antithetic to the entire sense of American Democratic norms. The question that must be asked, of course, is who does this exclusionary activity serve? > >I am beginning to wonder if you may not be correct about your current >characterization of the E.S. and perhaps its leadership. It appears to me that >E.S. leaders may be abusing their standing to manipulate good and loyal people, >through threat of expulsion and with it some nonsense about being abandoned by >the Masters, if they do not toe the line as set down by the E.S. leaders. I >find it difficult to otherwise explain the nonsensical rationalization put out >to justify the retroactive disencfrachisement of TSA members from voting in the >current national election, as well as the earlier illegal attempt to abrogate >the autonomy of TSA Lodges through flawed bylaw changes. It all seems part of a long-range plan. First they broke the power and influence (such as it was) of the area "Federations" and then they have begun to destroy the autonomy of both Lodges and National Sections. As a Lawyer you are far more aware than I am of the speciousness of ther reasoning in the expulsion of the Canadian Section. I very much doubt if anyone can see any reasonable explanation for Radha's rejection of the eagerly returning Russians. And those are Helena Blavatsky's own people (and mine too). Any reasonably unbiased and objective outside observer would be forced to think that either Radha and the other members of the E.S. are out to destroy the society completely, or, and I rather think this to be more likely, they are trying to drive everyone who is not inclined to join the E.S. away from the society so that it becomes simply a tiny, tightly controlled, power group cult. For what purpose this is being done, I have no idea. I do know this, I am as sure as I am that I'm sitting here at the keyboard, that the present E.S. has absolutely no connection with the adepts or illuminatii or Mahatmas, nor has it had since May 8th 1891. This I believe is proven by their activities. "By their fruits shall you know them". > >As President of a Lodge with 120 members, 3 of whom are E.S. members, I have a >responsibility for all our members including those who choose to also >participate in the E.S. I know the current thinking of the E.S. members who are >in our Lodge. We could undoubtedly have more E.S. enrollees from amongst our >membership, but we need to know wny. We need to know the agenda of the E.S. I >would very much like to hear from other E.S. members about the role of the E.S. >in its relationship to T.S.A. or for that matter any other theosophical umbrella >groups if you are inolved in any others. Here are some questions about the E.S. > >Do you seek to and effectively control the T.S.(Adyar) and the T.S.A. both of >whom are headed, coincidentally or not, by E.S. members? >Are you truly dedicated to service to the T.S.? >If so, what does that service mean? >Do you see yourself as a kind of elite within the T.S.? >Do you see other T.S. members who are not also E.S. members as less than equal? >Are you unflinchingly loyal to an E.S. hierarchy? >Are you willing to abrogate the 2nd & 3rd declared objects of the T.S., to >protect the E.S.? >For example, would you expel a T.S. Lodge for studying the Alice Bailey or Sai >Baba teachings? > >I would appreciate a thoughtful dialogue on the role of the E.S., especially >from those who participate in it. In my one on one questions to members and >officers of the E.S., I feel that I have largely gotten obfuscated >answers. > >Sy Ginsburg, President >The Theosophical Society in Miami & South Florida > Sy: You are the President of what, from my experience here in Northern California is a really hugh Lodge. You deserve much more in the way of respect for that Lodge than you are getting. This "voting ploy" has effectively decimated the influence of your lodge and its members.This is entirely unacceptable in all Democratic norms. As to your questions to "the management" vis a vis the E.S. Based on both past and current history I cannot hope you will receive an honest answer. They will euphemize and yes, lie. One need only view the Bowdlerization and total revision of The Key To Theosophy that they are currently perpetrating in the pages of The Messenger. I think your questions, if they are not simply ignored, or if not ignored then "spin doctored" out of all resemblance to your intention. I am certain, for instance, that at least Radha would happily reject a Lodge or even a whole section for "studying Alice bailey or Sai baba". I offer you my best hopes for success but I must say that those of us who have the future of the theosophical movement strongly in our hearts have an absolutely sysyphissian job ahead of us. But as Saint Paul is said to have said: "It worth to fight the good fight", by which of course, that adept simply meant "strive for what's right" and not actually "fight" in the physical sense. good luck alexis d. > From alexei@slip.net Sun May 5 18:39:30 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 11:39:30 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505183930.006a80b4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance At 08:21 AM 5/5/96 -0400, you wrote: >Rich: >>Maybe we can chat more about parallel sources to Theosophy in private >>posts, I think the list will get bored of this right quick. > >Dear Rich, > > you are quite mistaken here. Please keep them on the list. If Alexis >(and the rest of the gang) and you (and no offence intended) perhaps could >argue in private instead.... (since it seems unrelated to theosophy). > With this said I would love to participate in a discussion on the MSS >which served as a basis for "Voice of Silence" and "Secret Doctrine." Since >both works are described as secret, we would have to expect them to be not >extant nor even widely distributed and known in Tibet. They may of course >turn up in the future. > I?d suggest a close examination of the seven extant works of Asanga for >similarity with the precepts of "Voice of Silence". The mode of translation >employed by HPB is very different from the traditional and of great >interest. > >In friendship, > >Kim > > >Kim: I don't know about the "rest of the gang" (no offense taken) but there will be no further arguing at all from this source at least. I have "filtered" Rich and will have no further contact with him of any kind. I see no purpose of value in "cat fights". alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Sun May 5 18:50:06 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 11:50:06 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960505185006.0068fb14@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Sticks and stones At 12:21 PM 5/5/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alan, >Sometimes it helps if one has a heart to break, but your point is well taken. > Now if theosophy were to actually acquire a heart... > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >I am very much afraid it lost it on May 8th 1891 alexis d. From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Mon May 6 14:48:08 1996 Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 07:48:08 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <318E1128.3085@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: DNA Shows Human And Chimps...... References: <2.2.32.19960505075815.006a1580@mail.slip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit alexis dolgorukii wrote: > > At 09:56 PM 5/4/96 -0400, you wrote: > >alexis dolgorukii wrote: > >> > >>>>>cut<<<<<<< > >> > > >> >Bee: Thanks for that posting it's fascinating and to me kind of wonderful. > >> If you want to read a really wonderful book read:"When Elephants Weep" by > >> Jeffrey Mousseiff Masson. it makes one laugh and weep. > >> > >> alexis d. > > > >Thanks I will keep a look out for it. I have not heard of it before/ > >-- > > > > > > > > Bee Brown > > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > > Theos Int & L > > > > > >Bee: > Jeffrey Mouseieff Masson is a relatively famous psychiatrist, and the book > was sent to us through a book club so it should be relatively available. I > can't get at it now, but if you'd like, I'll send you the publisher etc. > tomorrow morning. > > alexis d. Very kind of you. Thank you Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From am455@lafn.org Sun May 5 21:31:10 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 14:31:10 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199605052131.AA00786@lafn.org> Subject: Wrong Ramalinga Wrong again. Further research in BCW shows that Ramalinga (Pillai) Swami disappeared from this world in Jan. of 1874. So the Ramalinga Deb that HPB called a chela and was alive in 1884, was a different man. The prophetic sage Ramalinga Swami that taught a form of Theosophy in the 1840s & 50s may have been a Mahatma, I don't know. He entered a small house in Jan. of 1874 and told his disciples to wall up the windows. One year later they opened it up and found no body -- nothing. -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From ramadoss@eden.com Sun May 5 22:03:41 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 17:03:41 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Doubled postings In-Reply-To: <199605051734.AA00112@lafn.org> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Your message quoted below was received twice. I would rather have quick double posting that late single posting. ...doss On Sun, 5 May 1996, Nicholas Weeks wrote: > > > Today I rcvd two copies of my posting "Eastern precursors". Did the rest > of you also get two? I wrote to JEM a couple of days ago about other dual > postings I'd seen from other folk. Maybe it will be fixed soon. > > > -- > Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles > "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight > cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble > presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) > From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sun May 5 22:05:26 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 16:05:26 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Quantum Theosophy? (Part 1) In-Reply-To: <960503020909_105662844@emout17.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII A wee bit of "substance" (-:): On Fri, 3 May 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > >What the Heisenberg principle shows, and what Bee's post re- >affirms, is that the universe is NOT materialistically >determined. HPB said the same thing. That is most assuredly not what the Heisenberg principle [of indeterminacy] shows. Much has been made in pop science of the so-called "uncertainty principle" - but a lot of it is *bad* distortions of this principle, from which are drawn completely untenable inferences. A short discussion of this might be worth it to make this point. Science had finally reached the point of postulating the existence of atomic particles, electrons, protons & etc., but the question that was naturally asked was *how* such things could possibly be *observed*. Science was used to observing things smaller than the range open to the naked eye - it had the microscope. But there were problems with microscopes. To have one high-powered enough to actually observe an electron, it would require *extremely* short wave-lengths of light (the power of a microscope being limited by the size of light waves - they cannot resolve anything smaller than a wavelength), but, as both Einstein and Planck discovered, the size of the frequency is directly related to the energy of the photons. This is not something that ordinarily mattered in previous uses of the microscope - but with the electron science was finally dealing with the fact that a *single* photon (especially a highly charged one) would be capable of *affecting* the thing being observed. In fact to "see" an electron would mean it would be necessary to *hit* the electron with a photon ... and electrons are not only small, but light - they are *substantially* altered - both their position and their velocity (imagine "studying" a cow by standing on top of a mountain and rolling small boulders down the hill at it ... both its location at the time and the speed with which it was moving would be considerably affected every time a "hit" was scored). While there is much more to this, a half-dozen "catch-22's" .. Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy resolves essentially to this: We cannot simultaneously know *both* position and velocity with precision *even in imagination* (that is, he was not just talking about the current technology of microscopes, he was going further and imagining how good observation could be even with a hypothetically "perfect" microscope - and still coming up with the fact that there was no way around Planck's constant). To know position exactly alters velocity - to know velocity we must disturb position. We can tweak experimental variables to know position approximately, and also gain some idea of velocity, but every gain in precision in the one comes at a loss of precision in the other. This "translates" into pop science as the oft-heard statement that the act of observing affects the observed. But the *actual* "Heisenberg principle" was referring to the *atomic scale* in terms of size. But its important to understand a couple of things the principle does *not* mean - both of them alleged in new-age circles to be "demonstrated" by Heisenberg: 1) Heisenberg never thought that the uncertainty of measurement at the atomic scale implied indeterminacy at the macro scale - e.g., he would *not* have thought that the act of looking at a golf ball somehow altered the golf ball. He was talking purely about the scale at which the smallest imaginable agent of measurement (a photon) was itself large enough to alter the measured. 2) He never implied that the uncertainty was a quality of the *objective* world - i.e., his "uncertainty" meant that *human scientists attempting to measure atomic particles* would necessarily need to be uncertain about the variables used to describe those particles - his indeterminacy meant that *humans could not precisely determine the variables they wished to determine*, not that the *particles themselves* were *behaving*, if left to themselves, in a materialistically non-deterministic fashion. >MIND is what has a huge impact on matter and the course of >evolution. One can look at these experiments in quantum physics >and be very impressed by the fact that HPB knew and discussed >this decades before the actual proof came to us Westerners. I'd very much like to hear the "proof" that "MIND" has a "huge" impact on matter and the course of evolution. A mystic might premise that there is some such thing called a "Universal mind", or a cosmic informing principle of some sort (which was certainly postulated by philosophers millennia before HPB lived) but I don't believe anyone has taken this as a *scientific* hypothesis ... and most certainly no one has "proved" it. So far as what is called "mind" by humanity currently, other than purely macro level manipulations (making trees into a house), I suppose some of our chemistry and physics is altering matter in such a way as to slightly affect evolution, but unless one wishes to extend the definition of "mind" to include things like the DNA helix (which does hold and process information, but probably would have a hard time being called a producer of "thought"), evolution proceeded for vast stretches of time without any presence of "mind" at all. I believe it is a *huge* stretch to claim that the current research and conclusions in quantum theory are somehow converging with or confirming anything HPB claimed. This is *not* to say I believe either HPB or quantum physics is right or wrong - simply that they speak two *very* different languages. Quantum physicists rarely attempt to translate their experimental findings into the terms of Vedic allegory. HPB did try to translate the religious allegory of old occult texts (that she claimed contained veiled scientific knowledge) into the language of modern science - but it was the modern science of *her* time. Additionally, she makes very few affirmative statements about what "Occult science" would teach, and these are usually brief plain statements that are backed up not by experimental evidence, but by quotations from old spiritual/religious texts. Most of her writings on science seem to have the intention not of articulating a coherent scientific model that can be framed in testable, repeatable form, but of deconstructing and criticizing the materialism of late 19th century science. Well, fine, but modern science cares little either for the stumbling conclusions of that science *or* the criticisms of it (and the scientists of that time actually produced far more vehement (and coherent - HPB certainly did ramble) criticisms than she did.) It is now a moot point. [At one point, for instance - I'll find the reference if necessary - HPB, attempting to deconstruct the law of gravity ... a law she claimed was *not* universal ... uses the fact that the tails of comets always point away from the sun as an argument, holding that a comet whose tail ignores the law of gravity even in close proximity to the sun can hardly be said to be following that law. At the time, of course, the existence of the solar wind was unknown. The sun rotates on its own axis once every 25 days or so at the equator, and 39 days or so at the poles (yes, it rotates as a fluid body, not a solid one) - *very* fast for a body that huge - and as well as emitting electro-magnetic radiation, also emits *particles* - electrons and protons - that as the result of the sun's rotation leave the sun in spirals, like a huge lawn sprinkler. These particles act as a sort of "wind" blowing away from the sun in all directions. They are what is responsible for "blowing" the comet's tail away from the sun, that is, they can act on the vaporous tail in such a way as to supersede the effects of gravity - but are far too small to supersede those effects on the mass of the comet body. All of which is to say that whether she is ultimately right or wrong about gravity, her argument against the scientific conceptualization of the time turns out to have absolutely nothing to do with gravity - and is simply fully explained by the knowledge of the solar wind ... a factor that was unknown to the scientists of the time (it wasn't until the first rockets penetrated the atmosphere that the existence of actual *particles* being radiated by the sun was discovered) - but that was clearly *also unknown to HPB*.] It must be remembered that the *pace* of 20th century science is historically unprecedented. (A friend of mine, a chemist, told me that the "half-life" of chemistry's knowledge is now about 3 years ... that someone who graduated from college and did not work in the field for three years would find close to half of his/her education obsolete - and in other branches of science its even shorter). From the beginning of recorded ("exoteric" (-:) history until around the mid - 1800's *all* energy our species used was produced by either muscle or fire ... in less than one century we went from the deliberate production of energy from a steam engine to unleashing the energy bound within large atoms. In less than a century we went from the first flight of a airplane to actually hitting the moon and coming back. HPB spends a lot of time attacking the science of her time - but a *lot* of what she wrote simply is no longer a relevant argument. This is not a criticism of HPB - how could she have criticized our current science? But there are several real problems in trying to discover whether what she wrote is confirmed or not confirmed by the science of our time. Modern science, at least a lot of the "hard" science - has come to think and speak almost purely in the language of mathematics. For instance, it is impossible to grasp the actual *science* of quantum mechanics without understanding the geometry of Riemann spheres and Hilbert space, and without a thorough knowledge of both probability theory and the mathematics of complex numbers. When people try to translate some of the understandings into "plain english" (and there is a whole genre of "pop science" out there just now) there is generally, even at best, *significant* distortions introduced. The *reason* mathematics are used is not (as in "occult" circles) to deliberately "veil" secret information, but because the concepts of the english language are simply not even vaguely precise enough to think about the subatomic world with. Its like trying to do neurosurgery with a pocket knife - the tool is just way too big and blunt to make the necessary distinctions. So what kind of discussions are possible? We have HPB, who translated oriental religious allegory into the english language to deconstruct the scientific materialism of the late 19th century, and we have the translations of modern science from the language of mathematics into the current english language (few Theosophists, I think, do very much work with multidimensional complex vector space) - and with all this translating its a damn miracle if anything even approaching anything other than the most superficial relationships can even be postulated between HPB and modern science. (See the following quantum example in post 2). Another significant problem in trying to understand HPB's "science" has to do with the uneasy and conflicting feelings the TS has concerning "inner powers". One of HPB's most frequent claims is that the science of her time was only discovering *phenomena*, while the science of the initiates concerned itself with the nominal, *causal* world. She makes many claims for the existence of beings and forces that she says cause a lot of the things whose *effects* are what science perceives. And she says that these beings and forces were discovered by, and can only be verified by, *those who have developed supersensible perception*. Yet the disciplined development of such things (even with the *intent* of *research or service*) is frowned upon in Theosophical organizations (if not actually forbidden in some circles), and any attempts by modern Theosophists to actually report attempts *at that very verification* are met with at best warnings about the "unreliable nature" of such a research tool, and at worst warnings about how the use of such things threaten to take one off the "path". I believe, in short, that unfortunately Theosophy itself has created a situation in which neither modern scientists, nor modern clairvoyants, find Theosophy a place that *invites* the "investigation of unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man" - but in fact both find Theosophy a place almost deliberately inimicable to such investigation. [But I won't get onto that (-:)] -JRC From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 5 23:36:40 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 19:36:40 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960505193640_484886808@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Wilber and Hero Worship Alex, Flaming just comes with the territory. When we stick our necks out people like to try to chop our heads off. From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 5 23:36:53 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 19:36:53 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960505193652_484886921@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Denizen of theos-hell Alex, Have you never heard that the majority is always wrong? Personally I have no trouble arguing with a billion people who thought that Mao was anything other than a butcher. And comparing us to his wife and her cronies is too funny for us to be insulted by it. Besides, I'm waiting for the retainer fee I'm charging the ES to destroy the internet. :-) Chuck the Barbaric Capitalist Running Dog MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 5 23:36:55 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 19:36:55 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960505193655_484886934@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance Rich, It comes from the fact that I'm used to people saying terrible things about me because of my other writings. I've been accused of every crime humanly conceivable and at least five that aren't, so the sort of thing that gets thrown at me on this list is pretty mild. It really takes quite a bit for me to feel insulted enough to act on it. Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 5 23:36:59 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 19:36:59 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960505193658_484886952@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Denizen of theos-hell Eldon, Now you that Dora once said "We are law abiding people." We are in defiance of moral and spiritual authority. And we don't spray grafitti, or wear our hats backwards. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun May 5 22:35:25 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 18:35:25 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605052340.TAA12645@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: human system > 2. Does anything the physical conscious entity do have >>much effect on the spiritual development of that entity? > According to the research of some biofeedback people (I think the Greene's but I'm not sure anymore) you can heal a system by tapping into it anywhere, ie if you start healing the physical end, it'll have an effect on the spritual end, & vice versa. ex. If you smile, you can't be angry. The usual way your system works is that it tenses up & then it relaxes. When it relaxes, the muscels release the accumulated toxins, & the body then discards them. If you're a very tense person, the muscles don't get a chance to release all the toxins & it's easier to get sick. Liesel From poulsen@dk-online.dk Mon May 6 03:33:29 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 01:33:29 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3AEC.C74807A0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: Repartee vs. substance Encoding: 9 TEXT Doss: >So I would be very optimistic and wait and see what we can find in the >monastery. Doss-ji you would be, you are the eternal optimist. I will be optimistic with you - will Rich go to Tibet again? In friendship, Kim From poulsen@dk-online.dk Mon May 6 03:38:13 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 01:38:13 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3AEC.D9621FC0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (Daniel) Encoding: 77 TEXT Daniel: >But now it seems that you want to widen the discussion even more!!! Dear Daniel, we are discussing the whole framework of esoteric philosophy, it cannot be any wider than this - and excuse me for these hastily written remarks. >You mean to say that you cannot try to step back from your own >"thought-forms" ...... No, but I will not implant the germ of doubt in a field where I already formed my opinion long ago. It is a great mistake to view esoteric systems as separated and independant. Watch the method of the Secret Doctrine which is completely different. It never isolates a system to understand it even though it treats of hundreds. >Well, Kim, if your object is to convince readers like me, then you will have >to be more focused in what you say than what I have read in the last post >or two. You speak in very, very general terms....that's okay. But it doesn't >get down to the nitty gritty. I am dealing with subjects that are self-evident to myself. State the subject you wish to see explained in detail. You may be thinking we have finished some subjects - we have hardly begun. I expect Jerry to follow me step by step and agree or disagree. >Have you read his works? Do you have access to his >books? No! Not around here. I already stated so. It is a choice, not some sort of accidental oversight, I will not go into this subject (but it is not caused from any hostile opinion). >why not change the focus to HPB/AAB? We may do so. But with CWL in a state of severe misunderstanding AAB would be in a bad position. First things first. >I would hope since your object is to plant the germ of reasonable doubt >in Jerry HE's mind, that you would also challenge your own understanding >of the subject. I am also hoping Jerry HE would do the same. Of course Daniel. >Maybe you and Jerry need to severely limit what you are attempting to do. >Your discussion is ranging all over the board. ..... >But unless both of you severely focus your discussion, I fear that both of >you will go round and round in a circle. We will get around to all the points, yes. Just be patient and keep the posts if the subject interests you. If we continue for some time you will have all your nitty gritty details when the posts are read together. These are not subjects for casual reading. >Could you and Jerry HE maybe post a few extracts from Vol. XII of HPB's >writings on the subject under discussion, and then each of you give your >understanding of what HPB is conveying? This might be a starting point >then from which you two could then bring in material from CWL or AAB. Please be patient, just watch the thread evolve. If we can come to an agreement from the preliminary outlining, much work will be saved - I spent 14 hours today on this thread and various sub-threads. >Plus interested readers will find themselves in a confusing fog due to the >vague, generalizing nature of the discusssion. Just ask, Daniel - but specifically :-). My main point sofar has been that our solar system is on the seventh universal plane, called prakriti and prakritic by HPB and Subba Row. This is hardly vague and generalizing but a vital point which Jerry hopefully is chewing on just now.If he disagrees I will add further material, if he agrees I will go back to his initial objections. In friendship, Kim From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon May 6 00:16:45 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 01:16:45 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , JRC writes > We are not analogous to the Gang of Four - rather, >if anything, to the people who put the Gang on trial, >charging them with the attempt to totally control Theosophical >"culture", and with using institutional force to do so. > And it is to *this* group that your words might more >profitably be addressed: Enjoy your power while you have it, >for all things come to an end. > -JRC Err - if any of this is supposed to involve me, then I must say the whole thing is a load of nonsense, and would rather not be associated with it either in a pro or con capacity! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Mon May 6 00:32:02 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 17:32:02 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9605060032.AA10932@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (to Kim and others) Kim >Dear Jerry, to make the discussion more readable I think I will >answer your letter in parts. Thank you for going into detail. As >stated earlier I will bring in supporting material outside the >rules of the discussion, which you can just ignore. JHE I think the occasional use of selected outside material may be helpful in some cases for the purpose of clarification, but should not be the evidence. For instance a specific comment from Jinarajadasa explaining what CWL meant when he said such and such can be very helpful to get a perspective of what someone else understood CWL to mean. But CWL must remain the authority for CWL, not Jinarajadasa. Therefore, citing Purucker's system of twelve globes to prove that HPB really meant to write about twelve globes even though she only wrote about seven is, I think pushing matters too far, and implies a trust in Purucker's system that is outside of the parameters of the discussion. Similarly, using Alice Bailey's system to interpret HPB's would also, in my opinion, be going the parameters. We need to understand HPB by reading HPB and understand CWL by reading CWL. JHE: >> Subba Row in his Lectures on the Bhagavad Gita 1886-87 >>clearly stated that he rejected HPB's seven principle >>classification because it is a "very unscientific and >>misleading one" and because the "seven principles do not >>correspond to any lines of cleavage, so to speak in the >>constitution of man" Kim >I have earlier explained on Theos-l (ABC+D thread, january) what >the differences arose from. [snip] JHE Kim, I think you have completely missed my point here. I'm well aware of HPB's efforts to compare and justify the two systems. She attempted to do the same thing with Sinnett who also tried to create an opposing Theosophical system. In both cases HPB tried to deal with the opposing ideas in such a way as not to bruise those male egos and to keep from the public eye that Subba Row, and Sinnett were really at odds with HPB and competing with her. This aspect of the story clearly comes out in their private letters, not in a comparison of their public writings. For me to extensively go into this issue will take us way off track. But you can research it for yourself in the Blavatsky/Sinnett letters and by going through the early ~Theosophist~ and putting Subba Row's writings and HPB's responses in their correct chronological order. I think that you will find that a completely different picture emerges than the one that comes through in Olcott's edited version of Subba Row's ~Esoteric Writings.~ You will also find relevant material there that was not included in the Let us just suffice to say that writers have to stand or fall on their own merits. Using Subba Rows system or anyone else's to further explain HPB's runs the risk of syncretism. JHE >>Subba Row even referred to her (HPB) as "his opponent." Kim >opponent in the discussion, a bit like us ,Jerry - something >which may be done in a very amiable fashion. JHE I disagree with this interpretation, and I think HPB makes it clear that she did not see it this way either. Though HPB constantly worked to smooth over Subba Row's, Olcott's and Sinnett's ruffled ego's, or when necessary, to confront them, she also publicly gave them the benefit of a doubt. But she wasn't fooled about what they were up to. She had to both deal with their hostility and show a united front to the public. From this perspective, HPB's public statement in the ~Theosophist~ may take on a different light: "Before I say anything further upon the main subject, however, I must express my surprise at finding the learned author referring to me continually as his "critic." I have never criticized him, nor his teachings, whether orally, or in print. I had simply expressed regret at finding in the ~Theosophist words calculated, as I then thought, to create false impressions. The position assumed by the lecturer on the Gita [Subba Row] was as unexpected as it was new to me, and my remarks were meant to be as friendly as I could make them." (~Theosophist~, August 1887, 651; In contrast, below is what HPB privately wrote to Olcott in June of the same year: "Who is it then, who is forcing him [Subba Row] to feel so inimical toward me? This is not natural and it lasts ever since I left Adyar. Since then I wrote to him five or six most friendly letters--*he has never answered me one line.* No one could be more contemptuous with me than he, whom I have honored always *above myself.*" (June 3, 1887. unpublished). JHE >>it seems inconsistent to invoke Subba Row as an interpreter of >>HPB. Kim >May seem so, but they were chelas of the same master. The spirit >guiding their minds (in vital moments, during higher >understanding, etc.), the force directing their thought-forms >would lead them in a similar direction, not necessarily the >initial ideas. JHE This view is undemonstrable and is as unanswerable as Ireneaus' proclamation concerning the reason why there are only four genuine Gospels. I don't think we will get very far by pinning our interpretations on this kind of thinking. Kim >Your idea of the life-long evolving system of thought is >correct, but this does not mean that the initial >system was very far from truth. JHE I didn't suggest that it wasn't. Rather, I think HPB began with basic concepts and built upon them. -------------------------------------------------------------- Part 2: JHE >>>>How do you define "universal planes"? Kim >>>As states of being external to our solar system. JHE >> What is the extant of these "universal planes"? Kim: >Extent? Who knows? Did you read my recent post on extension as a >property of space, an answer to Liesel? Do you want support for >this idea of universal planes, I consider it well-known? JHE No, I don't need support for the ideal of universal planesnor do I question the philosophical propositions concerning extension. As I explained earlier, I'm just trying to get a feel for how you understand the terms you use. But for clarity, I will rephrase my question: If the "universal planes" are "states external to our solar system", then what are they internal to? e.g.: Our galaxy?; Our family of galaxies?; the entire universe? JHE >>Do you have a term for planes "external" to the "universal >>planes"? Kim >I have never seen anywhere material on anything *external* to >these. Any decent philosopher treats only of the 6th and 7th of >these planes - they are the white circle plane in the black >field. The 6th is completely unknown. The vedantins place their >Parabrahm on the first plane, the seventh being prakritic, the >5th universal mind. JHE Which chart are you using here? JHE > What do you call the planes of the solar system? Kim >I do not call them anything. I like to use the terminology of >the author. I use numbers. In CW XII p. 658 the 3 lower (Figure >B) are called Jivic ("egoic" also mental), Astral and Objective >(physical) If I may choose, I choose the terminology of AAB >which remains the same from her first volume to her 24th and >last. JHE Sorry. My question was unintentionally ambiguous. I was really asking for an overall term for the planes--like "solar planes." I didn't mean to ask you to enumerate them. But I'm glad for this answer too. JHE >>What do you call the planes for the earth's system of globes? Kim >4 lower planes of the solar system also called planes of the 4 >ethers (AAB). see again CW XII p. 658 for grossest globe (ours) >on 7th or objective plane. JHE Again thanks for this answer. But again I was looking for an overall term. JHE >>What do you call the planes for the sun's system of globes? Kim >Our planetary chain ARE one of our sun's systems of globes (at >least affiliated with this solar system)? Or do you mean the >sacred planets? JHE No, I don't mean the sacred planets. I was asking for the overall term for the planes of the sun's system of globes, ie the sun's globes A - E. JHE >>What do you call the planes where are to be found the human >>principles? Kim >On all planes of the solar system and hence the planes of the >planetary chain except the highest. The important principles are >the relation between monad and ego - ending with the mental >plane, the 5th. These constitute the buddhist skandhas and the >correlations of atma, so to speak, in hinduism. They are >correlation of force or spirit rather than correlation of >elements, elementals. The knowledge of these principles >constitute a whole science for itself. JHE Then you are saying that the human "astral body" is on the solar "astral plane" and the "mental body" is on the solar mental plane? JHE Please enumerate for me the terms you use for the seven principles of man. -------------------------------------------------------- JHE >>>>What do you mean by "principles" here? Do you mean the >>>>principles of man? Are you saying that the "universal >>>>planes" and the principles of man are the same? Kim >>>No, but "principles" is a term which may be applied to various >>>differentiations. *The seven elements ~are~ the seven >>>principles of the One element* just as the seven planes or >>>states of being may be called the seven principles of being. I >>>often assume manifestations to develop from a unity into 3 >>>primary "aspects" and 7 secondary "principles". JHE >>Am I correct in understanding from your above statement that >>principles and planes are essentially interchangeable terms? >>(Note the part of your statement I starred for emphases). Kim >No. But if you read p. 289 of Esoteric Writings you will find >each of the differentiated universals on its own plane. 1, 3 and >and 7 are the primary. It would be possible to name the planes >after these principles. If you wish to use principles as >designating only 7 differentiated states of an entity or certain >types of manifestation it will be Ok. JHE Since we are not comparing Subba Row to HPB, I don't find your illustration very helpful. Can you find something in HPB or CWL to illustrate your point? Kim > There is much subtlety in the fact that you want to want to >agree on a fixed terminology. This was in my opinion the real >cause behind the change you call neo-theosophy. It remains for >us to form an opinion whether an adept impressed this on the >minds of various theosophical writers or someone dreamed it up. JHE I'm afraid I don't follow what you are saying here. ............................ JHE: >I think that a mutual understanding of the basic vocabulary is a >vital prerequisite to any meaningful communication. But how are >you going to define these terms without checking them against >CWL's writings in order to assure that you are consistent with >him? If you want to leave it up to me to supply CWL quotes, >that is OK too. But that leaves you to draw your quotes from >HPB, without really knowing if they are consistent with CWL. Kim >Well, I will wait for your photocopies to arrive to elaborate on >CWL (and thank you), but since you have raised a great amount of >vital questions, I will be rather busy. > Buy the way I certainly do not feel a need to be consistent >with CWL - I would like to show the overall system of the >approximately similar philosophies of AB, CWL, and AAB to be >consistent with HPB. If it is not prooved here I would still >advocate students to take this position. JHE I think your desire "to show the overall system of the approximately similar philosophies of AB, CWL and AAB to be consistent with HPB" would just defocus the discussion at this point. It is evident that you begin with the assumption that AAB's expression of this system of doctrines is the genuine one. I respect your assumption, but do not share it. But more importantly, I think that what your wish to advocate this overall system goes far beyond the scope of our discussion--viz the compatibility of HPB and CWL. I suggest that we begin by exploring the compatibility between HPB and CWL. Once we finish this, we could go to HPB and Subba Row; then HPB and Besant; then CWL and Besant; then CWL and AAB etc. Eventually we will get to where you want to go, but we will have taken every rung of the latter to get there. JHE >>My own experience has been that to prove even a simple and >>seemingly clear cut point to someone with another point of view >>almost always requires the submission of at least ten times the >>evidence that would have been required to convince someone who >>is neutral on the subject. Kim >How can somebody like us be neutral on the question of esoteric philosophy? JHE We are not. Which is my point. Kim >It is not like researching subjects where one can hold back an >opinion until all facts are evaluated. In esoteric philosophy >it is necessary to accept the preliminary propositions for the >time being. If this is not done no progress will be done in this >direction whatsoever. I have carried definite ideas in my mind >for over a decade on these subjects and would rather undergo >surgery than extract these forms from my thoughts. > Neither of us are really neutral, but CWL is sort of neutral >ground :-) JHE HPB only asks for three preliminary propositions. For me, no others are necessary. As for CWL, I have opinions based upon a lot of historical research. So in this sense, he is not neutral ground for me either. JHE >>But once I give a response and back it up with documentation, I >>don't want to get into a long debate if the object is merely to >>convince the other. Kim >I have spend tens of thousands of working hours on the works of >HPB and especially the Secret Doctrine, nothing new is likely to >turn up to surprise either of us. We can agree or disagree on >our interpretation of the documentation and then drop it to >avoid a useless yes-no argument. > The object - my object is to convince the readers here and >plant the germ of reasonable doubt in your own mind. JHE Trust me, the germ or reasonable doubt is forever in my mind. On the Briggs Myers scale (i've taken this test on several occasions, and the results are quite consistent) I rated very strongly in the "perception" category, as opposed to the "judgmental" category. That is supposed to mean that I operate on a very tentative level. So there is no reason for you to take out your rake, hoe and shovel. As for "the readers," I doubt if more than three or four others are interested enough in the subject to follow this. Of them, I submit that they are probably more or less familiar with the principles and already have their own opinions concerning them. JHE >>Further, my experience has been that people form opinions and >>attitudes for reasons that go beyond the evidence or any >>intellectual considerations. I've learned that it is almost >>always better not to interfere with that part of their lives. Kim >Very well put. The exact reason why I rarely attack a viewpoint. >That "reason that go beyond the evidence or any intellectual >considerations" is the very force that make me trust or reject >material on spiritual matters - but it is impossible to use such >reasoning both in scholarly circles and here. And feel free to >interfere with my beliefs, I am enjoying myself thoroughly. JHE I think there is room for "reason that goes beyond the evidence of any intellectual considerations" in scholarly circles. But it has to be come after all of the evidence is examined and evaluated from several viewpoints. Even then, the more transcendental conclusions still have to be consistent with the evidence. ------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Weeks writes: >Quoting K in ML #85: > >"*Upasika* (Madame B.) and Subba Row, though pupils of the same >Master, have not followed the same Philosophy -- the one is >Buddhist and the other an Adwaitee." > >My reading of Subba Row's attitude during his debates with HPB >was that this was not (to him) an intellectual exercise of two >brother chelas. He was genuinely convinced that HPB had done >something terrible (re the 7 principles and revealing too much >in general). HPB had the larger heart & mind and could see the >"spirit guiding their minds" -- Subba Row could not. Thus his >fierce attempt to destroy Theosophy as put forth by HPB. JHE Nicholas, thanks for the quote and your input. I've always wondered about Subba Row dying so young and so terribly by being mysteriously disfigured by boils. He told Olcott that it was his karma for something. But for what? I wonder if it was connected with his occultism or his animosity towards HPB? Any thoughts? -------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Caldwell writes: >In summary, it is my opinion that if the discussion is not >limited, if terms are not carefully defined, and if relevant >quotes from the original writers are not given, your joint >efforts will be mostly wasted. Plus interested readers will >find themselves in a confusing fog due to the vague, >generalizing nature of the discussion. JHE Yes Dan, I agree with you here. We need to define terms and focus the discussion to the subject at hand i.e. HPB and CWL. I feel (at least hope) that we are making some progress toward this. But it appears that Kim wishes to operate from the a priori assumption that HPB and CWL, as well as AB, AAB, TSR etc. are all compatible under a more inclusive set of occult doctrines. Until Kim agrees to put this assumption aside (he doesn't have to reject it), any exploration of the comparison between HPB and CWL will be just an exercise of circular reasoning within Kim's third system. Therefore, it seems that our preliminary discussion is necessary in order to put aside this third system before a discussion of the other two is possible. However, I don't think the time is wasted. Even if we never get to the proposed topic, we will at least have explored the more general subject of how circular reasoning blocks any real exploration of a topic. Now that I think about it, perhaps the main block in communication between Jerry S and myself also concerned his a priori assumption of a third system. In this case, it was Jerry's "Gupta vidya" magical system. If you recall, he always returned to it for his explanations. By the way, did you receive my package? ------------------------------------------------------ JHE >>Therefore, when I see a chart or a piece of writing, I >>always want to know from the top: 1. Who wrote/made it? 2. >>What was the date of writing and which publication? 3. Place of >> publication? 4. How does it fit with the author's other >> writings? 5. How does it fit with the extant writings at the >>time of production and publication? 6. What was the extant of >> influence of this work? >> >>Of course, by asking these questions, I'm taking the much >> disparaged "historical view" that is criticized almost on a >> weekly bases on theos-l. It seems that Dan Caldwell and >>Myself are the sole contributors that have ever attempted to >>defend this approach on theos-l. Rich Taylor writes: >You are right that only you and Dan defend this position, but I >for one wholeheartedly support it. I simply don't have the MSS >resources or the incredible background you and Dan Caldwell have >to make most of my cases this way. I think the questions you >are asking and the procedure you are following is the only way >to explain how original Theosophy differs from neo-Theosophy, >and goes a long way toward explaining WHY they differ. > >Though often silent on this point, I am behind you 110% in >spirit. JHE Yes, it is true that Dan and I have a tremendous advantage by having access to material that most students of Theosophy are not even aware of. But as I have announced many times before, Alexandria West is an open resource. It is available to anyone wishing to use it, regardless of their beliefs or politics. But you don't need an "Alexandria" in your neighborhood to find valuable information. Local Lodge libraries are also good resources, as well as the larger libraries at Wheaton (Adyar TS), Los Angeles (ULT) and Pasadena (TSP). These are also available for public use. Rich, you are already trained in research methodology and know how to get and process information. Many of your contributions on theos-l are the fruits of this discipline. However, there are others on theos-l who base their opinions and beliefs on third hand information and blind loyalties to other people's opinions and beliefs. When they come on line disparaging historical research or any other approach that brings forth information that threatens their beliefs, I'm reminded that the TS is still in many ways a queer little cult based upon revelation, and has receded very far from the progressive philosophical movement it started out to be. Thanks for giving me an opening to announce Alexandria West again, and to blow off a little steam :-) JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun May 5 19:43:42 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 20:43:42 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: TI brotherhood clause In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960505071602.006b5c68@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960505071602.006b5c68@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >Now you see how I feel when he "get's started" on one? >That's why I "filtered" him. > >alexis d. > Yes. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun May 5 20:05:33 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 21:05:33 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Doubled postings In-Reply-To: <199605051734.AA00112@lafn.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199605051734.AA00112@lafn.org>, Nicholas Weeks writes > > >Today I rcvd two copies of my posting "Eastern precursors". Did the rest >of you also get two? I wrote to JEM a couple of days ago about other dual >postings I'd seen from other folk. Maybe it will be fixed soon. > Today I had two copies of one of your postings, and a single copy of others! The same happened with one or two other people's posts. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun May 5 20:59:02 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 21:59:02 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Breath In-Reply-To: <960505105606_106997618@emout07.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960505105606_106997618@emout07.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes (tp Kim): Alan Bain responds. >One of the things which caught my eye many years ago was H.P.B.'s way of >wording the well-known Kabalistic saying. Her version: "The Breath becomes >a stone; the stone, a plant; the plant, an animal; the animal, a man; the >man, a spirit; and the spirit, a god." (I had previously heard versions >which left out *Breath* and/or used *angel* for *spirit*.) It occurs near the beginning of her commentary to Stanza V in Vol. One of the SD. She does not, alas, give her source. I only ever came across it without the reference to breath, but see below. >Now, this seemed significant to me because H.P.B.'s rendering seemed much >more in keeping with my own meditative observation of the "sequence of >differentiated consciousnesses." It also seems to correspond nicely with the >"Eastern terminology" I provided Eldon a while back: > >>[quoting earlier post] All this [the general problem of one's own theosophy >not quite matching up with conventional definitions for terminology etc.] >notwithstanding, here is a little table of correspondences (*Chronological >Age* [potential egoic delusions of the next Cycle begin at the mid-point of >the present]; *Cycle*; *Possible Eastern Term* [; Kabalistic Term]): > >1-7. . . . .Animating. . . . .*Prana* [Breath] >7-14. . . . .Physical. . . . .*Sthula* [stone] >14-21. . . . .Desire-Feeling. . . . .*Kama* [plant] >21-28. . . . .Desire-Mental. . . . .*Kama-Manas* [animal] >28-35. . . . .Mental. . . . .*Manas* [man] >35-42. . . . .Spirit-Mental. . . . .*Buddhi-Manas* [spirit] >42-49. . . . .Spirit. . . . .*Buddhi* [god] >> > >Kim, it seems clear to me that the foregoing table looks at things from an >individual "Psychogenetic" perspective rather than the more macro >Cosmogenetic or Anthropogenetic. My question to you is this: Is H.P.B.'s >inclusion of *Breath* in the scheme an innovation on her part, or is *Breath* >(or something equivalent) also present in original Kabalistic or Eastern >writings that you are aware of? (I.e., were the other versions I heard >first simply the result of people passing along the incomplete saying?) Forty years of Kabalist study suggest that Kabala renders it *without* the reference to breath - BUT - "God" as "Breath" would be taken as a *given* in all such expressions of development. HPB also quotes other (biblical) references to the divine breath having a generative effect, though in one place she appears to use the incorrect Hebrew word, while rendering the correct English translation! So, yes, the above table makes sense to me, at least. Hope this is of some value. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun May 5 19:53:43 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 20:53:43 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Theory vs Practice In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960505071345.0069ba50@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960505071345.0069ba50@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >>>multi-snip<<< >As I think I've made clear, to me, "spiritual" has only one meaning and that >is non-carnate! If it's an intelligence center, and it hasn't got a body, >it's a spirit. I cannot accept that certain concepts or actions by physical >beings are more or less "spiritual" there's nothing real except energy in >any case. But Democritus knew that an awful long time ago! >> That would be my meaning of "spirit" as applied to an individual intelligence. "Spiritual" would therefore refer to something partaking of the nature or effect of spirit, or tending towards the nature or effect or realization of spirit in awareness. Thus "spiritual" development is a development towards realization of one's own identity as non-carnate "spirit." One teacher described the situation thus: "God" is breath, and we are breaths." Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun May 5 19:45:48 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 20:45:48 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Ruminations In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960505065620.0069d808@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960505065620.0069d808@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >I gave my copy of >"Ruminations" to Rudolfo Don at dinner tonight. When I get the money >together send me one extra. > >fondly >alexis d. I will send and wait for the money when you have it. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Mon May 6 01:13:41 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 19:13:41 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 5 May 1996, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > In message , JRC > writes > > We are not analogous to the Gang of Four - rather, > >if anything, to the people who put the Gang on trial, > >charging them with the attempt to totally control Theosophical > >"culture", and with using institutional force to do so. > > And it is to *this* group that your words might more > >profitably be addressed: Enjoy your power while you have it, > >for all things come to an end. > > -JRC > > Err - if any of this is supposed to involve me, then I must say the > whole thing is a load of nonsense, and would rather not be associated > with it either in a pro or con capacity! Okey - dokey ... actually, I ignored it myself until this post ... even though I know Chinese history far too well to have thought it funny even in jest (I would never, for instance, even "lightly" call Eldon and those who agree with him "The Gestapo"). I just figured it would go away in a day. I was somewhat suprised to see it actually become a thread (and must admit I just laughed aloud when Chuck actually added it to his signature titles). I wasn't going to add to the discussion, but when Eldon actually said that one thing he may have been meaning was that the four of us actually had some sort of *power* - which we should enjoy because it would pass - well, all semblence of jesting disappeared and I thought I'd just add my own little reading of Chinese history to the thread. However, I erred in saying "we" ... and did not intentionally mean to imply your involvement - I should not have done so, as I myself most definately did not appreciate being named as part of a "Gang of Four" in the first place. My sincere apologies (and this will also be my last post on the topic.) Regards, -JRC From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon May 6 00:17:41 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 20:17:41 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605060122.VAA11337@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: "brotherhood" - sanitized >The idea of "universal brotherhood", under whatever >sanitized words we want to call it, *is a doctrine*. Eldon, Annie Besant says it's a fact, and I think if one looks around with an intuitive eye, one comes to the conclusion that she's right on. Liesel From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Mon May 6 01:34:01 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 19:34:01 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: "brotherhood" - sanitized In-Reply-To: <199605060122.VAA11337@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 5 May 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > >The idea of "universal brotherhood", under whatever > >sanitized words we want to call it, *is a doctrine*. > > Eldon, Annie Besant says it's a fact, and I think if one looks around with > an intuitive eye, one comes to the conclusion that she's right on. > Liesel ... **Excellent** -JRC From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon May 6 00:41:06 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 20:41:06 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605060145.VAA22204@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: gang of 4 JRC says: > most of us have been >(at best) effectively marginalized by the powers that be Liesel answers: John,I'm not sure about that. Seems to me that "The Messenger" and the "AT" have of late often reflected matters we've been discussing on theos-l. Besides, I don't feel in the least marginalized. I'm doing what I want to do outside of the TS, and, I think, so are you. Liesel From blafoun@azstarnet.com Mon May 6 01:46:19 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 18:46:19 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199605060146.SAA22641@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Quantum Theosophy? (Part 1) See JRC's essay below. This is excellent and should be the kind of material I would like to see posted more often on Theos-l. JRC, you are very knowledgeable in this area and a good writer, too! Thanks for the information and insights. Daniel >A wee bit of "substance" (-:): > >On Fri, 3 May 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote: >> >>What the Heisenberg principle shows, and what Bee's post re- >>affirms, is that the universe is NOT materialistically >>determined. HPB said the same thing. > That is most assuredly not what the Heisenberg principle >[of indeterminacy] shows. > Much has been made in pop science of the so-called >"uncertainty principle" - but a lot of it is *bad* distortions of >this principle, from which are drawn completely untenable >inferences. A short discussion of this might be worth it to make >this point. > Science had finally reached the point of postulating the >existence of atomic particles, electrons, protons & etc., but the >question that was naturally asked was *how* such things could >possibly be *observed*. Science was used to observing things >smaller than the range open to the naked eye - it had the >microscope. But there were problems with microscopes. To have one >high-powered enough to actually observe an electron, it would >require *extremely* short wave-lengths of light (the power of a >microscope being limited by the size of light waves - they cannot >resolve anything smaller than a wavelength), but, as both >Einstein and Planck discovered, the size of the frequency is >directly related to the energy of the photons. > This is not something that ordinarily mattered in previous >uses of the microscope - but with the electron science was >finally dealing with the fact that a *single* photon (especially >a highly charged one) would be capable of *affecting* the thing >being observed. In fact to "see" an electron would mean it would >be necessary to *hit* the electron with a photon ... and >electrons are not only small, but light - they are >*substantially* altered - both their position and their velocity >(imagine "studying" a cow by standing on top of a mountain and >rolling small boulders down the hill at it ... both its location >at the time and the speed with which it was moving would be >considerably affected every time a "hit" was scored). > While there is much more to this, a half-dozen "catch-22's" >.. Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy resolves essentially >to this: We cannot simultaneously know *both* position and >velocity with precision *even in imagination* (that is, he was >not just talking about the current technology of microscopes, he >was going further and imagining how good observation could be >even with a hypothetically "perfect" microscope - and still >coming up with the fact that there was no way around Planck's >constant). To know position exactly alters velocity - to know >velocity we must disturb position. We can tweak experimental >variables to know position approximately, and also gain some idea >of velocity, but every gain in precision in the one comes at a >loss of precision in the other. > This "translates" into pop science as the oft-heard >statement that the act of observing affects the observed. But the >*actual* "Heisenberg principle" was referring to the *atomic >scale* in terms of size. But its important to understand a couple >of things the principle does *not* mean - both of them alleged in >new-age circles to be "demonstrated" by Heisenberg: > 1) Heisenberg never thought that the uncertainty of >measurement at the atomic scale implied indeterminacy at the >macro scale - e.g., he would *not* have thought that the act of >looking at a golf ball somehow altered the golf ball. He was >talking purely about the scale at which the smallest imaginable >agent of measurement (a photon) was itself large enough to alter >the measured. > 2) He never implied that the uncertainty was a quality of >the *objective* world - i.e., his "uncertainty" meant that *human >scientists attempting to measure atomic particles* would >necessarily need to be uncertain about the variables used to >describe those particles - his indeterminacy meant that *humans >could not precisely determine the variables they wished to >determine*, not that the *particles themselves* were *behaving*, >if left to themselves, in a materialistically non-deterministic >fashion. > >>MIND is what has a huge impact on matter and the course of >>evolution. One can look at these experiments in quantum physics >>and be very impressed by the fact that HPB knew and discussed >>this decades before the actual proof came to us Westerners. > I'd very much like to hear the "proof" that "MIND" has a >"huge" impact on matter and the course of evolution. A mystic >might premise that there is some such thing called a "Universal >mind", or a cosmic informing principle of some sort (which was >certainly postulated by philosophers millennia before HPB lived) >but I don't believe anyone has taken this as a *scientific* >hypothesis ... and most certainly no one has "proved" it. > So far as what is called "mind" by humanity currently, other >than purely macro level manipulations (making trees into a >house), I suppose some of our chemistry and physics is altering >matter in such a way as to slightly affect evolution, but unless >one wishes to extend the definition of "mind" to include things >like the DNA helix (which does hold and process information, but >probably would have a hard time being called a producer of >"thought"), evolution proceeded for vast stretches of time >without any presence of "mind" at all. > I believe it is a *huge* stretch to claim that the current >research and conclusions in quantum theory are somehow converging >with or confirming anything HPB claimed. This is *not* to say I >believe either HPB or quantum physics is right or wrong - simply >that they speak two *very* different languages. Quantum >physicists rarely attempt to translate their experimental >findings into the terms of Vedic allegory. HPB did try to >translate the religious allegory of old occult texts (that she >claimed contained veiled scientific knowledge) into the language >of modern science - but it was the modern science of *her* time. > Additionally, she makes very few affirmative statements >about what "Occult science" would teach, and these are usually >brief plain statements that are backed up not by experimental >evidence, but by quotations from old spiritual/religious texts. >Most of her writings on science seem to have the intention not of >articulating a coherent scientific model that can be framed in >testable, repeatable form, but of deconstructing and criticizing >the materialism of late 19th century science. Well, fine, but >modern science cares little either for the stumbling conclusions >of that science *or* the criticisms of it (and the scientists of >that time actually produced far more vehement (and coherent - HPB >certainly did ramble) criticisms than she did.) It is now a moot >point. > [At one point, for instance - I'll find the reference if >necessary - HPB, attempting to deconstruct the law of gravity ... >a law she claimed was *not* universal ... uses the fact that the >tails of comets always point away from the sun as an argument, >holding that a comet whose tail ignores the law of gravity even >in close proximity to the sun can hardly be said to be following >that law. > At the time, of course, the existence of the solar wind was >unknown. The sun rotates on its own axis once every 25 days or so >at the equator, and 39 days or so at the poles (yes, it rotates >as a fluid body, not a solid one) - *very* fast for a body that >huge - and as well as emitting electro-magnetic radiation, also >emits *particles* - electrons and protons - that as the result of >the sun's rotation leave the sun in spirals, like a huge lawn >sprinkler. These particles act as a sort of "wind" blowing away >from the sun in all directions. They are what is responsible for >"blowing" the comet's tail away from the sun, that is, they can >act on the vaporous tail in such a way as to supersede the >effects of gravity - but are far too small to supersede those >effects on the mass of the comet body. > All of which is to say that whether she is ultimately right >or wrong about gravity, her argument against the scientific >conceptualization of the time turns out to have absolutely >nothing to do with gravity - and is simply fully explained by the >knowledge of the solar wind ... a factor that was unknown to the >scientists of the time (it wasn't until the first rockets >penetrated the atmosphere that the existence of actual >*particles* being radiated by the sun was discovered) - but that >was clearly *also unknown to HPB*.] > It must be remembered that the *pace* of 20th century >science is historically unprecedented. (A friend of mine, a >chemist, told me that the "half-life" of chemistry's knowledge is >now about 3 years ... that someone who graduated from college and >did not work in the field for three years would find close to >half of his/her education obsolete - and in other branches of >science its even shorter). From the beginning of recorded >("exoteric" (-:) history until around the mid - 1800's *all* >energy our species used was produced by either muscle or fire ... >in less than one century we went from the deliberate production >of energy from a steam engine to unleashing the energy bound >within large atoms. In less than a century we went from the first >flight of a airplane to actually hitting the moon and coming >back. > HPB spends a lot of time attacking the science of her time - >but a *lot* of what she wrote simply is no longer a relevant >argument. This is not a criticism of HPB - how could she have >criticized our current science? But there are several real >problems in trying to discover whether what she wrote is >confirmed or not confirmed by the science of our time. > Modern science, at least a lot of the "hard" science - has >come to think and speak almost purely in the language of >mathematics. For instance, it is impossible to grasp the actual >*science* of quantum mechanics without understanding the geometry >of Riemann spheres and Hilbert space, and without a thorough >knowledge of both probability theory and the mathematics of >complex numbers. When people try to translate some of the >understandings into "plain english" (and there is a whole genre >of "pop science" out there just now) there is generally, even at >best, *significant* distortions introduced. The *reason* >mathematics are used is not (as in "occult" circles) to >deliberately "veil" secret information, but because the concepts >of the english language are simply not even vaguely precise >enough to think about the subatomic world with. Its like trying >to do neurosurgery with a pocket knife - the tool is just way too >big and blunt to make the necessary distinctions. > So what kind of discussions are possible? We have HPB, who >translated oriental religious allegory into the english language >to deconstruct the scientific materialism of the late 19th >century, and we have the translations of modern science from the >language of mathematics into the current english language (few >Theosophists, I think, do very much work with multidimensional >complex vector space) - and with all this translating its a damn >miracle if anything even approaching anything other than the most >superficial relationships can even be postulated between HPB and >modern science. (See the following quantum example in post 2). > Another significant problem in trying to understand HPB's >"science" has to do with the uneasy and conflicting feelings the >TS has concerning "inner powers". One of HPB's most frequent >claims is that the science of her time was only discovering >*phenomena*, while the science of the initiates concerned itself >with the nominal, *causal* world. She makes many claims for the >existence of beings and forces that she says cause a lot of the >things whose *effects* are what science perceives. And she says >that these beings and forces were discovered by, and can only be >verified by, *those who have developed supersensible perception*. > Yet the disciplined development of such things (even with >the *intent* of *research or service*) is frowned upon in >Theosophical organizations (if not actually forbidden in some >circles), and any attempts by modern Theosophists to actually >report attempts *at that very verification* are met with at best >warnings about the "unreliable nature" of such a research tool, >and at worst warnings about how the use of such things threaten >to take one off the "path". > I believe, in short, that unfortunately Theosophy itself has >created a situation in which neither modern scientists, nor >modern clairvoyants, find Theosophy a place that *invites* the >"investigation of unexplained laws of nature and the powers >latent in man" - but in fact both find Theosophy a place almost >deliberately inimicable to such investigation. [But I won't get >onto that (-:)] > -JRC > > From moonunit@ozemail.com.au Mon May 6 01:45:20 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 11:45:20 +1000 (EST) From: Darrin Potaka Message-Id: <199605060145.LAA09666@oznet02.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance At 11:51 AM 5/05/96 -0400, you wrote: >Rich: > >[writing to JRC] > >>I will agree with you that brotherhood is the single most=20 >>important doctrine among the bunch. > >This statement of Rich's is important, something that we overlook >far too often. The idea of "universal brotherhood", under whatever >sanitized words we want to call it, *is a doctrine*. > >Just like reincarnation and karma, the universality of life, >spiritual evolution, the seven principles, etc., it is a doctrine. >It is a collection of ideas about life based around certain seed >thoughts. It can be studied in the abstract, or work its way into >our everyday experience. We can study it or make it a part of our >lives. > >As far as doctrines go, it is not any more supreme than any of >the others. It can, though, be discussed in as great a depth as >any of the others, going from superficial, casual descriptions >into views that are profoundly occult. > >Perhaps some of the strong advocates of this particular doctrine >could attempt to spell out with some detail and substance how >they understand the doctrine. It would be also interesting to >hear how they might be anti-doctrine except for this one. > >-- Eldon Hi Eldon. I'm not anti the doctrine but the following extract from the Notebooks of= Paul Brunton rang with me when I first read it: Notebook Seven (Healing of= the Self/The Negatives) ... In the heart's deepest place, where the burden= of ego is dropped and the mystery of soul is penetrated, a man finds the= consciousness there not different in any way from what all other men may= find. The mutuality of the human race is thus revealed as existing only on= a plane where its humaness is transcended. This is why all attempts to= express it in political and economic terms, no less than the theosophic= attempts to form a universal brotherhood, being premature, must also be= artificial. This is why they failed... The next one (from Notebook 11) I also found incisive. ...The term "universal brotherhood" is idealistic but vague, pleasant= sounding =96 but windy. An attempt to form a society whose main object was= to become the nucleus of a universal brotherhood was made by the= Theosophists, and by less known cults. Moreover, they added constant talk= about "the service of humanity" to their other prattle. Not only did all= such groups end in failure to actualize their ideal and in inability to= influence the remainder of mankind, but most ended in bitter disputes,= harsh quarrels, and internal fission. There are several different factors= behind such failures. The two which concern us here are first, lack of any= practical workable method to implement the ideal, and second, belief in= the delusion that a group can do better what only an individual can do for= himself. This is where philosophy shows its superiority. In reference to= the first of these two factors, it teaches us exactly what we can do with= our bodies, our feelings, our thoughts, and our intuitions to bridge the= wide gap between ideals and their actualization. In reference to the second= factor, it proves that to practise individualism, self-reliance, is= essential to real progress..... Kind Regards Darrin Blavatsky Lodge, Sydney Australia From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Mon May 6 03:00:47 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 21:00:47 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance In-Reply-To: <199605060145.LAA09666@oznet02.ozemail.com.au> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Eldon wrote: > >This statement of Rich's is important, something that we overlook > >far too often. The idea of "universal brotherhood", under whatever > >sanitized words we want to call it, *is a doctrine*. No, on this I *strongly* disagree. It is not a doctrine (at as it is used in Theosophical circles), it is a *goal*, an "Object". > >As far as doctrines go, it is not any more supreme than any of > >the others. It can, though, be discussed in as great a depth as > >any of the others, going from superficial, casual descriptions > >into views that are profoundly occult. In *the Theosophy of the Adepts*, it *IS* most definately "more supreme" - it is what they *continually* stressed ... whenever anyone, from Sinnet to Hume to HPB herself, wished to make Theosophy into a study of "doctrines", or the initial practices of some sort of practical occult development, they always responded by saying that any such things had to be pursued with the understanding that it was not to be at the *expense* of the work of Universal Brotherhood, and indeed that it was only to further the service of that work that such secondary studies were to be pursued. You may evaluate it - for yourself - as being a "doctrine", the understanding of which is of no greater or lesser importance than the understanding of karma, or the races and rounds, but that is most assuredly not how the Adepts evaluated it (at least, if the ML can be taken as a sign of the importance they put on it), and in fact the ML are full of the seemingly almost continual frustration at not being able to get people to understand this (or to even take it seriously). Were someone (say Sinnet) to have actually *asked* the Adepts "What is the *single* idea you'd most like the western world to understand as the result of Theosophical work?" - what do you think they would have answered? Karma? The particular "round" the earth is in? I believe they were quite clear, in numerous places, about the privileged position of "Universal Brotherhood". It was not presented as simply one of many "doctrines" ... it was presented as a spiritual truth, who's manifestation and incarnation in human civilization they considered the single most important mission for the Theosophical Society. They did not say that study groups intended to examine occult philosophy, anthro or cosmo genesis, or even to pursue occult "development" were not appropriate activities within the larger Theosophical umbrella, but they *did* always say these things were to be pursued *in addition to*, not *instead of* the work of Universal Bortherhood. -JRC From ramadoss@eden.com Mon May 6 03:26:58 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 22:26:58 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960506222928.27ef187e@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: re: Ramalingam Hi Here is a quote from Sylvia Cranston's book. Some of you may enjoy reading it. I have a few comments. 1. We have been talking about the Universal Brotherhood and how it is *the* key to Theosophy and Theosophical Society. We may have to go back to the roots. 2. The idea of Mahatmas is taken for granted in India for a number of centuries. ...Doss =================================================== It is interesting to note that in the nineteenth century the Theosophical Society was not the first to hold aloft in India the idea of universal brotherhood. An experiment along these lines was begun in 1867 by a celebrated yogi in southern India, Ramalingam. He attracted thousands of followers, but they were more interested in the purported miracles he produced. One of his disciples, Pandit Vellayu, of Presidency College in Madras, in a witnessed statement made in 1882, reported that his teacher repeatedly told his followers before he died in 1874: You are not fit to become members of this Society of Universal Brotherhood. *The real members of that Brotherhood are living far away, towards the North of India*. You do not listen to me. You do not follow the principles of my teachings. You seemed to be determined not to be convinced by me. YET THE TIME IS NOT FAR OFF, WHEN PERSONS FROM RUSSIA, AMERICA (these two countries were always mentioned), and other foreign lands WILL COME TO INDIA AND PREACH TO YOU THE SAME DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD. Then only, will you know and appreciate the grand truths that I am now vainly trying to make you accept. You will soon find that THE BROTHERS WHO LIVE IN FAR OFF NORTH will work a great many wonders in India, and thus confer incalculable benefits upon this our country. Pandit Vellayu adds: "This prophecy has, in my opinion, just been literally fulfilled. The fact that the Mahatmas in the North exist is no new idea to us Hindus; and the strange fact that the advent of Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott from Russia and America was foretold several [in 1874, five] years before they came to India, is an incontrovertible proof that my Guru was in communication with those Mahatmas under whose directions the Theosophical Society was subsequently founded. pp: 198 - HPB by Sylvia Cranston --------------------- end ------------ From ramadoss@eden.com Mon May 6 03:37:27 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 22:37:27 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960506223956.27f7a776@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Three Objects There was a message relating to the three objects of TS and the contention that anyone who is in sympathy with the first object - Universal Brotherhood. Following is a quote: "An exceptionally large Annual Convention was held in Chicago. Dr. Besant spoke on two Resolutions which were presented. She affirmed that she had steadily followed the rulings of Colonel Olcott: that no one is bound to adopt one opinion as the opinion of the Society; to keep the platform of the Society so broad that anyone could come into it who believes in Brotherhood." (1926) pp.24 - The 75th Anniversary Book of TS. 1950 - Josephine Ransom. I think an affirmation from then President of TS is of great importance as I am sure if the rest of objects were critical to membership, then it would have been mentioned. ...doss From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon May 6 03:36:34 1996 Date: 05 May 96 23:36:34 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: More Pain vs. Suffering Message-Id: <960506033634_76400.1474_HHL72-3@CompuServe.COM> >I'd use a different word: >"pain". Pain is the mirror of pleasure. Both are a part of the >experience of life. But suffering is not. Suffering is a state of >mind that we don't have to approach our experiences with. Keith, generally "pain" refers to the physical while "suffering" refer to mental. This way we get to use both words. BTW, both are dualities. As you say, the opposite of pain is pleasure. The opposite of suffering is bliss or ecstasy. > Change is unavoidable. >If we cooperate with planning and directing it, we remain >somewhat in control and don't have to suffer. Good luck if you think you won't suffer by planning and directing (which is exactly what we should do). I would add the phrase "as much" to end of your sentence. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon May 6 03:36:30 1996 Date: 05 May 96 23:36:30 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL Message-Id: <960506033630_76400.1474_HHL72-1@CompuServe.COM> >Each plane of existence is a full-featured realm of experience, >with laws of nature, "physical" forms, and various classes of >beings from the different kingdoms of nature. > >The seven principles are not an experience of embodied >existence on seven planes. They are seven aspects or >ingredients of sentient being, including insight, thought, >feeling and desire, and sense perception. These qualities >or attributes of consciousness are necessary for one to >come into existence on any plane. Eldon, you have said this many times over the years. So far, you have never reconciled your views to HPB's comment that "Each principle is on a different plane." (Inner Group Teachings p 19). Is HPB wrong? >When we look at planes of existence, we have a spectrum >of possible planes, but there are only certain discrete >"places" or centers or worlds or levels along this spectrum >where existence actually takes place. Eldon, please tell me where you get this stuff. I thought HPB says that life is everywhere. G de P (whom you have studied a lot more than I have) says that every single geometric point in space is a living consciousness-center or Monad. Why do you persist in saying that life/existence must be confined to certain regions? Can you give me a quote? Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon May 6 03:36:32 1996 Date: 05 May 96 23:36:32 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Theory vs Practice Message-Id: <960506033632_76400.1474_HHL72-2@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: >It is true that altruism and good deeds only go so far, and they probably >have nothing to do with the realm of spirit, but the do address Buddha's >concerns regarding the suffering of human beings. I think that altruism and good deeds are on the spiritual path, but the trip is a terribly slow one. They are things that the Bodhisattva (and supposedly the theosophist) does as a matter of course. But in addition to these things, there has to be Knowledge or Wisdom or Understanding, for without these, the path is endless and will lack meaning, and is likely to falter. Jerry S. Member, TI From ramadoss@eden.com Mon May 6 03:53:44 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 22:53:44 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960506225613.27f77430@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: TS/Democratic Spirit & Hierarchical Feeling Hi: In the light of various things that have happened in TSA's administration in the recent days, I think that the following is of interest to all of us members: "The subject for the (International) Convention Lecture (1932) was: A World in Distress: the Remedies as seen by the Theosophist. The Vice-President (A. P. Warrington) voiced his opinion that there now existed in the membership "a certain subtle conflict as between the democratic spirit with which the Society started out and the gradual emergence of a somewhat hierarchical feeling which has come to pervade the ranks; and it is claimed that this is an important factor militating against that unity and vitality which ought to characterize such a body as ours" pp. 46 - 75th Anniversary Book of the TS - Josephine Ransom.(1950) A. P. Warrington was a member of TS in the USA and was fortunate in having worked with Olcott. So if he was perceptive enough to notice the problem in 1932, what would he say if he looks at the way in which actions are being taken by TS in the recent times. May be it is time that we should administer a quiz on the important fundamental principles and practice to all the Officers of TS all over the world and see how they fare. The grades must be published openly. Such of those who flunk should be asked to go back and re-read some of the early works. Any ideas? ....doss From nils.thorell@sbbs.se Mon May 6 09:27:00 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 11:27:00 +0200 From: Nils-Erik Thorell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI is not a Container, it's a network Message-Id: <09270039415470@sbbs.se> At 10.42 1996-04-15 -0500, you wrote: >Now let me see, if I remember a short while ago some nutty judge in Canada >forbade the publication of news about a murder trial so all of the radio and >TV stations on the US side of the border made that story part of the daily >broadcast which of course went into Canada and there was nothing his silly >dishonour could do about it. > >We don't like it when people try to tell us what to talk about. That's the >sort of thing her Radhaship wants to do. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker >For the Gods sake, don't get us started on free speech again! We might kill >each other and then who would we have to argue music with? > From nils.thorell@sbbs.se Mon May 6 09:28:28 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 11:28:28 +0200 From: Nils-Erik Thorell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI is not a Container, it's a network Message-Id: <09282831015475@sbbs.se> How can I stop all the e-mail from you? At 10.42 1996-04-15 -0500, you wrote: >Now let me see, if I remember a short while ago some nutty judge in Canada >forbade the publication of news about a murder trial so all of the radio and >TV stations on the US side of the border made that story part of the daily >broadcast which of course went into Canada and there was nothing his silly >dishonour could do about it. > >We don't like it when people try to tell us what to talk about. That's the >sort of thing her Radhaship wants to do. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker >For the Gods sake, don't get us started on free speech again! We might kill >each other and then who would we have to argue music with? From ramadoss@eden.com Mon May 6 04:07:32 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 23:07:32 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960506231001.27f7879a@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance John: It does not take a genius or learned pundit to open their eyes and see what is going on around the world. There is continual wars of all kinds going on. People kill other people for politics, religion, nationalism, you name it. Look at all the refugees all over the world. Look also at the exploitaion that goes in various facets of all our lives. Greed and corruption and exploitation of those who really need to be protected and cared for by those who are with more knowledge etc. An ounce of application of Universal Brotherhood will go a long way. Can one person solve all world's problems. Certainly not. Can each one of us do something about it in our own lives. Yes we can. If more and more of us become sensitive to these issues with Universal Brotherhood as the backbone, then gradually we can exponentially affect all those with whom we come into contact in our daily life as well as not be involved in any activity which is hurtful from the point of Universal Brotherhood. Am I crying in the wilderness? May be? If we do not recognize the idea of Universal Brotherhood, then what are our goals and how are they going to affect other living beings? This is a question each one of us can ask and try to find an answer. ...doss At 11:03 PM 5/5/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Eldon wrote: > >> >This statement of Rich's is important, something that we overlook >> >far too often. The idea of "universal brotherhood", under whatever >> >sanitized words we want to call it, *is a doctrine*. > No, on this I *strongly* disagree. It is not a doctrine (at >as it is used in Theosophical circles), it is a *goal*, an "Object". > >> >As far as doctrines go, it is not any more supreme than any of >> >the others. It can, though, be discussed in as great a depth as >> >any of the others, going from superficial, casual descriptions >> >into views that are profoundly occult. > In *the Theosophy of the Adepts*, it *IS* most definately >"more supreme" - it is what they *continually* stressed ... whenever >anyone, from Sinnet to Hume to HPB herself, wished to make Theosophy >into a study of "doctrines", or the initial practices of some sort >of practical occult development, they always responded by saying >that any such things had to be pursued with the understanding that >it was not to be at the *expense* of the work of Universal >Brotherhood, and indeed that it was only to further the service of >that work that such secondary studies were to be pursued. > You may evaluate it - for yourself - as being a "doctrine", the >understanding of which is of no greater or lesser importance than the >understanding of karma, or the races and rounds, but that is most >assuredly not how the Adepts evaluated it (at least, if the ML can be >taken as a sign of the importance they put on it), and in fact the ML are >full of the seemingly almost continual frustration at not being able to >get people to understand this (or to even take it seriously). > Were someone (say Sinnet) to have actually *asked* the Adepts >"What is the *single* idea you'd most like the western world to >understand as the result of Theosophical work?" - what do you think they >would have answered? Karma? The particular "round" the earth is in? I >believe they were quite clear, in numerous places, about the privileged >position of "Universal Brotherhood". > It was not presented as simply one of many "doctrines" ... it >was presented as a spiritual truth, who's manifestation and incarnation >in human civilization they considered the single most important mission >for the Theosophical Society. They did not say that study groups intended >to examine occult philosophy, anthro or cosmo genesis, or even to pursue >occult "development" were not appropriate activities within the larger >Theosophical umbrella, but they *did* always say these things were to be >pursued *in addition to*, not *instead of* the work of Universal >Bortherhood. > -JRC > From RIhle@aol.com Mon May 6 04:18:49 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 00:18:49 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960506001847_287923765@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Breath Alan writes> >Forty years of Kabalist study suggest that Kabala renders it *without* >the reference to breath - BUT - "God" as "Breath" would be taken as a >*given* in all such expressions of development. HPB also quotes other >(biblical) references to the divine breath having a generative effect, >though in one place she appears to use the incorrect Hebrew word, while >rendering the correct English translation! > >So, yes, the above table makes sense to me, at least. > >Hope this is of some value. Richard Ihle writes> Thank you, Alan. Your post was very valuable. Forty years with the Kabala! You know, sometimes I think there is nothing on this earth which impresses me more than the ~people who persist~, year after year, decade after decade, in their theosophical interests. Show me the man or woman who dies with his or her index finger wedged in some arcane volume "in order to save the place," and I will show you someone whose passing was indeed premature, no matter what the advanced age. . . . The question of HPB's inclusion of *Breath* in the Kabalistic sequence remains an interesting one. Long ago, I was forced to give *Prakriti* this horrific definition: "the circular, interpenetrating, continuum (from energy/matter up through Spirit) of Substance." (*Purusa* [Self, Undifferentiated Consciousness], of course, stands apart from Prakriti except to the extent that it can be "contaminated" [egoically deluded] by it in a human incarnation.) Anyway, it is possible to understand how Self may be able to "make a connection" with Spirit (Atma-Buddhi) because of the "verisimilitude of their ultra-rarefied Natures"; however, it is problematic to conceive of how Spirit can have any association with a physical body at all unless something else on the "Prakriti side of things" operated as its "threshold of interpentration." Perhaps HPB's *Breath* (poss. *prana* or "*Fohat*") provides this. Perhaps not. In any case, show me the person who dies with his or her index finger on the foregoing two paragraphs and I will show you a person whose passing was a blessed relief for that person. . . . Thanks again, Brother Alan. Godspeed, Richard Ihle From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Mon May 6 23:52:12 1996 Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 16:52:12 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <318E90AC.19B9@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: human system References: <199605052340.TAA12645@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit liesel f. deutsch wrote: > > > 2. Does anything the physical conscious entity do have > >>much effect on the spiritual development of that entity? > > > > According to the research of some biofeedback people (I think the Greene's > but I'm not sure anymore) you can heal a system by tapping into it anywhere, > ie if you start healing the physical end, it'll have an effect on the > spritual end, & vice versa. ex. > > If you smile, you can't be angry. > The usual way your system works is that it tenses up & then it relaxes. When > it relaxes, the muscels release the accumulated toxins, & the body then > discards them. If you're a very tense person, the muscles don't get a chance > to release all the toxins & it's easier to get sick. > > Liesel There is the minute view at the level of the elemental essence formed of 'baby monads' called life-atoms. My understanding is far from formed but I find the subject fascinating so I will tell it how it seems at my present level of understanding. Our physical body is a composite of various consciousness centres, all composed of life-atoms pertaining to that type of centre. The reincarnating ego (R-E) takes on bodies in the planes it traverses to become physical and each plane has it's own life-atoms belonging to that plane. Now the idea is that the L-As will in due course evolve to the mineral, vegetable, etc stages. At the physical L-A stage they have their own evolution and are not conscious of the fact that they are part of our evolution as well. They are small consciousness centres doing their own thing. They are part of our vehicle by magnetic attraction and stay with our R-E until a physical body is not longer needed. They are ours for the duration and it up to us what we make of them. This implies that the higher Monad working through the R-E can have its effect minimised by the L-A unless the R-E is aware of this and starts excercising control of the physical and emotional bodies of L-A. This would seem to me to be when a person feels the urge to find a path of spiritual enlightenment. If a R-E can influence it's L-A to a higher level during a lifetime then when the R-E reincarnates it attracts those L-A back to it and so has a good start in that life with it's spiritual progress. As I understand it, the L-A are not keen on changing their ways so this leads to the habits we develop and I have heard it mentioned that addictions of various sorts are also caused by the L-A accepting certain patterns of vibration and so makes it hard to break the addiction because it means doing battle with them to change them to conform to our will. A person like HPB did physical phenomena in many cases because she knew how to impose her will on the elemental essence of the physical vessel that she wanted to use. It would appear that the physical conscious entity needs to develop it's will so to gain control over the L-A composing it's vehicles and that seem hard to do and is one of the causes that spiritual development goes on by small increments. Here I am not thinking of the development of the higher monads, just the physical but the R-E has to work through the physical vehicle if it wants to have physical effects to work with. As I understand it, the injunction to eat right, think right, act right, etc was for the refinement of the L-A of the physical vehicle, so to train them to vibrate at an ever increasing level and therefore not be a physical obstacle to the R-E and the higher monad working through it. I think I might be going round in circles now so perhaps that is as far as my understanding can put it into words. Words are really such a bother. I wish I could precipitate a picture from my mind as that may make more sense. So I offer this with good intentions. Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From Richtay@aol.com Mon May 6 05:32:39 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 01:32:39 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960506013238_287956132@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Tibet etc. > Doss: > >So I would be very optimistic and wait and see what we can find in the > >monastery. > > Doss-ji you would be, you are the eternal optimist. I will be optimistic with you - will Rich go to Tibet again? > > In friendship, > > Kim It looks like a small team is planning the trip in October of this year to Dzogchen Monastery in Kham province to see Tulku Kalzang Rinpoche. I am not sure yet if I will be a part of that team -- mostly a question of finances and Visa. You can be sure the list will be updated as soon as anything certain is decided. It seems there will be a meeting in late May or early June of interested people. From Richtay@aol.com Mon May 6 05:32:49 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 01:32:49 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960506013249_287956192@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Quantum Theosophy? (Part 1) JRC: A fine job showing the actual implications of the Heisenberg principle of indeterminacy, and I take no issue with how you've presented it. I am one of those poor Theosophists with a math and science background that has lain fallow for many years, finding myself hopelessly outdated ... But the statement that was at the heart of what I was trying to say follows, as well as your response: > >MIND is what has a huge impact on matter and the course of > >evolution. One can look at these experiments in quantum physics > >and be very impressed by the fact that HPB knew and discussed > >this decades before the actual proof came to us Westerners. JRC: > I'd very much like to hear the "proof" that "MIND" has a > "huge" impact on matter and the course of evolution. Wow. I can think of so many directions to go for this "proof." First off, I believe there ARE quantum experiments which show that the OBSERVATION itself has a "fixing" quality to it, along the lines of the post Bee put up a few days ago about "measuring." And I have heard rumors of studies that show that statistically, the attitudes and predictions the scientist make can actually RETROACTIVELY effect the outcome of an experiment, in essence CHANGING THE PAST, or at least what we thought of as "past." Perhaps I am wrong on this, you probably know better than I. But the following list suggests research on the mind and its PHYSICAL effects quite outside of quantum mechanics: 1) Psycho-somatic illnesses 2) Bio-feedback studies 3) Psychokinesis studies 4) Spontaneous remission of cancer/etc. following intense meditations or systems like "A COURSE IN MIRACLES" 5) The "hundredth monkey" effect (i.e. a so-called "critical mass" is achieved in consciousness which snow-balls into large-scale societal and even physical transformations) 6) Rupert Sheldrake, Michael Polanyi et. al. and the hypothesis of "morphogenetic fields" where species-wide consciousness alters the course of that species' evolution 7) Martial arts and the projection of "chi" by mental effort 8) Mesmerism and hypnosis 9) paranormal phenomena manifested by religious adepts (e.g. Satya Sai Baba's ash, HPB's Simla tea-cup, etc. etc. etc.) There's a HUGE list of this kind of stuff, traditional and current 10) placebo effects in medicine 11) faith healing/spiritual healing 12) psychotherapy and imagery practice One excellent source, especially for bibliography and documented cases is Michael Murphy's nearly thousand page tome, THE FUTURE OF THE BODY. Coupled with the broad mind-based philosophy put forth by HPB in her Secret Doctrine, with its special and explicit emphasis on the Yogacara/Cittamatra ("mind-only") school of Buddhism, I think there is a fairly substantial case that HPB and her Teachers believed and taught that mind was the central force in human evolution, it was for the development of Manas that spirit incarnated in matter in our series of globes, and that HPB foreshadowed so much of the mind-body work being done this century. Indeed, HPB wrote, that perhaps her S.D. was a work not of the 19th, but of the 20th century, and even here, in our 20th century, the work would be only "partially vindicated." (in the preface to the Secret Doctine, I think, I forget exactly what page) I for one think it is hard to say she spoke untruth here, the results are all around us. From alexei@slip.net Mon May 6 06:42:31 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 23:42:31 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960506064231.006a9b40@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? At 07:06 PM 5/5/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>>cut<<<<<<< > I guess since I was named as one of the "gang" I >should say something, though I've hesitated to respond up >to now - presuming (hoping) the remark was simply a jest >(though in really bad taste). But a bit of history might be >illuminating. The "Gang of Four" never really had power. >Chiang Ching (Mao's wife) did effectively lead the >"Cultural Revolution", and others of the gang seperately >had various sorts of power, but it was only after Mao's >death when Chiang Chang and the three others made a play >for power - just a month after Mao's death she claimed >the chairmanship for herself, and the positions of Premier >and head of the National People's Congress for two of the >others (Chang Chun-chiao and Wang). They were immediately >taken from the meeting to prison. > The interesting thing is that they based their >claims on scraps of paper they said Mao had written - and >claimed they had the authority to rule based on his >wishes. If there is any analog to the "Gang of Four" in >Theosophical circles, it would probably not be four people >who a century after HPB's death make a little ruckus on a >small Internet list, but those who *did* claim the right to >lead, and have imposed their wills on the TS ever since. In >the TS the "Gang of Four" was not taken immediately to >prison, they were successful in their siezure of power. >Fact is, Rahda and Algeo are behaving a *lot* more like >the members of the Chinese Gang of Four actually behaved >than the four on this list are - during the Cultural >Revolution she dominated Chinese Culture ... imposing one >particular view on the "masses" (which she claimed were >undisciplined idiots), siezing control over newspapers and >magazines (what person attempting to impose power doesn't >sieze control over the avenues of communication), and >determining what was to be studied in schools - appearing >often with Kang Sheng (the chief of the secret police), >whose platform she adopted for her speeches ("Do you want >to study the Communique and the Sixteen-Point Directive? >Do you want to study them again and again? Do you want to >learn them thoroughly? Do you want to understand them?"). >This does sound uncomfortably like some activity in >Theosophical circles - but its not the activity of those >named the "Gang of Four" - none of whom have any power to >speak of, nor would ever be permitted to (its unlikely any >of us will be published through the TPH, nor see >articles published in the AT ...); most of us have been >(at best) effectively marginalized by the powers that be, >and certainly don't have any more power on this list than >anyone else does ... and that's probably only because the >nature of the medium is such that those with institutional >power can't shut us up - though they can (and do) make sure >our voices and views stay corralled within the confines of >this small list ... and certainly are not given a hearing >through the larger avenues of information dissemination >(none of *my* views on the "intentions" in the Three Objects >are likely to be mailed to the membership, now are they?). > Probably none of us fear, as you say, being "overthrown >and falling into disfavor", because none of us has ever >had the throne, or even been "favored" in the first place. > We are not analogous to the Gang of Four - rather, >if anything, to the people who put the Gang on trial, >charging them with the attempt to totally control Theosophical >"culture", and with using institutional force to do so. > And it is to *this* group that your words might more >profitably be addressed: Enjoy your power while you have it, >for all things come to an end. > -JRC > >John: That is wonderful! I thank you very much your deep knowledged of the subject has made it perfectly clear what the real situation on this list is. It is a honour to be slandered with a person like you for company. Keep in there buddy, I'm getting all sorts of private messages that tell me we five are not alone, and that there are some very nice folks out there who agree with what we've been saying. When I made it clear I was thinking of removing myself from this list, they all came on asking me to stay on as they found what I had to say valuable and helpful. That goes double for you from me. You are the only member of the "five" who can really deal with some of the folks who coin epithets like "Gang of Four". Alexis d. From Richtay@aol.com Mon May 6 06:39:43 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 02:39:43 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960506023941_107463842@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: HPB's sources Kim writes, > I would love to participate in a discussion on the MSS > which served as a basis for "Voice of Silence" and "Secret Doctrine." Since > both works are described as secret, we would have to expect them to be not > extant nor even widely distributed and known in Tibet. Yes and no. HPB says that her stanzas of Dzyan are taken from the books of "Kiu-Te" which are "owned by every monastery in Tibet." Well, as David Reigle and others have pointed out, this "Kiu-Te" is simply the phonetic spelling of rGyud-sDe, or "Tantra" in the Tibetan Canon. So HPB is indicating that her sources for her magnum opus are simply various Tantras in the Tibetan scriptural collection, many (most) of which have not been translated, but (almost?) all of which have been published in the various facsimiles of the Tibetan canon (Peking, Derge, Lhasa, etc. versions). The Nyingma have roughly 1,000 more texts which they classify as "tantra" that are not included in the standard canons, and it is conceivable that HPB drew her Stanzas of Dyzan from there. (That would make our work a hell of a lot harder). But this strikes me as unlikely, given her continual denigration of the "Red Cap" schools (e.g. Nyingmapa, Sakyapa, Kargyudpa, and heaven forbid the Drugpa (i.e. "Dugpa") sects) and her very high esteem for Tsong-Kha-Pa, founder of the Gelugpa or Yellow Cap school and first (retroactive) "Dalai Lama." Not that there isn't consant intercourse and doctrinal exchange between all of these schools, and many Rinpoches who hold lineages in more than one school, not to mention the Dzogchen tradition which I find very close to Theosophy, but which claims it precedes all the schools of Buddhism, and pre-existed Buddhism in the indigenous Bon-po sect. But I would look first for HPB's Stanzas of Dzyan in the various tantras, particularly the "inner" and "secret" parts of Kalachakra tantra which David Reigle is pointing at. I hadn't thought of looking at Asanga's works for the origin of the Voice of the Silence, which Kim suggests, but it strikes me as a very good place indeed to look. I am not sure that HPB considered the Voice of the Silence (aka "the Book of the Golden Precepts") as secret in the same sense that the stanzas of Dzyan were secret (i.e. "tantra") as so it makes sense that it would be a rather more standard source. Good suggestion, Kim. Unfortunately, a lot of Asanga's stuff isn't translated yet, and Sanskrit is such a BITCH for me. How 'bout you? Wouldn't that be a fun project for the rest of your lifetime? Maybe a team of us could tackle it slowly? I also wonder if a good deal of oral stuff circulated in Tibet which never had -- or no longer has -- a written source. HPB says the three texts in her VOICE she was made to memorize, along with 30+ others, from apparently a great collection. Oral or written or both? Oral transmission and memorization lineages drive textually oriented Buddhologists mad. Madder than cows. From Richtay@aol.com Mon May 6 06:39:46 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 02:39:46 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960506023946_107463861@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: "brotherhood" - sanitized Eldon, Liesel, and JRC wrote (in that order): > > >The idea of "universal brotherhood", under whatever > > >sanitized words we want to call it, *is a doctrine*. > > > > Eldon, Annie Besant says it's a fact, and I think if one looks around with > > an intuitive eye, one comes to the conclusion that she's right on. > > > Liesel ... > **Excellent** > -JRC Yes, to me it is also a fact. But surely Eldon is right in pointing out that this "fact" is one of the "doctrines" of Theosophy, one doctrine among many others. It *is* curious to me why some people are so ready to accept this "doctrine" as a fact with no qualms, but reject other doctrines as "dogma." I'm not baiting for a fight, I'm genuinely curious. Also, JRC writes, > It was not presented as simply one of many "doctrines" ... it > was presented as a spiritual truth, who's manifestation and incarnation > in human civilization they considered the single most important mission > for the Theosophical Society. But John -- I agree with you that it is a spiritual truth. This is the definition of "doctrine," at least among the community of believers in that tradition. I also firmly feel that "karma" is not a theory, it's a FACT. But others see it as a hypothesis, and others are quite sure karma is NOT a fact. All could agree it is a Theosophical doctrine, whether or not they accept it. I also agree with you that it is no accident universal brotherhood is the FIRST Object, the single most important idea in Theosophy, and the one that the Adepts would have staked Their lives on. But it is still a "doctrine" which conceivably could (and daily IS) rejected by many. The KKK are not alone in this. Why is it okay to say brotherhood is a fact, not a "doctrine" while other "doctrines" are "dogma"? All alike were taught by the Masters, even if you are right about the emphasis placed. From alexei@slip.net Mon May 6 06:51:44 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 23:51:44 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960506065144.0069e9a8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: DNA Shows Human And Chimps...... At 07:19 PM 5/5/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >Very kind of you. Thank you > > > > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L > > >Bee: the book is: WHEN ELEPHANTS WEEP....subtitle: The emotional Lives of Animals Author: JEFFREY MOUSSAIEFF MASSON "co-writer" Susan Mc Carthy Publisher: Delacorte Press.... Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group Inc. 1540 Broadway New York City, New York 10036 Hope you can get this. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Mon May 6 06:59:36 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 23:59:36 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960506065936.006c9618@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance At 09:51 PM 5/5/96 -0400, you wrote: >Hi Eldon. >I'm not anti the doctrine but the following extract from the Notebooks of= > Paul Brunton rang with me when I first read it: Notebook Seven (Healing of= > the Self/The Negatives) ... In the heart's deepest place, where the burden= > of ego is dropped and the mystery of soul is penetrated, a man finds the= > consciousness there not different in any way from what all other men may= > find. The mutuality of the human race is thus revealed as existing only on= > a plane where its humaness is transcended. This is why all attempts to= > express it in political and economic terms, no less than the theosophic= > attempts to form a universal brotherhood, being premature, must also be= > artificial. This is why they failed... >The next one (from Notebook 11) I also found incisive. >...The term "universal brotherhood" is idealistic but vague, pleasant= > sounding =96 but windy. An attempt to form a society whose main object was= > to become the nucleus of a universal brotherhood was made by the= > Theosophists, and by less known cults. Moreover, they added constant talk= > about "the service of humanity" to their other prattle. Not only did all= > such groups end in failure to actualize their ideal and in inability to= > influence the remainder of mankind, but most ended in bitter disputes,= > harsh quarrels, and internal fission. There are several different factors= > behind such failures. The two which concern us here are first, lack of any= > practical workable method to implement the ideal, and second, belief in= > the delusion that a group can do better what only an individual can do for= > himself. This is where philosophy shows its superiority. In reference to= > the first of these two factors, it teaches us exactly what we can do with= > our bodies, our feelings, our thoughts, and our intuitions to bridge the= > wide gap between ideals and their actualization. In reference to the second= > factor, it proves that to practise individualism, self-reliance, is= > essential to real progress..... >Kind Regards >Darrin >Blavatsky Lodge, Sydney Australia > >Hi Darrin: I think Paul Brunton's work is far superior to most in the field and infinitely superior to all post-Blavatskian Theosophical Writers That's a marvelous quote. alexis d. > From alexei@slip.net Mon May 6 07:06:50 1996 Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 00:06:50 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960506070650.006c1d70@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? At 08:29 PM 5/5/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Err - if any of this is supposed to involve me, then I must say the >whole thing is a load of nonsense, and would rather not be associated >with it either in a pro or con capacity! > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > Alan: Not feeling well today? It does concern you, but I'm afraid you have no more choice than the rest of us did. We were "christened" we didn't choose that name ourselves. But having been so named by others most of us are flaunting it the way Cyrano de Bergerac flaunted his "white plume" and nose! What would you have us do? Grovel and plead "Oh please sir, don't call us that we don't deserve it"? Considering it's context we don't deserve it, and as JRC clearly demonstrated it is hardly an appropriate sobriquet. In fact you're probably viewed as one of the principle leaders of the "Gang". Cheer up though, you're in good company. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Mon May 6 07:12:59 1996 Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 00:12:59 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960506071259.006b7124@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Ruminations At 09:07 PM 5/5/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960505065620.0069d808@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>I gave my copy of >>"Ruminations" to Rudolfo Don at dinner tonight. When I get the money >>together send me one extra. >> >>fondly >>alexis d. > >I will send and wait for the money when you have it. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >I wish I could promise that the pamphlet on which I lavished such love and work will "suddenly enlighten him as to our motivations" and i truly hope it will. He's a very nice, very conservative man, and much enamoured of the style of the original wordings of 1875. But I do have hopes he will come to see that we neither mean any harm to the cause, or have done any harm. Probably the primary obstacle people seeking evolutionary change run into is tradition. alexis d. The money will come as soon as is possible. From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Mon May 6 07:13:01 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 01:13:01 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Quantum Theosophy? (Part 1) In-Reply-To: <960506013249_287956192@emout07.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 6 May 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > > JRC: > > I'd very much like to hear the "proof" that "MIND" has a > > "huge" impact on matter and the course of evolution. > > Wow. I can think of so many directions to go for this "proof." First off, I > believe there ARE quantum experiments which show that the OBSERVATION itself > has a "fixing" quality to it, along the lines of the post Bee put up a few > days ago about "measuring." And I have heard rumors of studies that show > that statistically, the attitudes and predictions the scientist make can > actually RETROACTIVELY effect the outcome of an experiment, in essence > CHANGING THE PAST, or at least what we thought of as "past." Perhaps I am > wrong on this, you probably know better than I. Yes, actually, in the second post I am gonna attempt to talk about the quantum concept called "superposition" - as this is often mistaken to imply that the quantum *level* of reality is non-deterministic, and that the act of observation of a human consciousness can alter the behaviour of quantum level event-evolution. (Neither of these are actually what is held in quantum theory ... the problem coming from the misunderstanding about *where* probability theory interacts with the mathematics of complex numbers ... and the horribly complicated math governing the nature of those interactions - in quantum theory the evolution of systems at the quantum level is *completely deterministic* ... but it is a determinism that can only be described by resorting to complex numbers (`member them? ... the form "a + bi", where "a" and "b" are real numbers, and "i" is the square root of -1). It is in the process of state-vector reduction, or waveform collapse, where the squared moduli of the complex numbers (hence reducing back to real numbers) come into play, and only when actual observations are desired at the level of classical mechanics that probabilities enter the picture. But even in one paragraph here I've probably already bored the pants off half the list (-:)). > But the following list > suggests research on the mind and its PHYSICAL effects quite outside of > quantum mechanics: > > 1) Psycho-somatic illnesses > 2) Bio-feedback studies > 3) Psychokinesis studies > 4) Spontaneous remission of cancer/etc. following intense meditations or > systems like "A COURSE IN MIRACLES" > 5) The "hundredth monkey" effect (i.e. a so-called "critical mass" is > achieved in consciousness which snow-balls into large-scale societal and even > physical transformations) > 6) Rupert Sheldrake, Michael Polanyi et. al. and the hypothesis of > "morphogenetic fields" where species-wide consciousness alters the course of > that species' evolution > 7) Martial arts and the projection of "chi" by mental effort > 8) Mesmerism and hypnosis > 9) paranormal phenomena manifested by religious adepts (e.g. Satya Sai Baba's > ash, HPB's Simla tea-cup, etc. etc. etc.) There's a HUGE list of this kind > of stuff, traditional and current > 10) placebo effects in medicine > 11) faith healing/spiritual healing > 12) psychotherapy and imagery practice Yes, I'll grant you this list, and could probably even add a few more, but all of this put togather seems to do nothing more than demonstrate that mind might, in some cases, be able to affect physical matter in ways not currently understood - and in many of those cases a lot of scientists would say that something other than mind was responsible. And much of that list applies only to a very tiny segment of the population. Its rather a large leap from these things to the statement that mind is the chief determinative variable in evolution - and while a number of modern and ancient philosophers do define mind in huge terms ... as an intelligible principle that exists in a cosmic sense, the vast majority of scientists would currently only acknowledge that humans (and perhaps a few higher animals) even possessed mind ... and hence it could not be considered to drive evolution, as evolution seems to have occurred for aeons before what they call "mind" even came on the scene. > Indeed, HPB wrote, that perhaps her S.D. was a work not of the 19th, but of > the 20th century, and even here, in our 20th century, the work would be only > "partially vindicated." (in the preface to the Secret Doctine, I think, I > forget exactly what page) Ultimately, most of her assertions about the *causal* levels of reality will only (in fact, can only) be vindicated when the senses she says humans lost on their descent into matter once again begin to re-open, and be acknowledged as valid avenues of perception. > I for one think it is hard to say she spoke untruth here, the results are all > around us. Well, certainly some stuff she said has been proven true. In other areas she was clearly mistaken (in fact, if I remember my research correctly, I believe I concluded that at least in some instances it was clear that HPB only dimly understood the science whose existance she was attempting to champion). But in reference to large numbers of points she made, (IMO) it simply is not even possible to come to the conclusion that she was either right or wrong (I really did try ...). Regards, -JRC From alexei@slip.net Mon May 6 07:18:05 1996 Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 00:18:05 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960506071805.006ba3ec@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Theory vs Practice At 09:07 PM 5/5/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960505071345.0069ba50@mail.slip.net>, alexis >That would be my meaning of "spirit" as applied to an individual >intelligence. "Spiritual" would therefore refer to something partaking >of the nature or effect of spirit, or tending towards the nature or >effect or realization of spirit in awareness. Thus "spiritual" >development is a development towards realization of one's own identity >as non-carnate "spirit." That's a superb statement of my views exactly! It is also a perfectly true statement! > >One teacher described the situation thus: > >"God" is breath, and we are breaths." I would put it this way: "The Universe is intelligent energy, and we are intelligent nexii within that energy". > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > The "G" word makes me very uncomfortable, in fact it terrifies me because of the horrors committed under that name. fondly alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Mon May 6 07:26:22 1996 Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 00:26:22 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960506072622.00691f90@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Theory vs Practice At 11:42 PM 5/5/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis: >>It is true that altruism and good deeds only go so far, and they probably >>have nothing to do with the realm of spirit, but the do address Buddha's >>concerns regarding the suffering of human beings. > >I think that altruism and good deeds are on the spiritual path, but >the trip is a terribly slow one. They are things that the Bodhisattva >(and supposedly the theosophist) does as a matter of course. >But in addition to these things, there has to be Knowledge or >Wisdom or Understanding, for without these, the path is endless >and will lack meaning, and is likely to falter. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >That is only true if you don't like" being a Bodhisattva! But of course,that is an impossible condition. I think that before a person can become a Bodhisattva, the knowledge has to have already been gained or what's the motivation? One knows, and in knowingness serves. Service without knowledge is meaningless and uneffectual. Unfortunately most Theosophists regard Bodhisattvas the way Catholics view Saints. alexis d. From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon May 6 12:45:22 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 08:45:22 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960506084521_107527944@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? John, Don't be so sure about us being confined to this list. Jerry S. and I both have a number of books in print that are read all over the world (even in Hungarian!), I am in the process of getting ready to publish Alex's tome and so forth. The TSA powers that be have very limited control and while they may keep us from exercising any direct influence in the society, we have a readership which is far larger than the TS itself. It is possible that while they may marginalize us in the society, we may respond by marginalizing them in the world. Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon May 6 12:46:10 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 08:46:10 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960506084609_107528273@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Sticks and stones Alex, Then let us spend this next Wednesday in morning for its passing, rather than in celebrating its death. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From blafoun@azstarnet.com Mon May 6 14:48:43 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 07:48:43 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199605061448.HAA23563@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "brotherhood" - sanitized I totally agree with what Rich says below. Will be interesting to read JRC's response. Daniel >Eldon, Liesel, and JRC wrote (in that order): > >> > >The idea of "universal brotherhood", under whatever >> > >sanitized words we want to call it, *is a doctrine*. >> > >> > Eldon, Annie Besant says it's a fact, and I think if one looks around >with >> > an intuitive eye, one comes to the conclusion that she's right on. >> > >> Liesel ... >> **Excellent** >> -JRC > >Yes, to me it is also a fact. But surely Eldon is right in pointing out that >this "fact" is one of the "doctrines" of Theosophy, one doctrine among many >others. > >It *is* curious to me why some people are so ready to accept this "doctrine" >as a fact with no qualms, but reject other doctrines as "dogma." > >I'm not baiting for a fight, I'm genuinely curious. > >Also, JRC writes, > >> It was not presented as simply one of many "doctrines" ... it >> was presented as a spiritual truth, who's manifestation and incarnation >> in human civilization they considered the single most important mission >> for the Theosophical Society. > >But John -- I agree with you that it is a spiritual truth. This is the >definition of "doctrine," at least among the community of believers in that >tradition. I also firmly feel that "karma" is not a theory, it's a FACT. > But others see it as a hypothesis, and others are quite sure karma is NOT a >fact. All could agree it is a Theosophical doctrine, whether or not they >accept it. > >I also agree with you that it is no accident universal brotherhood is the >FIRST Object, the single most important idea in Theosophy, and the one that >the Adepts would have staked Their lives on. > >But it is still a "doctrine" which conceivably could (and daily IS) rejected >by many. The KKK are not alone in this. > >Why is it okay to say brotherhood is a fact, not a "doctrine" while other >"doctrines" are "dogma"? > >All alike were taught by the Masters, even if you are right about the >emphasis placed. > > From alexei@slip.net Mon May 6 18:22:06 1996 Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 11:22:06 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960506182206.00696d28@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Sticks and stones At 08:50 AM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Then let us spend this next Wednesday in morning for its passing, rather than >in celebrating its death. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >O.K. by me, but what do we do in the afternoon, and what are we talking about? Oh, I know, you're talking about White Lotus Day! O.K. so then I assume you're referring to the Theosophical Movement and not HPB because she/he's not an "it", and anyway nobody ever really "passes", and she/he's not at all "dead", or even slightly so, but the theosophical movement seems to be, and so it's that we should mourn rather than celebrate? Oh I don't know whether we should do either, it's far too late to mourn, and it's not really appropriate to celebrate what amounts to an abortion, and so maybe we should just keep working for a replacement. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Mon May 6 18:27:47 1996 Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 11:27:47 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960506182747.006a3538@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? At 08:46 AM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >John, >Don't be so sure about us being confined to this list. Jerry S. and I both >have a number of books in print that are read all over the world (even in >Hungarian!), I am in the process of getting ready to publish Alex's tome and >so forth. The TSA powers that be have very limited control and while they >may keep us from exercising any direct influence in the society, we have a >readership which is far larger than the TS itself. It is possible that while >they may marginalize us in the society, we may respond by marginalizing them >in the world. > >Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Question: How can The Theosophical Society ever be any further marginalized than it has managed to totally marginalize itself? The T.S. is about 99% irrelevant now, and with Radha and John Algeo as "busy" as they are, it will soon be 100% irrelevant. In fact if it keeps on the way its going, and it will, it will soon be far less than simply "irrelevant". This has always been the most likely outcome and so I'm afraid there's little we can do besides replace it with something that isn't "marginal" in any way. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Mon May 6 18:52:00 1996 Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 11:52:00 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960506185200.006a4c58@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "brotherhood" - sanitized At 10:53 AM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<< >> >>Yes, to me it is also a fact. But surely Eldon is right in pointing out that >>this "fact" is one of the "doctrines" of Theosophy, one doctrine among many >>others. >> >>It *is* curious to me why some people are so ready to accept this "doctrine" >>as a fact with no qualms, but reject other doctrines as "dogma." >> >>I'm not baiting for a fight, I'm genuinely curious. I think Daniel, that what has happened, over time, and it's hardly restricted to theosophy, is that the line that exists in people's definition of "Doctrine" is that it has insensibly merged to a great degree with many people's definition of "Dogma". This is a philological and semantic problem and not nearly so much a philosophical one. Much of the "blame" for this lies in the Religious community which has long confused "doctrine' and "Dogma". When mainstream Christianity, islam, and Judaism confuse the two how can ordinary people be blamed for the same confusion. I think we'd all be on far firmer ground if we'd replace "Doctrine" with "basic philosophy", or "basic belief", and leave dogma where it belongs, and that's totally alone. >>Also, JRC writes, >> >>> It was not presented as simply one of many "doctrines" ... it >>> was presented as a spiritual truth, who's manifestation and incarnation >>> in human civilization they considered the single most important mission >>> for the Theosophical Society. >> >>But John -- I agree with you that it is a spiritual truth. This is the >>definition of "doctrine," at least among the community of believers in that >>tradition. I also firmly feel that "karma" is not a theory, it's a FACT. >> But others see it as a hypothesis, and others are quite sure karma is NOT a >>fact. All could agree it is a Theosophical doctrine, whether or not they >>accept it. I have two comments/questions here. One: It seems to me that "Brother-Sisterhood" is hardly an "intrinsic Spiritual truth", because if it were it would be a fact and not simply a dim hope and primary eventual goal. A "Spiritual truth", and I am far from sure that any such thing actually exists, would, if it did exist, be something both unavoidable and clearly extant. We all know that such is very far from true regarding "Brother-Sisterhood" as is proved daily in Bosnia, Palestine, Northern Ireland, and here in the USA. I have always thought the basic Theosophical Agenda" was to create a NUCLEUS FOR "BROTHER-SISTERHOOD, a seed, as it were, out of which real "Brother-Sisterhood" could germinate. >>I also agree with you that it is no accident universal brotherhood is the >>FIRST Object, the single most important idea in Theosophy, and the one that >>the Adepts would have staked Their lives on. Daniel: That's a poor analogy. Adepts cannot "stake their lives" they're consciously immortal. Not physically so, but in consciousness. >> >>But it is still a "doctrine" which conceivably could (and daily IS) rejected >>by many. The KKK are not alone in this. Brother-sisterhood is a principle which is rejected by most humans because while they admit intellectually that it's a "good idea" they just don't relate to it. And it is THAT that the Nucleus of Brother-sisterhood" was intended to slowly change. >> >>Why is it okay to say brotherhood is a fact, not a "doctrine" while other >>"doctrines" are "dogma"? I think here you have either a misstatement or a misunderstanding. I don't think too many people feel theosophy has any Dogmas at all. What I think some people are complaining about (and I am clearly one of them) is that there are those who TREAT basic theosophical philosophy as if it were Dogma. There's a very big difference. >> >>All alike were taught by the Masters, even if you are right about the >>emphasis placed. And that is clearly a matter of opinion. alexis d. >> >> > > > From Richtay@aol.com Mon May 6 20:56:48 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 16:56:48 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960506165646_391997408@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: TS as "abortion" Alexis writes, > The T.S. is about 99% irrelevant > now.... In fact if it keeps on the way its going, and it will, it > will soon be far less than simply "irrelevant". This has always been the > most likely outcome and so I'm afraid there's little we can do besides > replace it with something that isn't "marginal" in any way. My response is not yet another attack, and I hope it isn't perceived that way by some. But my question is, why do we assume that Theosophical Movement is dead, however "irrelevant" the TS may be? Can the Movement, which stretches back to immemorial time, ever "die"? And if the attempt last century has largely ended in failure, who are the appropriate re-builders? I for one would not want that honor, because I don't have the vision or knowledge of an Adept. (I know that everyone is already only too aware of this fact.) Yet who besides the Adepts would be able to start a fresh impulse? It seems to me that the BEST way to "revive" the Movement is to put ourselves in "sync" with the Captains -- the Adepts -- and try to follow as best we can the original program They laid out. I agree with JRC that this first and foremost involves the practice of brotherhood -- but to my mind it also involves carrying out the ENTIRE program that the Adepts offered to us. Following the lines the Adepts laid down, in and of itself, ought to be enough to get sincere seekers into the "minds" of the living Adepts today, and once we place ourselves under Their influence, we can hope to be guided to become useful vehicles for the uplift of humanity. Simply reforming the TS, or organizing new vehicles for Theosophy, without the direct guidance of Adepts, seems to me like a band-aid at best, and a major distraction at worst. From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Mon May 6 21:29:05 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 15:29:05 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: The Big Question Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Now and then I ruminate about what the ML would have looked like *had Sinnet asked different questions* ... but I thought it might provide an interesting topic for the list (if anyone wants to take it up): If *you* (anyone on the list that wants to respond) were given the opportunity to ask *one question* of an Adept, what would that question be? -JRC From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon May 6 21:47:03 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 17:47:03 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960506174702_529461163@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? ALex, Speaking from experience, when you have a nose like Cyrano you have to flaunt because it keeps getting in your way. And you're right, we got stuck with this and we have no choice but to use it. It is very hard to hide a nose. It is very hard to hide your real opinions for very long and being christened the "Gang of 4, now 5, soon to be 6 and 7, is actually something of an honor. It is a recognition that we are getting something through and that some people don't like it. Maybe thinking gives them headaches. Any, I have to keep this short because I have agent provacateuring to do. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon May 6 23:00:19 1996 Date: 06 May 96 19:00:19 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Now it gets interesting Message-Id: <960506230019_76400.1474_HHL67-2@CompuServe.COM> Dan: >I believe HPB's demonstration of her own occult powers was to show open-minded >people the power of the mind to manipulate "matter." >... they illustrate the remarkable power of *conscious* >"kriyashakti", some of the wonderful abilities of the human mind. No theosophist doubts that mind *can* manipulate matter. That was not the issue, Dan. Rich was saying that HPB's teachings confirm quantum theory--the idea that the observer creates his own reality, and that therefore matter is *always* manipulated by mind. Christian Science also demonstrates mind over matter, but HPB didn't care much for Christian Science. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon May 6 23:00:18 1996 Date: 06 May 96 19:00:18 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Mind, matter and evolution Message-Id: <960506230018_76400.1474_HHL67-1@CompuServe.COM> >HPB did in fact criticize Christian Science for its vagueness and lack of >principles, but never denied that it produced results -- sometimes, by >experimentation. Nor did HPB deny the principle that matter follows mind. > Rather, she enunciated it first in the Western world. The quotes are >immense, I will give only a few here for the time being: You probably didn't need all those quotes. I give! Yes, I discovered HPBs ideas back when I was still a Christian Scientist. And I discovered that HPB was a lot more scientific and down-to-earth than Mary Baker Eddy. While matter follows mind, experience tells us that the reverse is also true--hunger affects our dreams, pain affects our thought processes, and so on. To take the idea of mind over matter to its natural conclusion is pure Magic--healing at the very least. Is this what we theosophists should be doing? Jerry S. Member, TI From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon May 6 22:53:09 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 23:53:09 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Quantum Theosophy? (Part 1) In-Reply-To: <199605060146.SAA22641@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199605060146.SAA22641@web.azstarnet.com>, Blavatsky Foundation writes >See JRC's essay below. This is excellent and should be the kind >of material I would like to see posted more often on Theos-l. JRC, you >are very knowledgeable in this area and a good writer, too! Thanks for the >information >and insights. > >Daniel Note my omission of the essay mentioned. While I appreciate your thanks to JRC, Dan, I don't want to read his essay twice, especially as it is rather long. :-) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon May 6 22:48:59 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 23:48:59 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , JRC writes > However, I erred in saying "we" ... and did not intentionally >mean to imply your involvement - I should not have done so, as I myself >most definately did not appreciate being named as part of a "Gang of >Four" in the first place. My sincere apologies (and this will also be my >last post on the topic.) > Regards, -JRC None needed - I just used your post to hang my rebuttal on! I shall also say no more on the matter ... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon May 6 23:28:40 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 00:28:40 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Breath In-Reply-To: <960506001847_287923765@emout17.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960506001847_287923765@emout17.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes >Anyway, it is possible to understand how Self may be able to "make a >connection" with Spirit (Atma-Buddhi) because of the "verisimilitude of their >ultra-rarefied Natures"; however, it is problematic to conceive of how Spirit >can have any association with a physical body at all unless something else on >the "Prakriti side of things" operated as its "threshold of interpentration." My considered response here is that it is rather that Spirit may, from time to time, "make a connection" with Self - if Self is awake enough. My experience suggests that Spirit (individual *or* universal) does not have any association with a physical body other than "overseeing" one. Spirit is a bit like a) Saturn, who eats his children, or b) The Great Mother Goddess, who eats her children. This is another way (IMO) of saying that the interest of Spirit in the human equation is to "digest" the experience of the life of the individual Self - and *very very* occasionally to lend a hand in emergencies. :-) I made a record of a 1977 (?) experience which I will try to find and post for the possible interest of subscribers to the list. Extra good karma will accrue to TI members ... :-) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon May 6 22:50:15 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 23:50:15 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: "brotherhood" - sanitized In-Reply-To: <199605060122.VAA11337@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199605060122.VAA11337@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. deutsch" writes >>The idea of "universal brotherhood", under whatever >>sanitized words we want to call it, *is a doctrine*. > >Eldon, Annie Besant says it's a fact, and I think if one looks around with >an intuitive eye, one comes to the conclusion that she's right on. > >Liesel > And so do I. See my "View" on the web page (see sig) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon May 6 23:05:48 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 00:05:48 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960506070650.006c1d70@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960506070650.006c1d70@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >In fact you're >probably viewed as one of the principle leaders of the "Gang". Cheer up >though, you're in good company. > >alexis d. Sorry, but I fail to see how or why or when and by whom was I *named* in such a context. Daft. along with JRC (see other post) I deny membership in any "gang"! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon May 6 23:17:07 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 00:17:07 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: The Big Question In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , JRC writes > If *you* (anyone on the list that wants to respond) were given >the opportunity to ask *one question* of an Adept, what would that >question be? > > -JRC Mine would be, "What is the impulse that lies behind your desire to serve, and from where does it originate?" Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon May 6 22:56:11 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 23:56:11 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Universality In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , JRC writes > It was not presented as simply one of many "doctrines" ... it >was presented as a spiritual truth, who's manifestation and incarnation >in human civilization they considered the single most important mission >for the Theosophical Society. They did not say that study groups intended >to examine occult philosophy, anthro or cosmo genesis, or even to pursue >occult "development" were not appropriate activities within the larger >Theosophical umbrella, but they *did* always say these things were to be >pursued *in addition to*, not *instead of* the work of Universal >Bortherhood. > -JRC Well said, John, and thank you for saying it. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Tue May 7 01:53:40 1996 Date: 06 May 96 21:53:40 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL Message-Id: <960507015340_76400.1474_HHL80-1@CompuServe.COM> > I think the questions you are asking and the proedure you are following >is the only way to explain how original Theosophy differs from neo-Theosophy, >and goes a long way toward explaining WHY they differ. Rich, you seem to have already reached your conclusion (i.e, that there IS a difference). I guess all JHE has to do now is to tie up some loose ends? Apparently Jim can go home. (?) JHE was unable to demonstrate to me that any real differences exist. Now Jim wants to try his luck. I respectfully suggest that their discussion will "prove" nothing, because everyone already seems to have their minds made up. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Tue May 7 01:53:42 1996 Date: 06 May 96 21:53:42 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: TS/Democratic Spirit & Hierarchical Feeling Message-Id: <960507015342_76400.1474_HHL80-2@CompuServe.COM> >May be it is time that we should administer a quiz on the important >fundamental principles and practice to all the Officers of TS all over the >world and see how they fare. The grades must be published openly. Such of >those who flunk should be asked to go back and re-read some of the early works. > >Any ideas? The problem with this, is that we would reward someone because of book-learning or letter. I would prefer our leaders to have inner spirit. But who will test for this? Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Tue May 7 01:53:46 1996 Date: 06 May 96 21:53:46 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Quantum Theosophy? (Part 1) Message-Id: <960507015345_76400.1474_HHL80-3@CompuServe.COM> >> >MIND is what has a huge impact on matter and the course of > >>evolution. One can look at these experiments in quantum physics > >>and be very impressed by the fact that HPB knew and discussed > >>this decades before the actual proof came to us Westerners. > >JRC: >> I'd very much like to hear the "proof" that "MIND" has a > >"huge" impact on matter and the course of evolution. > >Wow. I can think of so many directions to go for this "proof." First off, I >believe there ARE quantum experiments which show that the OBSERVATION itself >has a "fixing" quality to it, along the lines of the post Bee put up a few >days ago about "measuring." And I have heard rumors of studies that show >that statistically, the attitudes and predictions the scientist make can >actually RETROACTIVELY effect the outcome of an experiment, in essence >CHANGING THE PAST, or at least what we thought of as "past." Rich, as far as I know, the only "scientific" theory that supports a mental oversight of evolution is the anthropic principle, and this is not supported by most scientists (S. Hawking derides it, for example--of course he is a crass materialist). The real (and maybe *only*) support for the anthropic principle is the initial conditions of the universe. Scientists are reasonably agreed that in order for things to have gotten this far, the initial conditions had to be extremely precise--so much so, that coincidence is practically ruled out. Per your statement quoted above, no. Quantum theory is only good for the quantum level--tiny subparticles. There are at least 8 possible views of how quantum mechanics can be applied to our macroscopic world. Most scientists opt for the Copenhagen Interpretation, given by Bohr. The notion that we create our own world is another possible interpretation. The fact that 6 others exist, shows that no one really knows how quantum mechanics relates to our everyday world. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Tue May 7 01:53:48 1996 Date: 06 May 96 21:53:48 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: HPB's sources Message-Id: <960507015347_76400.1474_HHL80-4@CompuServe.COM> >But I would look first for HPB's Stanzas of Dzyan in the various tantras, >particularly the "inner" and "secret" parts of Kalachakra tantra which David >Reigle is pointing at. Rich, I agree with you here, and I think Buddhist Tantras are the place to look. But how do you jive this idea with HPB's constant ridicule and scorn of tantricism? Jerry S. Member, TI From eldon@theosophy.com Tue May 7 09:13:43 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 02:13:43 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507091343.0068983c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Original Posting Regarding "The Gang of Four" Following is the original posting where the term "the Gang of Four" arose. Note that it was a comment in the subject. My only reference to "the four of you" was with regard to your rejecting external authority. Alexis was the only one to object to the statement, saying that he was definitely anti-religious in any regard. Chuck picked up on the term as a useful toy to play with, and Alexis has chosen to carry the term as a badge of honor, something which I find hard to understand. -- Eldon ---- > Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 03:01:04 -0700 > Subject: The Gang of Four and "Religion" Alexis: [writing to Chuck] >>There are some who think that the TS is going to be the >>groundwork for a world religion. There are some people >>who would like to see us go to hell, so maybe this does >>qualify as a religious list. NAH! >NAH! is right, and it's right cause you and Alan and JRC >and Jerry Schueler and I won't let it! I detect humor here, but some readers might miss the irony and get mad at what they read. I don't think that the Theosophical Society is suitable to form a future world religion. But I do think that the results of the theosophical movement, including the dissemination of the theosophical doctrines, will help germinate future western religions. These religions will still have to arise of their own accord, with or without our help. You have trouble with the word "religion", but seem to appreciate the religious, the sacredness of life, and the grandeur and majesty of the inner life. Not having those associations, I still find the word useful in talking about the creative, self-becoming aspect of life that seeks to bring forth more into the world and seeks out of compassion to uplift and enlighten sentient beings. Modern religions are poor containers for the life that they hold. They have a short shelf-life before the contents spoil. But *that life they hold* is precious, in its early years. Some religions are good for perhaps a few centuries before needing major reforms. Others spoil more quickly. Such bottles and containers are important for the majority of the human family, until more and more people discover *inner springs* and not need the bottles anymore... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the four of you are *anti-religious*, just anarchist in temperament. That is, you don't want someone else to even have the appearance of telling you what to do or think. And fundamentalist religions exemplify the extreme of telling people what to do and think. Therefore, we have the aversion to religious groups. But it is not religion per se, nor religions still backed by an inner light, that you object to, but dead religions that spiritually entomb and suffocate their followers. -- Eldon From moonunit@ozemail.com.au Tue May 7 02:48:12 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 12:48:12 +1000 (EST) From: Darrin Potaka Message-Id: <199605070248.MAA06957@oznet02.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Paul Brunton's Comments on the TS At 02:57 AM 6/05/96 -0400, you wrote: >At 09:51 PM 5/5/96 -0400, you wrote: > >>Hi Eldon. >>I'm not anti the doctrine but the following extract from the Notebooks of= >> Paul Brunton rang with me when I first read it: Notebook Seven (Healing of= >> the Self/The Negatives) ... In the heart's deepest place, where the burden= >> of ego is dropped and the mystery of soul is penetrated, a man finds the= >> consciousness there not different in any way from what all other men may= >> find. The mutuality of the human race is thus revealed as existing only on= >> a plane where its humaness is transcended. This is why all attempts to= >> express it in political and economic terms, no less than the theosophic= >> attempts to form a universal brotherhood, being premature, must also be= >> artificial. This is why they failed... >>The next one (from Notebook 11) I also found incisive. >>...The term "universal brotherhood" is idealistic but vague, pleasant= >> sounding =96 but windy. An attempt to form a society whose main object was= >> to become the nucleus of a universal brotherhood was made by the= >> Theosophists, and by less known cults. Moreover, they added constant talk= >> about "the service of humanity" to their other prattle. Not only did all= >> such groups end in failure to actualize their ideal and in inability to= >> influence the remainder of mankind, but most ended in bitter disputes,= >> harsh quarrels, and internal fission. There are several different factors= >> behind such failures. The two which concern us here are first, lack of any= >> practical workable method to implement the ideal, and second, belief in= >> the delusion that a group can do better what only an individual can do for= >> himself. This is where philosophy shows its superiority. In reference to= >> the first of these two factors, it teaches us exactly what we can do with= >> our bodies, our feelings, our thoughts, and our intuitions to bridge the= >> wide gap between ideals and their actualization. In reference to the second= >> factor, it proves that to practise individualism, self-reliance, is= >> essential to real progress..... >>Kind Regards >>Darrin >>Blavatsky Lodge, Sydney Australia >> >>Hi Darrin: I think Paul Brunton's work is far superior to most in the field >and infinitely superior to all post-Blavatskian Theosophical Writers That's >a marvelous quote. > >alexis d. >> Hi Alexis. I agree. I first stumbled on the Noteboooks in 1991. I felt like I'd come home. In the thousands of entries contained therein, (and I've not read them all) I've yet to read one that did not strike a chord. During 1992 I went through all 16 Notebooks and extracted every reference I could find to theosophical history, teachers, people, places, schools etc. The exercise resulted in some 90 A4 typed pages. I was using a typewriter at the time so I don't have a text file to send to any interested parties. Here's another entry that relates to the two above: Notebook 10 (The Orient: Its Legacy to the West) Chapter One (Meetings of East and West) Subdivision - Western Assimilation of Eastern Thought. ... The western peoples will never be converted wholesale to Hinduism or Buddhism as religions, nor will their intelligentsia take wholesale to Vedanta or Theosophy as philosophies. These forms are too alien and too exotic to affect the general mass. Historically, they have only succeeded in affecting scattered individuals. The West's spiritual revival must and can come only out of its own creative and native mind.... and also from volume Ten ..Regarding Blavatsky's teachings, it is not essential nowadays to know all that she taught. Nevertheless a book like her Key to Theosophy provides an excellent preparation for the study of philosophy. But present-day students do not need to study her writings first, as the point of view in the present teaching is different from that taken in her published work. In her esoteric instruction, her students were told "to reduce everything to terms of consiousness." This, of course, is pure mentalism. Nice chatting with you Darrin From moonunit@ozemail.com.au Tue May 7 02:48:18 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 12:48:18 +1000 (EST) From: Darrin Potaka Message-Id: <199605070248.MAA06996@oznet02.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Brunton's tale of a Bonze Monk and HPB From Paul Brunton's Notebooks Volume Ten The Orient. Chapter Four: Ceylon , Angkor Wat, Burma, Java. Subdivision: Angkor Wat. An explanatory note to the following extraction is necessary. It has been= taken from a short essay in the above chapter titled "The Secret Doctrine= of the Khmers." In this essay, Brunton is in the company of an elderly= Bonze monk who relates to him some of their Secret Doctrine. Just prior to= where we take up the story, the monk has told his enquirer, amongst other= things,the secret of the "First". Brunton has emphasised prior to = recounting this tale that the words are those of the monk, and not his. He= also explains that in retelling the story he breaks one of his 'rules' in= that there is not adequate evidence to support the thing and therefore it= has no right to be publically heard. Part of what follows (T/S mission= over) relates to some mail I lodged recently that contained other Paul= Brunton quotes about brotherhood, the service of humanity, the place of= theosophy etc. I know Alexis likes PB's work - how about some other= folks??? I thought this Brunton tale (not quote) might be of interest. Kind= Regards ...Darrin "The line of sages which had penetrated into the secret of the First and= gave these symbolic religions to the masses has shifted its headquarters= from epoch to epoch. From the sixth to the thirteenth centuries it= flourished in Angkor, but for seven hundred years before that it flourished= in South India. Reminders of this earlier centre exist in plenty in the= architectural forms and sculptural details. Even the Sanskrit used by the= Brahmin priests in Cambodia is of Pallava (South Indian) origin. But the= wheel of karma turned, the Cambodian empire declined and disappeared with a= rapidity which outran the fall of the Romans. The rulers were dazzled by= wealth and conquest=20and failed to heed the advice of the sages. The= latter withdrew and migrated to Tibet. "You ask me if they are the same adepts as those spoken of by H.P.Blavatsky.= When she was a girl and fled from her husband, she accidentally met a group= of Russian Buddhist Kalmucks who were proceeding by a roundabout route on= pilgrimage to the Dalai Lama of Tibet. She joined the caravan as a means= of escape from her husband. One of them was an adept. He took care of her= and protected her and brought her to Lhasa. She was initiated in due= course into the secret tradition. She visited other parts of Tibet and= also India. Before the existance of the Angkor ruins was known in the= West, she was sent there to continue her studies and to receive a certain= contact by meditation in the temples. H.P.B. went but experienced great= difficulty in travelling through the uncleared jungle; however, she bravely= suffered all discomforts. Later, she was introduced to a codisciple, who= eventually became a High Lama and a personal advisor to the Dalai Lama. He= was the son of a Mongolian prince, but for public purposes took the name of= "The Thunderbolt" - that is, "Dorje'. On account of his personal knowledge= of and interest in Russia, he gradually altered it to "Dorjeff." Before= their guru died, he instructed Blavatsky to give a most elementary part of= the secret tradition to the Western people, while he instructed Dorjeff to= follow her further career with watchful interest. Dorjeff gave her certain= advice; she went to America and founded the Theosophical Society. Her guru= had forbidden her to give out his name. Moreover, she knew much more of= the teachings than she revealed. But she was always fearful of saying too= much, so she constantly created what she called 'blinds' and wrapped her= truthful secrets in imaginary clothes. I may say no more. However, the= poor woman was unjustly maligned by her enemies. Her sole desire was to= help humanity. They could never understand her peculiar character nor her= Oriental methods. Her society did an enormous service to white people by= opening their eyes to Eastern truths. But its real mission is over; hence= its present weak condition. A new instrument will take up the work in 1939= and give a higher revelation to the world, which is now better prepared.But= the beginning of this work will be as quiet and unnoticed as the planting= of a seed. It is 108 years since H.P.B.'s birth. There are 108 steps on= the path to Nirvana. Amongst all the Yogis of the Himalaya, 108 is= regarded as the most sacred number. It is also kabbalistically connected= with the year 1939 in a most important way. Therefore, this year will= witness the departure of the adepts from Tibet. Their location was always a= secret; even most of the High Lamas never knew it. Tibet has lost its= value for them; its isolation had begun to disappear rapidly and its rulers= no longer respond faithfully to them. They leave Tibet seven hundred years= after their arrival." From eldon@theosophy.com Tue May 7 10:03:56 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 03:03:56 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507100356.00691554@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? Alexis: [writing to JRC] Your personal reply to JRC below leave me a bit puzzled. >That is wonderful! I thank you very much your deep knowledged >of the subject has made it perfectly clear what the real situation >on this list is. JRC did post some interesting trivia on Chinese history, but it had very little to do with my original post where I used the term in the "subject" line, with reference to your project to insure that there would be nothing religious in any future theosophical group. >It is a honor to be slandered with a person like you for company. A mutual flattery club? And "slandered"? Where do you get this ideas from??? >Keep in there buddy, I'm getting all sorts of private messages that >tell me we five are not alone, and that there are some very nice >folks out there who agree with what we've been saying. You seem to be drawing up "battle lines", a us-versus-them grouping of people on theos-l. I don't see any such lines of demarcation, except along certain issues like the controversial nature of psychic development and disagreement on if there are definite doctrines to theosophy. I don't think that you have an exclusive claim to the sympathies of "nice people". >When I made it clear I was thinking of removing myself from this >list, they all came on asking me to stay on as they found what I had >to say valuable and helpful. But your not *the only valuable person*, nor your favorite group of writers. We're all valuable to the people that appreciate what we're writing. >That goes double for you from me. You are the only member of the >"five" who can really deal with some of the folks who coin epithets >like "Gang of Four". You have an unfortunate tendency to use quite strong, negative language in dealing with people you don't agree with. I'd disagree that JRC is able to "deal with some of the folks who coin epithets", but I have experienced some long, angry blasts from him. Some of them I've taken time to respond to, but I've always tried to be even-handed with him, and not simply dismiss much of what he says as nonsense, or using the even stronger language that you're inclined to use. I always try to allow his views, which I consider most definitely wrong, a right to peacefully coexist on theos-l, a right to exist in mutual tolerance. He has continually failed to acknowledge my posts in that regard, always asserting his views but never responding to any suggestion of mutual tolerance. It would be nice if your "group" would practice the same Universal Brotherhood on theos-l that you speak so highly of in the abstract. (And by practicing it, I don't mean a snappy reply from JRC saying, "Radha's mean to T.S. members, so the T.S. has no brotherhood, so that's the pot calling the kettle black, so shut up, you fool!" That would simply be an evasion of practicing Universal Brotherhood, and tend to reveal that there was no real intention of practicing it in the first place. How can you expect me, or people reading your postings, to maintain a respectful attitude toward you and what you say, when you let your words get careless, become hurtful, and sound like you're trying to pick a fight? I don't think that is your intention, but the words you use are definitely provocative. In peace, Eldon From ramadoss@eden.com Tue May 7 03:16:46 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 22:16:46 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960507221917.23477b88@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TS/Democratic Spirit & Hierarchical Feeling At 09:55 PM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >>May be it is time that we should administer a quiz on the important >>fundamental principles and practice to all the Officers of TS all over the >>world and see how they fare. The grades must be published openly. Such of >>those who flunk should be asked to go back and re-read some of the early works. >> >>Any ideas? > > The problem with this, is that we would reward someone >because of book-learning or letter. I would prefer our leaders to >have inner spirit. But who will test for this? > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > Good question. May be we can talk to them and test the inner spirit by the outer responses and results? ...doss From eldon@theosophy.com Tue May 7 10:16:36 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 03:16:36 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507101636.006a7dec@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: trouble posting messages I found myself unsubscribed this afternoon when I had tried to post five messages. I resubscribed and resent the messages, but they did not come out, although later messages have been posted and came out after that. I'm reposting the five again. Hope both copies don't somehow show up! -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Tue May 7 10:17:14 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 03:17:14 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507101714.006caed0@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "brotherhood" - sanitized Liesel: >>The idea of "universal brotherhood", under whatever >>sanitized words we want to call it, *is a doctrine*. >Eldon, Annie Besant says it's a fact, and I think if one >looks around with an intuitive eye, one comes to >the conclusion that she's right on. But it is a "fact" in the same sense as compassion and the bodhisattva ideal is, as reincarnation and karma, as the unity of life, as the other planes of existence, as the nature and workings of consciousness are. The doctrine of "Universal Brotherhood" is not any different than that of, say, "karma". We can have an empty slogan, lacking in understanding and practical application in life, or we can have as deep an understanding of it as any of the other doctrines or mystery teachings. I'd like to hear the how and why and what of "Universal Brotherhood", here some of the thought and insight into it by its strongest advocates. This would be something more than soup kitchens, political slogans, a scolding that we need better harmony and respect among people, a reminder of the golden rule, etc. It's not that any of these things is wrong or trivial, but it should certainly be possible to bring to this doctrine the same depth of understanding as we can find with the other pivotal doctrines of life. -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Tue May 7 10:17:17 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 03:17:17 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507101717.006c51ac@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance Darrin: Thanks for responding to my wish that advocates of the doctrine of Universal Brotherhood attempt to spell out with some detail and substance how they understand the doctrine. >I'm not anti the doctrine but the following extract from the >Notebooks of Paul Brunton rang with me when I first read it: >Notebook Seven (Healing of the Self/The Negatives) Good ... we're talking about what the doctrine might mean, rather than repeating it mindlessly like a political slogan. (I could picture a group of people picketing a theosophical convention, with signs reading "Universal Brotherhood Now!", marching back and forth outside the hall doors, chanting "We want brotherhood now!" I might ask one of them what it meant, and what exactly they wanted. The man might sputter, "Well, you know, it, er, means what it says -- brotherhood." I'd smile and say, "Well, that's fine," and go inside the hall, looking forward to something with a bit more substance to dwell on. ) >"... In the heart's deepest place, where the burden >of ego is dropped and the mystery of soul is penetrated, >a man finds the consciousness there not different in any >way from what all other men may find." Yes, it is this part of ourselves where we realize the heart of brotherhood. But even as we drop lower, and leave this realization behind, we find that inter-dependence is an essential rule of life. Even when we lose our awareness of our essential unity, we find that we cannot exist except in cooperation and interaction (and hopefully harmony!) with other living beings. >"The mutuality of the human race is thus revealed as >existing only on a plane where its humanness is transcended." I might put this differently. One of the ways that our mind currently works creates the illusion of a separate, distinct personality, with its own private needs and desires. When our mind functions in this mode, we tend to be selfish and unbrotherly. When this functioning of the mind ceases, personal considerations simply don't occur to us; we see value in everyone's needs, and consider things and make choices based upon the greatest good. This is practical brotherhood. It's not based upon someone's political agenda, it's simply the living of a higher mode of consciousness. >"This is why all attempts to express it in political and >economic terms, no less than the theosophic attempts to form >a universal brotherhood, being premature, must also be >artificial. This is why they failed..." Brotherhood is more than an attitude towards others. It is the experience of life from a particular standpoint where the ugly and dark cloud of selfish concerns no longer blinds one to the true face of life. It is measured in intangibles, in modes of consciousness, not in the artificial terms of someone else's definition of what would be good for people to do. >The next one (from Notebook 11) I also found incisive. >"...The term 'universal brotherhood' is idealistic but vague, >pleasant sounding -- but windy. An attempt to form a society >whose main object was to become the nucleus of a universal >brotherhood was made by the Theosophists, and by less known >cults." The way that I've often seen Universal Brotherhood described, I'd also find it "idealistic but vague, pleasant sounding -- but windy." This is why I'd like to see it given the same degree of attention and respect that the other theosophical doctrines are accorded. >"Moreover, they added constant talk about 'the service of >humanity' to their other prattle." Again, we have but an empty slogan if it's just a phrase that people parrot without really thinking about it. >"Not only did all such groups end in failure to actualize >their ideal and in inability to influence the remainder >of mankind, but most ended in bitter disputes, harsh quarrels, >and internal fission." This may be partly due to a narrowness of mind that fails to accept and live in mutual tolerance with people of other views. It also shows a lack of depth to the insight and spirituality of the people involved. The spiritual is actualized *by internal awakening*, not by pious observation of the politically correct, of the socially correct, and of the religiously correct platforms -- other people's agendas to change people according to their ideas of what makes better people. If we don't change ourselves first, we have nothing to offer to others. >"There are several different factors behind such failures. >The two which concern us here are first, lack of any >practical workable method to implement the ideal," Here, organizations can do good if they limit themselves to providing resources to members to discover and work towards their individual approaches to bettering the world. >"and second, belief in the delusion that a group can do >better what only an individual can do for himself." A group, per se, can do nothing. But there can be specific projects to do good in the world, and some people may find a group useful in working for a particular project. That choice to work with a group, though, is individual, and it's neither good nor bad to work independently. What is good is to work *according to one's inner dictates*, and what is bad is to ignore what one feels is right, and remain inactive. We have the phrase that says that inactivity in an act of charity is an activity in a deadly sin, and I'd agree with it. >"This is where philosophy shows its superiority. In reference to >the first of these two factors, it teaches us exactly what we >can do with our bodies, our feelings, our thoughts, and our >intuitions to bridge the wide gap between ideals and their >actualization." Yes, one of our first steps towards actualizing brotherhood is to clean up ourselves, to make ourselves nobler people, to open up our minds and hearts and become better able to express the unseen beauties of life. >"In reference to the second factor, it proves that to >practice individualism, self-reliance, is essential to >real progress....." And this is to neither be motionless in acts of mercy, devoid of pity for others in sad situations, inexpressive of compression, nor is it to be like the leaf in the wind, blown about by every passing gust, a passive expression of external forces. What it does refer to is the state where we're becoming a positive force for good in the world, a channel of new impulses for intelligence, beauty, compassion -- all the higher qualities. The quote that you gave is useful to the discussion on Universal Brotherhood, but it's also good to try to put some of the ideas in your own words. For myself, when I put things in my own words, I understand the subject much better, and find that there are many new things that I learn; it's a valuable experience. There's always the risk, though, that someone on the list won't like what you say, and trounce upon your views. That's also, though, a useful learning experience, helping one learn to deal with attacks upon one's ideas and pointing out where in one's writings a clearer reexpression is needed. A playful name for this list is "theos-hell", as there seem to always be other people willing to play "demon" and come after one. When that happens, we have at least three options. We can oppose them, testing our hand-to-hand combat. We can practice avoidance, like a prey being stalked by a monster, a clever prey that gets away. Or we can practice magic, and term demons into princes and nobility! (Disclaimer. For those unable to detect that the previous paragraph was intended *to be funny*, I'll state the obvious and say so. I'm not thinking of any particular person on the list, and don't need the question "Did you mean *ME* when you wrote that awful stuff about monsters!!!!") Best wishes and greetings to the Blavatsky lodge, Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Tue May 7 10:17:22 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 03:17:22 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507101722.006bfef8@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance Doss: [writing to JRC] >It does not take a genius or learned pundit to open their eyes > and see what is going on around the world. There is continual >wars of all kinds going on. People kill other people for politics, >religion, nationalism, you name it. Look at all the refugees all >over the world. Look also at the exploitation that goes in various >facets of all our lives. Greed and corruption and exploitation of >those who really need to be protected and cared for by those who >are with more knowledge etc. You're right and stating the obvious when you mention the warfare, greed, corruption, and exploitation that exists in the world. And the world would be a better place if we could help to eliminate them. But you avoid the question of what is the doctrine of "Universal Brotherhood" and how does it fit in with the other theosophical doctrines. And also avoided is the question of how *all* the doctrines apply to making the world a better place. We need peace, self-control in our needs, honesty, and a willingness to treat people fairly. These and many other moral, ethical qualities are needed if our world is to improve. But the ability to understand and practice ethics is something that arises *from within*, and not imposed externally by some social or political program. The need to externally impose some minimal socially-acceptable behavior is only needed for criminals, misfits, the mentally ill, or people otherwise unable to make the grade and be an ordinary, contributing member of society. >An ounce of application of Universal Brotherhood will go a >long way. A better term would be "a conscious practice of the bodhisattva vow would go a long way." We're expected to rise above our selfish natures and to be of benefit to other sentient beings. >Can one person solve all world's problems. Certainly >not. Can each one of us do something about it in our >own lives. Yes we can. If more and more of us >become sensitive to these issues with Universal Brotherhood >as the backbone, then gradually we can exponentially affect >all those with whom we come into contact in our daily life >as well as not be involved in any activity which >is hurtful from the point of Universal Brotherhood. I agree with all you've said here. But since there are many ideas and implications behind the doctrine of "Universal Brotherhood", like compassion, service to others, harmlessness, etc., we need to explore what it is, and not remain satisfied to let it remain an inarticulate keyword or phrase. >Am I crying in the wilderness? May be? If we do not recognize >the idea of Universal Brotherhood, then what are our goals >and how are they going to affect other living beings? You're not crying in the wilderness. But you may feel more alone than you need to be, if you fail to recognize the same approach to bettering the world carried on by others under a different banner. >This is a question each one of us can ask and try to find >an answer. It comes back to a very basic question: How can I be of the best benefit to life, to all sentient beings? Some people may find it appropriate to study, meditate, and deal with small numbers of people they meet in their day-to-day lives. Others may feel drawn to grander plans that grab the attention of millions of people. Which is better? Neither -- any approach that is true to one's best judgment and conscience is equally appropriate and good to the world. We need, I think, to leave behind that narrowness of mind that would say: "Here is my way to make the world better, and if you won't follow it and do as I say, you are a bad person, selfish, and lacking in compassion for others!" Instead, we need greater sensitivity to our own inner calling. -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Tue May 7 10:17:26 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 03:17:26 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507101726.006b1158@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? JRC: I appreciate the civil tone in your posting on this topic. I was not fully aware of the historic background of the "gang of four", and might have chosen a different caricature to respond to Alexis with had I known. You're right that such a negative comment is in bad taste, and I shouldn't have joined into the mud fight that was going on at the time. I was trying to pick a strong, attention-grabbing, graphic image, in writing to Alexis, but did not pick a good one, nor add the necessary "" in clarification. I agree with you that the theosophical groups, as we currently know them, won't exist long into the next century. They will have to change by necessity or disappear entirely. But I would disagree, perhaps, on what would be the appropriate direction to change them into. There are a number of different approaches that might be tried, and I could see myself working in a different experimental approach than you might be working in. Hopefully these distinct approaches will stay in mutual tolerance and harmony, recognizing that they all work towards the same ultimate goal of unselfish service. -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Tue May 7 10:17:29 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 03:17:29 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507101729.006a7fe0@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance JRC: I recognize the stress put upon Universal Brotherhood by the founders of the T.S. I don't disagree with its importance, as a single doctrine. Before we can apply it, though, we need to know what it is and what it means. That means more than simply benevolence and love for others. An sincere love without any grounding in the esoteric philosophy makes someone no better than a traditional Christian. And sincere, but misinformed people, can cause the most evil in the world, like the Inquisition, the burning of the Witches, the Crusades, etc. We need to put others first -- or rather not have selfishness cloud our judgement -- but in addition to wanting to do good, there must be something we have to offer. Are we true to our inner callings? Have we acquired some wisdom that we can impart? Have we developed the ability to make art and music to give to the world? Are we a financial genius, able to make money that can be used for charitable purposes? A willingness to serve others and make the world a better place is only half the equation. The other half is following our inner calling and personally flowering. We perfect who and what we are, expanding what we have to offer. -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Tue May 7 10:36:19 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 03:36:19 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507103619.006cd258@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Pundits Versus Saints? How About Both? Doss: >>>May be it is time that we should administer a quiz on the important >>>fundamental principles and practice to all the Officers of TS >>>all over the world and see how they fare. The grades must be >>>published openly. Such of those who flunk should be asked to go back >>>and re-read some of the early works. How about a pop quiz on theos-l? >>The problem with this, is that we would reward someone >>because of book-learning or letter. I would prefer our leaders to >>have inner spirit. But who will test for this? Why an either/or situation? Certainly we don't need saints without any training or knowledge of the spirit, not any more than we need lifeless, arid intellectuals without any remaining warmth in their hearts! >>Jerry S. >Good question. May be we can talk to them and test the inner spirit >by the outer responses and results? How do we determine that someone is qualified to be a Rabbi, a college professor, an airline pilot, a bona fide Guru? If we want someone able to teach and promote a specific body of doctrines as Theosophy, we'd certainly want them to have some understanding of the subject. They may not be Saints or Mahatmas, but they could be trained and qualified pundits. For this to be acceptable, of course, requires that some recognize a body of doctrines or Mystery Teachings to Theosophy, and have sufficient understanding of them to distinguish them in general terms. Others, not believing in such a thing, would have to content themselves to other approaches. On the one hand, I don't think it appropriate that the people that follow and appreciate the theosophical doctrines force them upon unwilling non-believers. On the other hand, I won't agree to the people that don't believe there is a definite body of doctrines, rooted in the true nature of life -- I won't agree to them opposing groups or organizations dedicated to promoting the teachings. There's certainly enough room in this world for both types of approaches and both types of groups to coexist! -- Eldon From ramadoss@eden.com Tue May 7 03:55:01 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 22:55:01 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960507225733.229f9064@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance Eldon; You have raised some very fundamental and important questions. As a start, may be each one of us can respond by stating what Universal Brotherhood means to them and how it relates in a practical way to the upliftment of our fellow humans. Out of this exchange of ideas may come a better understanding of the multi-faceted aspects of Universal Brotherhood. I completely agree that none of the ideas can be enforced on anybody using any external means. Each one of us have to understand what it means to us and implement it every minute of our daily life. ...doss At 11:28 PM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >Doss: > >[writing to JRC] > >>It does not take a genius or learned pundit to open their eyes >> and see what is going on around the world. There is continual >>wars of all kinds going on. People kill other people for politics, >>religion, nationalism, you name it. Look at all the refugees all >>over the world. Look also at the exploitation that goes in various >>facets of all our lives. Greed and corruption and exploitation of >>those who really need to be protected and cared for by those who >>are with more knowledge etc. > >You're right and stating the obvious when you mention the >warfare, greed, corruption, and exploitation that exists in >the world. And the world would be a better place if we could >help to eliminate them. But you avoid the question of what >is the doctrine of "Universal Brotherhood" and how does it >fit in with the other theosophical doctrines. And also avoided >is the question of how *all* the doctrines apply to making >the world a better place. > >We need peace, self-control in our needs, honesty, and a >willingness to treat people fairly. These and many other >moral, ethical qualities are needed if our world is to >improve. But the ability to understand and practice ethics >is something that arises *from within*, and not imposed >externally by some social or political program. The need >to externally impose some minimal socially-acceptable >behavior is only needed for criminals, misfits, the mentally >ill, or people otherwise unable to make the grade and be >an ordinary, contributing member of society. > >>An ounce of application of Universal Brotherhood will go a >>long way. > >A better term would be "a conscious practice of the >bodhisattva vow would go a long way." We're expected >to rise above our selfish natures and to be of benefit >to other sentient beings. > >>Can one person solve all world's problems. Certainly >>not. Can each one of us do something about it in our >>own lives. Yes we can. If more and more of us >>become sensitive to these issues with Universal Brotherhood >>as the backbone, then gradually we can exponentially affect >>all those with whom we come into contact in our daily life >>as well as not be involved in any activity which >>is hurtful from the point of Universal Brotherhood. > >I agree with all you've said here. But since there are >many ideas and implications behind the doctrine of "Universal >Brotherhood", like compassion, service to others, harmlessness, >etc., we need to explore what it is, and not remain >satisfied to let it remain an inarticulate keyword or phrase. > >>Am I crying in the wilderness? May be? If we do not recognize >>the idea of Universal Brotherhood, then what are our goals >>and how are they going to affect other living beings? > >You're not crying in the wilderness. But you may feel more >alone than you need to be, if you fail to recognize the >same approach to bettering the world carried on by others >under a different banner. > >>This is a question each one of us can ask and try to find >>an answer. > >It comes back to a very basic question: How can I be of the >best benefit to life, to all sentient beings? Some people >may find it appropriate to study, meditate, and deal with >small numbers of people they meet in their day-to-day lives. >Others may feel drawn to grander plans that grab the attention >of millions of people. Which is better? Neither -- any >approach that is true to one's best judgment and conscience >is equally appropriate and good to the world. We need, I >think, to leave behind that narrowness of mind that would >say: "Here is my way to make the world better, and if you >won't follow it and do as I say, you are a bad person, >selfish, and lacking in compassion for others!" Instead, >we need greater sensitivity to our own inner calling. > >-- Eldon > > From SeussInUse@gnn.com Tue May 7 13:59:30 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 13:54:25 From: SeussInUse@gnn.com (Virginia Behrens) Message-Id: <199605071759.NAA19905@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Dora On Sat, 04 May 1996 15:42:44 -0400 Liesel f. deutsch wrote in response to my question (below): >V., >Is this the same Dora who is living in the Seattle area (state of >Washington, US) and is connected to Ocras Island? > >L., >yes. If you can get some info from her, that would be good too. I >think she's more skilled at that sort of thing than anyone else I >know. Liesel, It is a small world. A dear friend of mine lives in Seattle and has been studying under Dora for the last two years. I can find all I need to know from my friend. This is really coming round (and round and round) the circle (or should I say spiral) for me. Thanks again, Virginia P.S. Wonder why no one else responded to your orginial quotes from I.U., unless I missed them because they were on theos-l (I'm not subscribed currently to that list). From SeussInUse@gnn.com Tue May 7 14:01:11 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 13:55:05 From: SeussInUse@gnn.com (Virginia Behrens) Message-Id: <199605071800.OAA17710@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: nucleus nomenclature On Sat, 4 May 1996 16:24:35 -0400 liesel f. deutsch wrote: >I interpret the ladies saying "man","he", to mean all humankind, >but they were so used to thinking of men as the big shots, as the >only ones who really counted, that they just automatically said >"he". I know that I still, to this day, when I hear about a person >in charge, an authority figure, automatically picture the person >as a man. As for instance, our head building maintenance mechanic >is retiring, & I heard that he was being replaced by a woman. My >first reaction was "A woman can't do that job!" Very >automatically, very ingrained. I think it's more that which we >find in the older literature. Women just didn't count for much in >the way of authority, and so even they tended to think of >"humanity" as "man". Liesel and all others, My comment had been fairly extreme, I admit, but I wanted to express the feeling coming on me when reading the "message behind the words" of earlier female (occult, esoteric) authors. You have articulated that message wonderfully above. It is a subtle, almost unconscious orientation towards the position that females are "less than". I guess, when it comes to people as spiritual beings relating to each other down here I have never seen myself, though female, as "less than" in any way. Therefore, I don't see any other females that way either. But I recognize, alas, that among females seeing this way is distinctly in the minority. Virginia From alexei@slip.net Tue May 7 19:18:31 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 12:18:31 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507191831.0069c528@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: nucleus nomenclature At 02:07 PM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: > >On Sat, 4 May 1996 16:24:35 -0400 liesel f. deutsch wrote: > >>I interpret the ladies saying "man","he", to mean all humankind, >>but they were so used to thinking of men as the big shots, as the >>only ones who really counted, that they just automatically said >>"he". I know that I still, to this day, when I hear about a person >>in charge, an authority figure, automatically picture the person >>as a man. As for instance, our head building maintenance mechanic >>is retiring, & I heard that he was being replaced by a woman. My >>first reaction was "A woman can't do that job!" Very >>automatically, very ingrained. I think it's more that which we >>find in the older literature. Women just didn't count for much in >>the way of authority, and so even they tended to think of >>"humanity" as "man". > >Liesel and all others, > >My comment had been fairly extreme, I admit, but I wanted to >express the feeling coming on me when reading the "message behind >the words" of earlier female (occult, esoteric) authors. You have >articulated that message wonderfully above. It is a subtle, almost >unconscious orientation towards the position that females are "less >than". I guess, when it comes to people as spiritual beings >relating to each other down here I have never seen myself, though >female, as "less than" in any way. Therefore, I don't see any >other females that way either. But I recognize, alas, that among >females seeing this way is distinctly in the minority. > >Virginia > Virginia: My Mother, who is 90 years old (May 4th) has had a long and successful career (she was a magazine editor) and to the best I can figure out she always felt that men where inherently inferior to women except in things mechanical. She grew up in an age were women were oppressed but she just never allowed herself to BE oppressed. By the way if you lived here in Northern California, you'd see that "the times they are a changin" and the women who think of themselves as fully equal (if not more so) are hardly a minority. America's social changes would appear to "percolate" from the "edges inwards". Of course, that's my experience, except for my many years in Europe, I've spent my whole life either on one coast or the other. My Mother calls this "Bi-Coastalism". alexis d. > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue May 7 18:45:25 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 14:45:25 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605071950.PAA27112@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: nucleus nomenclature Virginia, Re: brotherhood- I think the worst part of it is that any young female hearing "Brotherhood" is going to be turned off right away, & we do need young members. But it rubs me the wrong way as well. I know exactly how it's meant, but it comes out being disrespectful of females. We don't count quite as much, except when it comes to doing the work. Re: Dora- If you have access to Dora, that would be the best. I didn't think she taught anymore. You won't get any misinformation from her. Liesel > >On Sat, 4 May 1996 16:24:35 -0400 liesel f. deutsch wrote: > >>I interpret the ladies saying "man","he", to mean all humankind, >>but they were so used to thinking of men as the big shots, as the >>only ones who really counted, that they just automatically said >>"he". I know that I still, to this day, when I hear about a person >>in charge, an authority figure, automatically picture the person >>as a man. As for instance, our head building maintenance mechanic >>is retiring, & I heard that he was being replaced by a woman. My >>first reaction was "A woman can't do that job!" Very >>automatically, very ingrained. I think it's more that which we >>find in the older literature. Women just didn't count for much in >>the way of authority, and so even they tended to think of >>"humanity" as "man". > >Liesel and all others, > >My comment had been fairly extreme, I admit, but I wanted to >express the feeling coming on me when reading the "message behind >the words" of earlier female (occult, esoteric) authors. You have >articulated that message wonderfully above. It is a subtle, almost >unconscious orientation towards the position that females are "less >than". I guess, when it comes to people as spiritual beings >relating to each other down here I have never seen myself, though >female, as "less than" in any way. Therefore, I don't see any >other females that way either. But I recognize, alas, that among >females seeing this way is distinctly in the minority. > >Virginia > > > > From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Tue May 7 01:11:31 1996 Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:11:31 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <318EA343.5B72@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance References: <2.2.16.19960506231001.27f7879a@mail.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ramadoss@eden.com wrote: > > John: > > It does not take a genius or learned pundit to open their eyes and see what > is going on around the world. There is continual wars of all kinds going on. > People kill other people for politics, religion, nationalism, you name it. > Look at all the refugees all over the world. Look also at the exploitaion > that goes in various facets of all our lives. Greed and corruption and > exploitation of those who really need to be protected and cared for by those > who are with more knowledge etc. > > An ounce of application of Universal Brotherhood will go a long way. Can one > person solve all world's problems. Certainly not. Can each one of us do > something about it in our own lives. Yes we can. If more and more of us > become sensitive to these issues with Universal Brotherhood as the backbone, > then gradually we can exponentially affect all those with whom we come into > contact in our daily life as well as not be involved in any activity which > is hurtful from the point of Universal Brotherhood. > > Am I crying in the wilderness? May be? If we do not recognize the idea of > Universal Brotherhood, then what are our goals and how are they going to > affect other living beings? This is a question each one of us can ask and > try to find an answer. > > ...dossI agree,Doss, and try to do my little bit in my backyard to lighten the atmosphere. When I read AB's book on Thoughts a few years back, I was really amazed to realise that I could have an effect just by what I thought and this has become clearer as time goes by and now I try to keep only thoughts that are helpful to the thought world in mind. It isn't easy but I keep reminding myself what I am trying to do and little by little many stupid thoughts are no longer there and at time there do not seem to be any thoughts there at all. Here in NZ I see the effects of Gov policy having a dreadful effects on the people who work in their dept, eg Inland Revenue, hospitals, Housing Corp etc. People are having stress leave all over the place and some just cannot work in the catch 22 situation that has been created. Brotherhood is completely lacking and our politicians are a joke, after all we only have 3 mil people and most of them are kids or elderly so what is left???? Sounds the same the world over. I wonder if soon something has to give. I think the earth is going to have a big shake and get rid of us for a while. > > > >Eldon wrote: > > > >> >This statement of Rich's is important, something that we overlook > >> >far too often. The idea of "universal brotherhood", under whatever > >> >sanitized words we want to call it, *is a doctrine*. > > No, on this I *strongly* disagree. It is not a doctrine (at > >as it is used in Theosophical circles), it is a *goal*, an "Object". > > > >> >As far as doctrines go, it is not any more supreme than any of > >> >the others. It can, though, be discussed in as great a depth as > >> >any of the others, going from superficial, casual descriptions > >> >into views that are profoundly occult. > > In *the Theosophy of the Adepts*, it *IS* most definately > >"more supreme" - it is what they *continually* stressed ... whenever > >anyone, from Sinnet to Hume to HPB herself, wished to make Theosophy > >into a study of "doctrines", or the initial practices of some sort > >of practical occult development, they always responded by saying > >that any such things had to be pursued with the understanding that > >it was not to be at the *expense* of the work of Universal > >Brotherhood, and indeed that it was only to further the service of > >that work that such secondary studies were to be pursued. > > You may evaluate it - for yourself - as being a "doctrine", the > >understanding of which is of no greater or lesser importance than the > >understanding of karma, or the races and rounds, but that is most > >assuredly not how the Adepts evaluated it (at least, if the ML can be > >taken as a sign of the importance they put on it), and in fact the ML are > >full of the seemingly almost continual frustration at not being able to > >get people to understand this (or to even take it seriously). > > Were someone (say Sinnet) to have actually *asked* the Adepts > >"What is the *single* idea you'd most like the western world to > >understand as the result of Theosophical work?" - what do you think they > >would have answered? Karma? The particular "round" the earth is in? I > >believe they were quite clear, in numerous places, about the privileged > >position of "Universal Brotherhood". > > It was not presented as simply one of many "doctrines" ... it > >was presented as a spiritual truth, who's manifestation and incarnation > >in human civilization they considered the single most important mission > >for the Theosophical Society. They did not say that study groups intended > >to examine occult philosophy, anthro or cosmo genesis, or even to pursue > >occult "development" were not appropriate activities within the larger > >Theosophical umbrella, but they *did* always say these things were to be > >pursued *in addition to*, not *instead of* the work of Universal > >Bortherhood. > > -JRC > > -- Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From ramadoss@eden.com Tue May 7 05:17:19 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 00:17:19 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance In-Reply-To: <318EA343.5B72@whanganui.ac.nz> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi Bee: Your message was very refreshing to read. It is 12:15 AM here. I think if each one of us can do a little in our own way to the best of our understanding and ability, we will be affecting everything and everyone around us in whatever imperceptible (for our perceptions) way. It would be interesting to hear the feedback from other participants. ...doss On Tue, 7 May 1996, Bee Brown wrote: > ramadoss@eden.com wrote: > > > > John: > > > > It does not take a genius or learned pundit to open their eyes and see what > > is going on around the world. There is continual wars of all kinds going on. > > People kill other people for politics, religion, nationalism, you name it. > > Look at all the refugees all over the world. Look also at the exploitaion > > that goes in various facets of all our lives. Greed and corruption and > > exploitation of those who really need to be protected and cared for by those > > who are with more knowledge etc. > > > > An ounce of application of Universal Brotherhood will go a long way. Can one > > person solve all world's problems. Certainly not. Can each one of us do > > something about it in our own lives. Yes we can. If more and more of us > > become sensitive to these issues with Universal Brotherhood as the backbone, > > then gradually we can exponentially affect all those with whom we come into > > contact in our daily life as well as not be involved in any activity which > > is hurtful from the point of Universal Brotherhood. > > > > Am I crying in the wilderness? May be? If we do not recognize the idea of > > Universal Brotherhood, then what are our goals and how are they going to > > affect other living beings? This is a question each one of us can ask and > > try to find an answer. > > > > ...dossI agree,Doss, and try to do my little bit in my backyard to lighten the > atmosphere. When I read AB's book on Thoughts a few years back, I was > really amazed to realise that I could have an effect just by what I > thought and this has become clearer as time goes by and now I try to keep > only thoughts that are helpful to the thought world in mind. It isn't > easy but I keep reminding myself what I am trying to do and little by > little many stupid thoughts are no longer there and at time there do not > seem to be any thoughts there at all. Here in NZ I see the effects of Gov > policy having a dreadful effects on the people who work in their dept, eg > Inland Revenue, hospitals, Housing Corp etc. People are having stress > leave all over the place and some just cannot work in the catch 22 > situation that has been created. Brotherhood is completely lacking and > our politicians are a joke, after all we only have 3 mil people and most > of them are kids or elderly so what is left???? > Sounds the same the world over. I wonder if soon something has to give. I > think the earth is going to have a big shake and get rid of us for a > while. > > > > > >Eldon wrote: > > > > > >> >This statement of Rich's is important, something that we overlook > > >> >far too often. The idea of "universal brotherhood", under whatever > > >> >sanitized words we want to call it, *is a doctrine*. > > > No, on this I *strongly* disagree. It is not a doctrine (at > > >as it is used in Theosophical circles), it is a *goal*, an "Object". > > > > > >> >As far as doctrines go, it is not any more supreme than any of > > >> >the others. It can, though, be discussed in as great a depth as > > >> >any of the others, going from superficial, casual descriptions > > >> >into views that are profoundly occult. > > > In *the Theosophy of the Adepts*, it *IS* most definately > > >"more supreme" - it is what they *continually* stressed ... whenever > > >anyone, from Sinnet to Hume to HPB herself, wished to make Theosophy > > >into a study of "doctrines", or the initial practices of some sort > > >of practical occult development, they always responded by saying > > >that any such things had to be pursued with the understanding that > > >it was not to be at the *expense* of the work of Universal > > >Brotherhood, and indeed that it was only to further the service of > > >that work that such secondary studies were to be pursued. > > > You may evaluate it - for yourself - as being a "doctrine", the > > >understanding of which is of no greater or lesser importance than the > > >understanding of karma, or the races and rounds, but that is most > > >assuredly not how the Adepts evaluated it (at least, if the ML can be > > >taken as a sign of the importance they put on it), and in fact the ML are > > >full of the seemingly almost continual frustration at not being able to > > >get people to understand this (or to even take it seriously). > > > Were someone (say Sinnet) to have actually *asked* the Adepts > > >"What is the *single* idea you'd most like the western world to > > >understand as the result of Theosophical work?" - what do you think they > > >would have answered? Karma? The particular "round" the earth is in? I > > >believe they were quite clear, in numerous places, about the privileged > > >position of "Universal Brotherhood". > > > It was not presented as simply one of many "doctrines" ... it > > >was presented as a spiritual truth, who's manifestation and incarnation > > >in human civilization they considered the single most important mission > > >for the Theosophical Society. They did not say that study groups intended > > >to examine occult philosophy, anthro or cosmo genesis, or even to pursue > > >occult "development" were not appropriate activities within the larger > > >Theosophical umbrella, but they *did* always say these things were to be > > >pursued *in addition to*, not *instead of* the work of Universal > > >Bortherhood. > > > -JRC > > > > > -- > > > > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L > > > From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue May 7 05:31:05 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 01:31:05 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960507013105_108217889@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? Alex, That is very true, but you know I am not one to suffer in silence. But thus far none of these terrible things has happened to me. Maybe I lead a charmed life or something. Anyway, we'll see what happens as what we do on this list gets around. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue May 7 05:32:02 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 01:32:02 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960507013202_108218399@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TS as "abortion" Rich, The problem with trying to align anything with the Adepts is that we really know so damnably little about them. True, we have writings of HPB and the Colonel, and WQJ for that matter, as well as the Mahatma Letters, but they leave us with more questions than answers. As a personal matter, while I believe in the Masters I do not necessarily believe the Masters. OK, you can take a moment to smooth your hair back down from that one. Why do I say that? Well, look at the evidence. We have the word of HPB and the Colonel and WQJ that the Masters exist and they were in communication with them. Very good. But did the Masters tell them the entire truth or just those things it was either convenient or appropriate for them to hear? We have the Mahatma letters, but they are just one side of the conversation and if you have ever listened to one person talking on the phone you know what I mean. Things can become pretty garbled. Add to that the reality of what one local Theosophist terms "Mr. Spookapook" and you get an interesting possible mix of real Adepts and astral pranksters. It is a combination that makes any theosophical movement based on alignment with them very difficult at best and in my admittedly arrogant view accounts for a lot of the mess our early brethren found themselves in. The truth is that such an alignment would probably be impossible under any circumstances, humans being what they are and theosophists being the most argumentative and bull-headed of the lot. We have enough trouble aligning our cars with the road at times. So where do we really go from here? I think that right now the best thing to do is wait and see what happens in the next few years. The TS (Adyar) is in a weird historic period as spiritual organizations go. It has to do something but cannot quite figure out what. But unlike my fellow gang members I am not about to write it off yet. There are too many variables at work for me to do that and I tend to be afflicted with more patience than dumb ol' Job at times. The other TS organizations have problems of their own and I know very little about them so I will not comment. TI has great potential but our very broadness and openness can put us in some difficulty at times, witness the continuing confusion over our statement of purpose and objects. So I am just going to sit back and watch for a while before making any decisions about starting something totally new. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue May 7 05:32:06 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 01:32:06 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960507013205_108218427@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The Big Question John, My question would be "How do we know you are telling us the truth?" Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From alexei@slip.net Tue May 7 05:46:14 1996 Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 22:46:14 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507054614.00691f0c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: The Big Question At 05:31 PM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >Now and then I ruminate about what the ML would have looked like *had >Sinnet asked different questions* ... but I thought it might provide an >interesting topic for the list (if anyone wants to take it up): > > If *you* (anyone on the list that wants to respond) were given >the opportunity to ask *one question* of an Adept, what would that >question be? > > -JRC > >I think my primary question would have to be: Why are your various letters so mutually contradictory? akexus d. From alexei@slip.net Tue May 7 05:56:44 1996 Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 22:56:44 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507055644.006a2718@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Mind, matter and evolution At 07:07 PM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>cut<<<<<<< > > While matter follows mind, experience tells us that the >reverse is also true--hunger affects our dreams, pain affects our >thought processes, and so on. To take the idea of mind over matter >to its natural conclusion is pure Magic--healing at the very least. Is >this what we theosophists should be doing? > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > Jerry: As you know better than most, when it comes to "magic" and healing is in a way magic, because it conforms to the definition "alter reality in conformity with will", there are quite a few people who regularly do that. There are unfortunately very very few of us theosophists that do that, some theosophists that might be able to do it, but won't, and a majority of theosophists who neither can do it nor will do it. As I see and do healing it is a first object action not a third object action. What is more productive of a nucleus of "Brother-Sisterhood" than restoring life and health to a person in need. What better demonstrates the reality of the greater reality beyond human reality more clearly than healing someone from a terrible disease when medicine has totally "given up"? As I see it, that's far more productive than aporting tea cups. alexis d. > From alexei@slip.net Tue May 7 06:09:29 1996 Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 23:09:29 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507060929.006afc04@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? At 08:10 PM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960506070650.006c1d70@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>In fact you're >>probably viewed as one of the principle leaders of the "Gang". Cheer up >>though, you're in good company. >> >>alexis d. > >Sorry, but I fail to see how or why or when and by whom was I *named* in >such a context. Daft. along with JRC (see other post) I deny >membership in any "gang"! > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan: Have you been missing posts? You, along with J.R.C., Jerry Schueler, Chuck and Myself were "named" or "anointed" the "Gang of Four" (Don't ask me why he said "four" when "five" were named in response to a post of mine. Now I hasten to add that I never originated the sobriquet. I had been responding to a message that said that this was a board on religious topics dealing with a specific religion..Theosophy. My remark was that "no it isn't and it won't be because, I, and Alan, and Chuck, and Jerry Schueler and J.R.C. won't let it be". In response Eldon dubbed us his chinese sobriquet. That's how it happened, and rather than feel hurt about it, we decided (individually) to play "Cyrano" and take the insult as a banner (for a while at least, as you notice, I've long since dropped any reference to it). I thought I had previously explained this to you much earlier but perhaps the system ate the posting. In any case that's the story. We've made our point to Eldon now, and as far as I'm concerned JRC handled the scolding of Eldon very well. I will say, however, that it's hardly something for you to get "miffed" at any of the five of us over, if you want to be "miffed' look to Eldon. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Tue May 7 06:15:14 1996 Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 23:15:14 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507061514.006aa61c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TS/Democratic Spirit & Hierarchical Feeling At 09:56 PM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>cut<<<<<<<< > The problem with this, is that we would reward someone >because of book-learning or letter. I would prefer our leaders to >have inner spirit. But who will test for this? > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Tests for Theosophists are hardly what the founders had in mind, but if there were going to be tests for putative theosophical "leaders", it ought to be an Aura comparison and folks with "muddy or dim Auras" being rejected for leadership positions. I'd have loved to compare Blavatsky's, Olcott's or Judge's Auras with those of the "second generation leadership. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Tue May 7 06:21:51 1996 Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 23:21:51 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507062151.006a22b4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB's sources At 10:05 PM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >>But I would look first for HPB's Stanzas of Dzyan in the various tantras, >>particularly the "inner" and "secret" parts of Kalachakra tantra which David >>Reigle is pointing at. > > Rich, I agree with you here, and I think Buddhist Tantras >are the place to look. But how do you jive this idea with HPB's >constant ridicule and scorn of tantricism? > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Jerry: HPB was perfectly correct in her total rejection of Tantra. In the past many years I have associated with many valid and "advanced" Indian Teachers including Sri Aurobindo and some of Yogananda's original disciples and they all agree that Tantra is harmful and foolish. Aurobindo said that Tantra results from the unfortunate Human propensity to utterly confuse symbols with what they symbolize. Most of the highest level Indian teachers I know personally agree that not simply is Tantra a complete waste of spiritual effort but that it is personally dangerous as well. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Tue May 7 06:31:28 1996 Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 23:31:28 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507063128.006add54@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Original Posting Regarding "The Gang of Four" At 10:24 PM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >Following is the original posting where the term "the >Gang of Four" arose. Note that it was a comment in >the subject. My only reference to "the four of you" >was with regard to your rejecting external authority. >Alexis was the only one to object to the statement, >saying that he was definitely anti-religious in any >regard. > Eldon: You have engaged in selective quotation and editing here. and you've changed "Gang of four" into "four of You". Now I know your predilections for "Spin doctoring" and I assume this is an instance. But I think you're grabbing at an opportunity caused by my misunderstanding vis a vis "fruitcake" (and it's not a total misunderstanding only a regional difference)to imply that either I, or all of us, "got it wrong again". But I didn't, and Chuck didn't and other folks saw the original posting too. I know you enjoy always being right, but this is carrying it too far, too far indeed. Now, I for one, as you may have noticed if you cared to look, am no longer even referring to the subject, nor is JRC, and certainly not Alan or Jerry Schueler. Chuck's having far too much fun to stop. But I really think you should. Let it drop Eldon. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Tue May 7 06:37:12 1996 Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 23:37:12 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507063712.006968d8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Paul Brunton's Comments on the TS At 10:49 PM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >>> >Hi Alexis. I agree. I first stumbled on the Noteboooks in 1991. I felt like I'd come home. In the thousands of entries contained therein, (and I've not read them all) I've yet to read one that did not strike a chord. During 1992 I went through all 16 Notebooks and extracted every reference I could find to theosophical history, teachers, people, places, schools etc. The exercise resulted in some 90 A4 typed pages. I was using a typewriter at the time so I don't have a text file to send to any interested parties. >Here's another entry that relates to the two above: Notebook 10 (The Orient: Its Legacy to the West) Chapter One (Meetings of East and West) Subdivision - Western Assimilation of Eastern Thought. >... The western peoples will never be converted wholesale to Hinduism or Buddhism as religions, nor will their intelligentsia take wholesale to Vedanta or Theosophy as philosophies. These forms are too alien and too exotic to affect the general mass. Historically, they have only succeeded in affecting scattered individuals. The West's spiritual revival must and can come only out of its own creative and native mind.... > >and also from volume Ten > >..Regarding Blavatsky's teachings, it is not essential nowadays to know all that she taught. Nevertheless a book like her Key to Theosophy provides an excellent preparation for the study of philosophy. But present-day students do not need to study her writings first, as the point of view in the present teaching is different from that taken in her published work. In her esoteric instruction, her students were told "to reduce everything to terms of consiousness." This, of course, is pure mentalism. >Nice chatting with you >Darrin > > >Darrin: I've got a number of Paul Brunton's works but not the Notebooks. I will look for them and see if I can find them in print somewhere. If I don't locate them would you be willing to xerox them and mail them to me? I'd be happy to cover your costs. I certainly have noproblems with, and in fact agree with both of your quotations. They represent things I've been saying and teaching for over 20 years now. But I'm sure you must know that you're going to get in trouble! Nice chatting with you again. I have a house guest who arrived three weeks ago from Syndey (He started out in Guernsey) alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Tue May 7 06:41:44 1996 Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 23:41:44 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507064144.006b3668@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Brunton's tale of a Bonze Monk and HPB At 10:50 PM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >>From Paul Brunton's Notebooks >Volume Ten The Orient. >Chapter Four: Ceylon , Angkor Wat, Burma, Java. >Subdivision: Angkor Wat. > >Darrin: The excerpt below is really interesting. Now I know I want to get those Notebooks. I am extremely interested in Western Occultism and Metaphysics. alexis d. > >"The line of sages which had penetrated into the secret of the First and= > gave these symbolic religions to the masses has shifted its headquarters= > from epoch to epoch. From the sixth to the thirteenth centuries it= > flourished in Angkor, but for seven hundred years before that it flourished= > in South India. Reminders of this earlier centre exist in plenty in the= > architectural forms and sculptural details. Even the Sanskrit used by the= > Brahmin priests in Cambodia is of Pallava (South Indian) origin. But the= > wheel of karma turned, the Cambodian empire declined and disappeared with a= > rapidity which outran the fall of the Romans. The rulers were dazzled by= > wealth and conquest=20and failed to heed the advice of the sages. The= > latter withdrew and migrated to Tibet. >"You ask me if they are the same adepts as those spoken of by H.P.Blavatsky.= > When she was a girl and fled from her husband, she accidentally met a group= > of Russian Buddhist Kalmucks who were proceeding by a roundabout route on= > pilgrimage to the Dalai Lama of Tibet. She joined the caravan as a means= > of escape from her husband. One of them was an adept. He took care of her= > and protected her and brought her to Lhasa. She was initiated in due= > course into the secret tradition. She visited other parts of Tibet and= > also India. Before the existance of the Angkor ruins was known in the= > West, she was sent there to continue her studies and to receive a certain= > contact by meditation in the temples. H.P.B. went but experienced great= > difficulty in travelling through the uncleared jungle; however, she bravely= > suffered all discomforts. Later, she was introduced to a codisciple, who= > eventually became a High Lama and a personal advisor to the Dalai Lama. He= > was the son of a Mongolian prince, but for public purposes took the name of= > "The Thunderbolt" - that is, "Dorje'. On account of his personal knowledge= > of and interest in Russia, he gradually altered it to "Dorjeff." Before= > their guru died, he instructed Blavatsky to give a most elementary part of= > the secret tradition to the Western people, while he instructed Dorjeff to= > follow her further career with watchful interest. Dorjeff gave her certain= > advice; she went to America and founded the Theosophical Society. Her guru= > had forbidden her to give out his name. Moreover, she knew much more of= > the teachings than she revealed. But she was always fearful of saying too= > much, so she constantly created what she called 'blinds' and wrapped her= > truthful secrets in imaginary clothes. I may say no more. However, the= > poor woman was unjustly maligned by her enemies. Her sole desire was to= > help humanity. They could never understand her peculiar character nor her= > Oriental methods. Her society did an enormous service to white people by= > opening their eyes to Eastern truths. But its real mission is over; hence= > its present weak condition. A new instrument will take up the work in 1939= > and give a higher revelation to the world, which is now better prepared.But= > the beginning of this work will be as quiet and unnoticed as the planting= > of a seed. It is 108 years since H.P.B.'s birth. There are 108 steps on= > the path to Nirvana. Amongst all the Yogis of the Himalaya, 108 is= > regarded as the most sacred number. It is also kabbalistically connected= > with the year 1939 in a most important way. Therefore, this year will= > witness the departure of the adepts from Tibet. Their location was always a= > secret; even most of the High Lamas never knew it. Tibet has lost its= > value for them; its isolation had begun to disappear rapidly and its rulers= > no longer respond faithfully to them. They leave Tibet seven hundred years= > after their arrival." > > > From alexei@slip.net Tue May 7 07:07:06 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 00:07:06 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507070706.00690464@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? At 01:34 AM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >That is very true, but you know I am not one to suffer in silence. But thus >far none of these terrible things has happened to me. Maybe I lead a charmed >life or something. Anyway, we'll see what happens as what we do on this list >gets around. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >As to "suffering in silence" I am hardly one to do that either. There are things I really dislike on this board. like writing to one person in what is largely a one on one vein and getting flamed from dear saintly Eldon because, not of something I said to hem, but because of something I said to either you, or jerry or John Cooper. Now, it seems to me that IF I insulted him personally, then it would be in a message TO him, and then he has a right to respond in any way he likes. But If I say to you that I think so and so is a pain in the ass, that's primarily something between you and I. Does that mean I have to correspond with those people I trust and like only in private messages? If so, I'm certainly going to do so. I am really getting tired of Eldon"s lectures and his spin doctoring, which I consider inherently dishonest. Maybe it's better policy for me, that when I'm not making postings dealing with purely intellectual and occult matters, to put any messages that refer at all to my personal feelings, on private messages. The eldon and those like him will have nothing to complain about. It won't change how I've come to feel about them, they simply will not know about it. The more I think about this policy, the better I like it. Another thing that is mightily disturbing me vis a vis many theosophists, is that they talk about the importance of the first object, but what do they actually do about it? Just telling people it isn't brotherly not to be "nice" (which I'm not) is not worth a hill of beans. I'm a long time Karma Yogi, you know more than most the exact extent of it, I need to know how reading and quoting the Secret Doctrine actually furthers "Brotherhood"? I know the voter registration drive in Georgia and Alabama did. Brother-sisterhood, it seems to me, is not much furthered from the top of an ivory tower. It's beginning to appear to me as if the Theosophical Ivory Tower possesses no stairway or elevator which takes one down to earth level. alexis d. From Richtay@aol.com Tue May 7 07:07:14 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 03:07:14 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960507030714_392503752@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL Jerry writes, > Rich, you seem to have already reached your conclusion (i.e, > that there IS a difference). I guess all JHE has to do now is to tie > up some loose ends? Apparently Jim can go home. (?) JHE was > unable to demonstrate to me that any real differences exist. Now Jim > wants to try his luck. Jerry, you are certainly right that I am positive that differences agree between HPB and the Besant/CWL/AAB stuff that came later. And I am certain that you think there are differences as well. You have admitted this many times over. The question is not, "Are there differences?" but rather, "What kind of differences are there?" You seem to be maintaining that the differences are merely semantic. I agree that there are some issues which are purely semantic. You do not believe that there are substantial differences. I say there are. But I want to ask a psychological question now, and I am truly interested in your answer. If the differences between HPB and many of her later followers were purely semantic, and this could be fairly well demonstrated, why do you think there is such opposition to these later systems from "purists" (aka "fundamentalists") like me? Do you think I am so blind as to believe that the world begins and ends with HPB? Don't you think I would be THRILLED to find as many people as possible spreading the teachings of Theosophy? If I actually thought that Leadbetter was teaching the same basic substance that HPB was teaching, with just slightly difference words, a minor change here or there, a few personal touches, why do you think I would not welcome CWL with open arms? There are a few points that I do not agree with Purucker about, but you will NEVER catch me badmouthing him, even though he is not a "ULT" oriented teacher. Purucker, it seems to me, goes beyond HPB in a few areas, but in almost every case is teaching the same things she is, sometimes using different words. So I don't quarrel with Purucker students, and I am thrilled that they have come to the teachings through him. I have more friends than I can count down in Pasadena and Point Loma, even though we disagree on a few terminological points. That's peanuts. But I think Besant and CWL (and later AAB) did a MAJOR number on the teachings, left important things out, got the principles and planes bass-ackwards, and really jumbled up the public mind about Theosophy. Not least in their blunders (though AAB is quite innocent of this one) was the Krishnamurti scandal, in fact the whole endeavor of looking for a little boy to be the World Teacher, the lawsuits with K's father, and then poor Krishnaji finally walking out on the silly Theosophists (good for him !) It was a fiasco, start to finish. Not to mention CWL's BIZARRE psychic visions of life on Mars etc. etc. that have all been proved a bunch of rot, and even been removed from later versions of the CWL books. To me the differences are profound. But the discussion might show HOW and WHY they are different, the extent of the differences. That in itself would be important, and worth bothering with. From Richtay@aol.com Tue May 7 07:07:19 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 03:07:19 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960507030719_392503787@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: HPB's sources Rich writes and Jerry S. responds, > >But I would look first for HPB's Stanzas of Dzyan in the various tantras, > >particularly the "inner" and "secret" parts of Kalachakra tantra which David > >Reigle is pointing at. > > Rich, I agree with you here, and I think Buddhist Tantras > are the place to look. But how do you jive this idea with HPB's > constant ridicule and scorn of tantricism? If we look closely at HPB's statements (I don't have time to dig up all the quotes on this, but I will if anyone expresses SERIOUS doubt) we find that she distinguishes between the "left" and "right" hand paths. She tends to disparage the Red Caps as permissive, even "Sorcerors" while upholding the more "ascetic" Yellow Caps. I find this a rather broad, unfounded generalization, but nevertheless, we know that ALL the various schools have Tantras. HPB's great hero Tsong-Kha-Pa, the first (retroactive) Dalai Lama and leader of the Gelugpa "Reform" sect, was more reticent about teaching the Tantras, but supported them as well. So HPB was committed to the Buddhist inner teachings (Tantras) just by supporting ANY kind of Buddhism in Tibet. Then there is her statement in the S.D. (Preface, p. lxii) that the "very ancient manuscript" before her was the original of the books of "Kiu-Ti" which can be none other than the phonetic spelling of the Tibetan "rGyud-sDe" which is literally "Tantra." I think HPB would have had a VERY difficult time explaining to the Victorian public exactly how to distinguish between LITERAL and METAPHORICAL sexual symbolism, and so probably thought it better to leave off discussion of the Tantras. She was most certainly opposed to monks LITERALLY practicing sex according to Tantric symbolism, becuase it would not only break their vows but because of all the occult effects of sexual relations which she discusses in a few private documents. This is also the position of the Gelug-pa school today, that the sexual symbolism in the Tantras CANNOT be practised physically by monks. This is very disappointing to modern Westerners, who have rushed to the stores to buy "tantric sex" books. Forgive me, but I have only the most nauseous reaction to this kind of materialization of the Tantras. They were never meant as a kind of "Kama-sutra" to titillate the public, but formed the culmination of YEARS of straight Abhidharma and Mahayana study, reserved only for the elite, initiated few. This kind of materialization could only have been expected, however, and HPB thus spoke of Tantras as little as possible, knowing that they would be made public by the lama preservers soon enough. At least, that's my take on it. From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue May 7 07:10:35 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 03:10:35 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605070815.EAA13393@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Sister/Brotherhood as fact Hi Eldon, Towards the back of this book I'm reading by the Dalai Lama & a French filmwriter, called "Violence & Compassion", there's a perfect statement of what's meant: "Nothing exists separately....things appear, exist, and disappear. Unceasingly. But they never exist by themselves "Look at my hand, for example. It gives the impression of solidity, of coherence. It offers a precise form to those looking at it. It has all the appearances of an entity. but if I aks myself seriously, if I wonder, what is my hand? Is it this finger? Is it this part of the finger? No, I can only answer, My fingetr is my finger, it's not my hand. But in turn is it just an ensemble of fingers? No, since I can break those down into digits and study, look at, name these digits, one at a time. "Why stop there anyway? "Of course! I can go down deeper and deeper into the matter that's here without ever realy encocuntering my hand. "Yet you use your hand. "That's what it's there for. And I'm very satisfied with it. This combination of different elements, each one of which breaks down and all of which fit together is what we call 'hand'. It's ver simple. We designate it that way by a simple labor of the mind. That's what we call 'relative reality' "Which depends on other elements than itself? "Exactly. Because nothing exists without a cause. The profound nature of this hand is to belong to a whole network of influences, none of which is lasting. "That's why this hand will some day cease to be your hand." From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue May 7 07:29:21 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 03:29:21 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605070834.EAA23710@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: repartee vs. substance >here are several different factors= > behind such failures. The two which concern us here are first, lack of any= > practical workable method to implement the ideal, and second, belief in= > the delusion that a group can do better what only an individual can do for= > himself. This is where philosophy shows its superiority. In reference to= > the first of these two factors, it teaches us exactly what we can do with= > our bodies, our feelings, our thoughts, and our intuitions to bridge the= > wide gap between ideals and their actualization. In reference to the second= > factor, it proves that to practise individualism, self-reliance, is= > essential to real progress..... >Kind Regards >Darrin >Blavatsky Lodge, Sydney Australia Well put! Darrin! & thank you for saying it. As a Karma Yoga person, I've been saying for months exactly what you put so nicely. Maybe it'll sink in when you say it. Liesel From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Wed May 8 00:26:23 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 17:26:23 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <318FEA2F.6A37@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Breath References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > > In message <960506001847_287923765@emout17.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com > writes > >Anyway, it is possible to understand how Self may be able to "make a > >connection" with Spirit (Atma-Buddhi) because of the "verisimilitude of their > >ultra-rarefied Natures"; however, it is problematic to conceive of how Spirit > >can have any association with a physical body at all unless something else on > >the "Prakriti side of things" operated as its "threshold of interpentration." > > My considered response here is that it is rather that Spirit may, from > time to time, "make a connection" with Self - if Self is awake enough. > My experience suggests that Spirit (individual *or* universal) does not > have any association with a physical body other than "overseeing" one. > Spirit is a bit like a) Saturn, who eats his children, or b) The Great > Mother Goddess, who eats her children. Yes and I think the being 'awake enough' is the operative word. People find the idea of an impersonal Self a bit scary, they still like to have a friend on high. The Christian God seems to fill this need but the Buddhist philosophy does not. Better to be asleep in the lap of God than awake and alone in the wide world of self responsibility. > > This is another way (IMO) of saying that the interest of Spirit in the > human equation is to "digest" the experience of the life of the > individual Self - and *very very* occasionally to lend a hand in > emergencies. :-) > > I made a record of a 1977 (?) experience which I will try to find and > post for the possible interest of subscribers to the list. Extra good > karma will accrue to TI members ... :-) > > Alan > --------- > THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: > Ancient Wisdom for a New Age > TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html -- Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From poulsen@dk-online.dk Tue May 7 13:21:22 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 11:21:22 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3C07.7B561FA0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: Repartee vs. substance/Breath Encoding: 28 TEXT >My question to you is this: Is H.P.B.'s >inclusion of *Breath* in the scheme an innovation on her part, or is >*Breath* (or something equivalent) also present in original Kabalistic or >Eastern writings that you are aware of? (I.e., were the other versions I >heard first simply the result of people passing along the incomplete >saying?) Dear Richard, I am afraid that I have no clue to the exact source of the quote (but many kabbalistic works remain untranslated). In eastern sources - especially the upanishads - this breath is a whole science in itself. Both in its universal form as atma and its physical form of prana. But I think your question is related to the quote alone? Anyway it is one of the major topics of vedantic, esoteric philosophy. Like in the quote the vedantins are interested in the "motion of the philosophic system" - and follow the pattern of correlations of force - rather than stay with finite tabulations of elements/principles (which are valid only for a certain time-epoch or certain level of evolution. If you are interested in the upanishadic ideas of "breath", perhaps we could get back to this later (I have managed to entangle myself in threads just now) Your table of correspondences is excellent (in fact more a table of identification), breath is a common translation of prana. In friendship, Kim (was it dry enough :-) From poulsen@dk-online.dk Tue May 7 13:16:00 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 11:16:00 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3C07.764399C0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: HPB's sources Encoding: 86 TEXT >> both works are described as secret, we would have to expect them to >> be not extant nor even widely distributed and known in Tibet. Rich: >Yes and no. HPB says that her stanzas of Dzyan are taken from the >books of "Kiu-Te" which are "owned by every monastery in Tibet." Yes, but unfortunately the stanzas are said to belong to the "secret" parts of the books of "Kiu-te", and again HPB also speaks of secret volumes of "Kanjur" and "Tanjur". >Well, as David Reigle and others have pointed out, this "Kiu-Te" is simply >the phonetic spelling of rGyud-sDe, or "Tantra" in the Tibetan Canon. So >HPB is indicating that her sources for her magnum opus are simply >various Tantras I agree. I have not read the book Also a lot of volumes of the kangyur and tengyur are designated "Gyur te", I am afraid tibetan is not my strong side. As such we could have these works in every monastery of Tibet but still without any clue to the whereabouts of the stanzas - they could be "a secret tantric work". Worse, if the translation is free the tantra could appear to be treating of fx. human principles. A learned lama would come in handy here. Naturally we could only expect to find the tibetan version and perhaps its name in sanskrit. >and it is conceivable that HPB drew her Stanzas of Dyzan from there. (That would make our work a hell of a lot harder). Since it is described as "many volumes" it would probably have to be either parts of Kangyur&Tangyur (secret or not so secret) or a completely unknown multi-volume work (or compilation of tantric sutras). HPB generally uses a metaphysical style of translation (or rather interpretation) unknown to (or not used by) scholars, which means that any similarity to the stanzas could be hard to detect from a translation. >But I would look first for HPB's Stanzas of Dzyan in the various tantras, >particularly the "inner" and "secret" parts of Kalachakra tantra which David >Reigle is pointing at. It would at least be probable that such important works as the stanzas would show itself as an influence or direct quotes in other works. I have not seen this tantra, let alone the secret parts. If you go to Tibet it would be wise to bring a camera capable of photographing tiny MSS. >I hadn't thought of looking at Asanga's works for the origin of the Voice of >the Silence, which Kim suggests, but it strikes me as a very good place >indeed to look. I am not sure that HPB considered the Voice of the >Silence (aka "the Book of the Golden Precepts") as secret in the same >sense that the stanzas of Dzyan were secret (i.e. "tantra") as so it makes >sense that it would be a rather more standard source. Well, what I feel is that even if there exists secret volumes, a lot of the axioms would pop up or be treated upon in the extant works. Even if a few sentences were found and identified it would corroborate the story of HPB I certainly think I would be able to get the known texts without too much difficulty. In a few years time all such texts will no doubt be available as e-texts which will help searching them enormously. This line of investigation is on my list of future projects. > Unfortunately, a lot of Asanga's stuff isn't >translated yet, and Sanskrit is such a BITCH for me. How 'bout you? > Wouldn't that be a fun project for the rest of your lifetime? Maybe a team >of us could tackle it slowly? :-) oohh, what a project. Actually I already did contemplate to do this with a few chapters of the Mahayanasutralamkara (or rather an investigation of the sanskrit text from a theosophical point of view). I will have to get back on this at a later date (but I find it very, very interesting). I know several brilliant sanskrit scholars who would love to give a helping hand with anything but: buddhist sanskrit works (they are devout hindus). So I would be alone, and I am presently commited to proof-reading an e-text transliteration of Anugita (for later research) and encode the Mundaka Upanishad. How about learning a little more sanskrit? Actually a team of theosophists developing linguistic capabilities and using a scholarly approach could do wonders to theosophy. The internet will make such a thing possible. In friendship, Kim From poulsen@dk-online.dk Tue May 7 13:45:01 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 11:45:01 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3C0C.C4D52E00@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: HPB's sources(2) Encoding: 28 TEXT Alexis: >HPB was perfectly correct in her total rejection of Tantra. In the past many >years I have associated with many valid and "advanced" Indian Teachers >including Sri Aurobindo and some of Yogananda's original disciples and >they all agree that Tantra is harmful and foolish. Alexis, I will have to add a few comments to my own previous posting. What we are discussing is a possible text given that heading in the tibetan canon. It will have nothing to do with the tantrika systems of yoga - or the translation is done with "a metaphysical key" - see Col.W. XII p. 606. This is very possible both in tibetan and sanskrit. Fx the writings of Nagarjuna can - a) when translated in a general way appear to be a few logic investigations in the lack of self-being (svabhava) of manifestations. b) when translated as treating on metaphysical subjects as treatises of the origination of differentiated elements in the One Element (in the form of svabhavat). Translations of eastern works are actually more interpretations and much is in the eye of the beholder. In friendship, Kim From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue May 7 12:45:37 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 08:45:37 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960507084536_392583327@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? Alan, Don't feel bad. We will always consider you one of nature's gangsters :-) Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue May 7 12:46:29 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 08:46:29 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960507084629_392583717@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance Eldon, There are certain advantages to being a monster an someday I may write a book about it, just for the fun of it. But to more serious matters, namely living brotherhood. There is an old Christian ditty that goes: "To live above with the saints I love, Oh that will be glory. But to live below, with the saints I know, That's another story." It is very easy to talk about brotherhood in the abstract and very difficult to put it into practice. Last summer at summer school I used the rather nasty example of saying that "today I'm going to practice brotherhood. I'll kick my neighbor down the stairs tomorrw." Well, obviously I have no intention of kicking any of my neighbors down the stairs because I need to borrow a lawnmower from one of them, and I happen to like them and I'm too old for that sort of thing. And besides, I just don't do it. But the point of my comment was that sometimes it is one hell of struggle. The fact that none of us are adepts (OK, I'm almost one, :-)) means that we all have a ways to go before we truly realize brotherhood in our normal lives as a regular thing. And there is nothing to be gained by beating up ourselves about that except for an unfortunate tendency to project the failing onto everyone else and then what happens--sibling rivalry gone berserk! But the strange thing is that it just sort of creeps in without being expected and without being tried for, like when you have someone who is very proud of how unbrotherly he can be and then someone falls down getting off the bus a convention and he is the first one out of his chair to render assistance. It just becomes an instinct, leaving the realm of the abstract and the philosophical. And the funny thing is is that development has nothing whatever to do with study or anything else. It just comes from being around the TS. And it is something that never ceases to amaze me. The only conclusion I can come to about it is that HPB did something truly magickal, something we may never be able to define, when she and the others founded the TS. She created a new pattern in human consciousness that influences everyone who comes into contact with it. I see the change in my own life (and no one on this list knows what I was like just before I joined the TS) and I know it is not just mellowing with age. Brotherhood, or siblinghood, humanhood, or whatever we want to call it, is doing, not studying. It is just something we pick up and for that more than anything else we honor HPB and the creators of the TS, for it is something that transcends all of our differences of opinion and personality. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, MG of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From blafoun@azstarnet.com Tue May 7 13:55:43 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 06:55:43 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199605071355.GAA00105@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "brotherhood" - sanitized Alexis, in the material below, you keep responding as if I wrote the material. I did NOT write what you are responding to. It was Rich (I believe). Rich, the one you have filtered out! Daniel >At 10:53 AM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<< >>> >>>Yes, to me it is also a fact. But surely Eldon is right in pointing out that >>>this "fact" is one of the "doctrines" of Theosophy, one doctrine among many >>>others. >>> >>>It *is* curious to me why some people are so ready to accept this "doctrine" >>>as a fact with no qualms, but reject other doctrines as "dogma." >>> >>>I'm not baiting for a fight, I'm genuinely curious. > >I think Daniel, that what has happened, over time, and it's hardly >restricted to theosophy, is that the line that exists in people's definition >of "Doctrine" is that it has insensibly merged to a great degree with many >people's definition of "Dogma". This is a philological and semantic problem >and not nearly so much a philosophical one. Much of the "blame" for this >lies in the Religious community which has long confused "doctrine' and >"Dogma". When mainstream Christianity, islam, and Judaism confuse the two >how can ordinary people be blamed for the same confusion. I think we'd all >be on far firmer ground if we'd replace "Doctrine" with "basic philosophy", >or "basic belief", and leave dogma where it belongs, and that's totally alone. > >>>Also, JRC writes, >>> >>>> It was not presented as simply one of many "doctrines" ... it >>>> was presented as a spiritual truth, who's manifestation and incarnation >>>> in human civilization they considered the single most important mission >>>> for the Theosophical Society. >>> >>>But John -- I agree with you that it is a spiritual truth. This is the >>>definition of "doctrine," at least among the community of believers in that >>>tradition. I also firmly feel that "karma" is not a theory, it's a FACT. >>> But others see it as a hypothesis, and others are quite sure karma is NOT a >>>fact. All could agree it is a Theosophical doctrine, whether or not they >>>accept it. > >I have two comments/questions here. One: It seems to me that >"Brother-Sisterhood" is hardly an "intrinsic Spiritual truth", because if it >were it would be a fact and not simply a dim hope and primary eventual goal. >A "Spiritual truth", and I am far from sure that any such thing actually >exists, would, if it did exist, be something both unavoidable and clearly >extant. We all know that such is very far from true regarding >"Brother-Sisterhood" as is proved daily in Bosnia, Palestine, Northern >Ireland, and here in the USA. I have always thought the basic Theosophical >Agenda" was to create a NUCLEUS FOR "BROTHER-SISTERHOOD, a seed, as it >were, out of which real "Brother-Sisterhood" could germinate. > > >>>I also agree with you that it is no accident universal brotherhood is the >>>FIRST Object, the single most important idea in Theosophy, and the one that >>>the Adepts would have staked Their lives on. > >Daniel: That's a poor analogy. Adepts cannot "stake their lives" they're >consciously immortal. Not physically so, but in consciousness. >>> >>>But it is still a "doctrine" which conceivably could (and daily IS) rejected >>>by many. The KKK are not alone in this. > >Brother-sisterhood is a principle which is rejected by most humans because >while they admit intellectually that it's a "good idea" they just don't >relate to it. And it is THAT that the Nucleus of Brother-sisterhood" was >intended to slowly change. >>> >>>Why is it okay to say brotherhood is a fact, not a "doctrine" while other >>>"doctrines" are "dogma"? > >I think here you have either a misstatement or a misunderstanding. I don't >think too many people feel theosophy has any Dogmas at all. What I think >some people are complaining about (and I am clearly one of them) is that >there are those who TREAT basic theosophical philosophy as if it were Dogma. >There's a very big difference. >>> >>>All alike were taught by the Masters, even if you are right about the >>>emphasis placed. > >And that is clearly a matter of opinion. > >alexis d. >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > From ramadoss@eden.com Tue May 7 14:33:45 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 09:33:45 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: HPB/CWL In-Reply-To: <960507030714_392503752@emout08.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 7 May 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > Jerry writes, > > > Rich, you seem to have already reached your conclusion (i.e, > > that there IS a difference). I guess all JHE has to do now is to tie > > up some loose ends? Apparently Jim can go home. (?) JHE was > > unable to demonstrate to me that any real differences exist. Now Jim > > wants to try his luck. >>>>>>>>>>.clip. > > > But I think Besant and CWL (and later AAB) did a MAJOR number on the > teachings, left important things out, got the principles and planes > bass-ackwards, and really jumbled up the public mind about Theosophy. Not > least in their blunders (though AAB is quite innocent of this one) was the > Krishnamurti scandal, in fact the whole endeavor of looking for a little boy > to be the World Teacher, the lawsuits with K's father, and then poor > Krishnaji finally walking out on the silly Theosophists (good for him !) It > was a fiasco, start to finish. Not to mention CWL's BIZARRE psychic visions > of life on Mars etc. etc. that have all been proved a bunch of rot, and even > been removed from later versions of the CWL books. > Rich: In spite of all the historical events surrounding J Krishnamurti, I have to speak from personal experience. My exposure to his speeches, books and videos have helped me to better understand practical application of Thosophical ideas in day to day life. So I am eternally grateful for the benefit I have received. This happened after several decades of exposure to Theosophy. It almost took two and half decades to make the connection. I thought I should share with everyone. .....doss From am455@lafn.org Tue May 7 15:38:24 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 08:38:24 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199605071538.AA26875@lafn.org> Subject: 1st Dalai Lama Rich> [...] >HPB's great hero Tsong-Kha-Pa, the first (retroactive) Dalai Lama The books I've read say Gedun Drup (a disciple of Je Tsongkhapa) was the First Dalai Lama, not Je Rinpoche himself. Do you have some evidence for this? -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From poulsen@dk-online.dk Tue May 7 20:18:55 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 18:18:55 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3C41.CE0697E0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (part 1) Encoding: 137 TEXT JHE >.................. Similarly, >using Alice Bailey's system to interpret HPB's would also, in my >opinion, be going (outside?) the parameters. We need to understand HPB by >reading HPB and understand CWL by reading CWL. (a rule most relevant for your case as you are postulating a fatal difference in the planes and principles) - anyway I will await the material you send for CWL. Since we in our last post discussed *my* understanding you surely would want to use the first 2 to be able to get references to terms. I generally use numbers alongside the names which should be a help. Kim >I have earlier explained on Theos-l (ABC+D thread, january) what >the differences arose from. [snip] JHE >Kim, I think you have completely missed my point here. I'm well >aware of HPB's efforts to compare and justify the two systems. Kim :-) Her statements and the many statements in the ML that the systems were differing in terminology and a few trifling details only. "Effort" makes it sound like you believe her to be not quite in earnest. JHE >She attempted to do the same thing with Sinnett who also tried to >create an opposing Theosophical system. Kim You are guessing his motives - but this is way outside our parameters. If you propose I trust your great amount of research in theosophical history and painstaking investigation of source material, I would expect nothing less in the realm of metaphysics and philosophy. JHE > In both cases HPB tried to deal with the opposing ideas in such a way as >not to bruise those male egos and to keep from the public eye that Subba >Row, and Sinnett were really at odds with HPB and competing with her. Kim And she was not competing? Maybe your perspective is a little black&white here?. This direction seems to take us away from the subject. JHE >This aspect of the story clearly comes out in their private >letters, not in a comparison of their public writings. For me to >extensively go into this issue will take us way off track. Kim: Yes !!! JHE: > Let us just suffice to say that writers have to stand or >fall on their own merits. Using Subba Rows system or anyone >else's to further explain HPB's runs the risk of syncretism. Kim: When relevant I will take it. I share completely the view of p. 607 of CW XII.The diagram makes everything very clear. These words are some of her last on the subject and they are clear and explicit. No more talk of dying of boils from disagreeing in public - this is 1996 and we are doing exactly that! :-) JHE >I disagree with this interpretation, and I think HPB makes it >clear that she did not see it this way either. Though HPB >constantly worked to smooth over Subba Row's, Olcott's and >Sinnett's ruffled ego's, or when necessary, to confront them. Kim Again something with the perspective. In fact a major controversy or complaint by HPB was that Subba Row advised her to take the mentioning of masters out of the SD. Clearly he saw this as the proof-reading he was asked to do (even if he forwarded the opinion before seeing the full manuscript) - and what a brilliant advice in the light of later theosophical history. The complaint has become famous and I have never seen a theosophist in writing trying to see the issue from both sides - again I think we are wandering far away from our subject. ........ Kim >>.......would lead them in a similar direction, not necessarily the >>initial ideas. JHE >This view is undemonstrable and is as unanswerable as Ireneaus' >proclamation concerning the reason why there are only four >genuine Gospels. I don't think we will get very far by pinning >our interpretations on this kind of thinking. Kim Jerry, our reasoning are very different in these matters. I am investigating ideas without much interest in personality history. If it is possible for an adept to influence an idea (or even give birth to it) in the mind of another person then, in such a case, little further information can be conveyed by studying all sorts of events and previous and later writings of this person. The IDEA must speak for itself. If the Secret Doctrine can be used as a guideline how to conduct research then this tracing of ideas is the way to do it. That is, naturally, when we are discussing philosopy, metaphysics, etc - not theosophical history (an area where I bow to your expertise). Also the issue is related more to fx. Eldon?s concept of *bona fide* writings than gospels. You make the assumption that HPB is naturally right when she differs from Sinnett or Subba Row. Without going into the reasonable in this assumption, it must be stated that there no proof of such an idea at present. In fact Subba Row?s ideas would be far easier to corroborate since they are based on extant works and closely related to other systems of thought. If we choose to trust HPB our reasons at present are - intuitions. As for pinning our interpretations on it - what else? JHE But it appears that Kim wishes to operate from the a priori assumption that HPB and CWL, as well as AB, AAB, TSR etc. are all compatible under a more inclusive set of occult doctrines. Until Kim agrees to put this assumption aside (he doesn't have to reject it), any exploration of the comparison between HPB and CWL will be just an exercise of circular reasoning within Kim's third system. Kim Excellent put and not untrue. But remember we are as yet talking about 2 or 3 ideas of CWL - a few references to planes and principles. I will for the exercise put the "3rd system" aside when your material arrives. What I add from my more "inclusive set of occult doctrines" you may see as footnotes. Of course we would have to discuss your own basic assumptions and unprooven interpretations as well unless you find it permissible to add them, as well as mine, as comments (or the whole exercise would have little point). In friendship, Kim From alexei@slip.net Tue May 7 18:43:00 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 11:43:00 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507184300.00694f14@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB's sources(2) At 06:06 AM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: > >I will have to add a few comments to my own previous posting. What we are >discussing is a possible text given that heading in the tibetan canon. It >will have nothing to do with the tantrika systems of yoga - or the >translation is done with "a metaphysical key" - see Col.W. XII p. 606. >This is very possible both in tibetan and sanskrit. Fx the writings of >Nagarjuna can - > >a) when translated in a general way appear to be a few logic investigations >in the lack of self-being (svabhava) of manifestations. >b) when translated as treating on metaphysical subjects as treatises of the >origination of differentiated elements in the One Element (in the form of >svabhavat). > >Translations of eastern works are actually more interpretations and much is >in the eye of the beholder. > >In friendship, > >Kim > > >Kim: Well I have absolutely no problems in accepting that. If I am understandings you correctly, you're saying that there is a really significant difference between "Tantras" and "Tantrika" and that it is "Tantrika" to which HPB, and the others to whom I referred, objected. I certainly agree with you that translations of Eastern works are primarily interpretations. One need only follow the nature of the relations that existed between HPB and Max Mueller. One is then left with the questions: "Which Metaphysical Key" and more important still, and this is not my own question but one which clearly many academics ask, and that is: "Is ANY "Metaphysical Key" valid?". As to me I am perfectly happy with HPB's sources when it refers to her teachers, but I really don't know what to believe when talking about things like "The Stanzas". But then I suppose that's what this kind of study is all about. In friendship: alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Tue May 7 18:44:27 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 11:44:27 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507184427.006930ac@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? At 08:47 AM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alan, >Don't feel bad. We will always consider you one of nature's gangsters :-) > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: my friend, with all due respect, I think it is time to let this drop. alexis d. From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue May 7 17:13:17 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 18:13:17 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <7Jhy9AAtS4jxEwiF@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960507060929.006afc04@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960507060929.006afc04@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >I will say, however, that it's hardly something for you to get >"miffed" at any of the five of us over, if you want to be "miffed' look to >Eldon. > >alexis d. Not miffed at all - just puzzled at being included (by anyone) in a "gang" without prior invitation to join. Some of Eldon's posts are very long and repetitive. Some I read with interest all the way through, some don't get beyond the first paragraph - maybe I deleted his remarks on this one way back! Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Tue May 7 19:03:26 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 12:03:26 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507190326.006a0de8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "brotherhood" - sanitized At 09:59 AM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis, in the material below, you keep responding as if I wrote the >material. > >I did NOT write what you are responding to. It was Rich (I believe). >Rich, the one you have filtered out! > >Daniel Well, I'm terribly sorry to have responded to someone's words when they didn't utter them even if the resulting conversation was quite peaceful. I seem to have a great deal of difficulty "keeping up with the karats>>>>" and ascertaining (sometimes) just who it is that is speaking. So far though I haven't answered myself. I guess what I did was assume as "Daniel posted it, so it's Daniel speaking". I have also one small question. If Daniel posted it, is it not indicative of a kind of statement on your ba half, or at least support for the statement you are posting? If so, answering you might be the best way to go when one hasn't the vaguest idea who one is responding to. I'd feel kind of odd addressing comments to "To Whom It May Concern:". Now I must say that if it was Richard Taylor who posted that message, then it is obvious we can have "discussion without bloodshed", so that I at least, will obviously have to re-think my position on "filtration". I'll have a clearer picture when I see the actual response to the message from whoever it was I responded to. alexis d. > > > > >>At 10:53 AM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<< >>>> >>>>Yes, to me it is also a fact. But surely Eldon is right in pointing out that >>>>this "fact" is one of the "doctrines" of Theosophy, one doctrine among many >>>>others. >>>> >>>>It *is* curious to me why some people are so ready to accept this "doctrine" >>>>as a fact with no qualms, but reject other doctrines as "dogma." >>>> >>>>I'm not baiting for a fight, I'm genuinely curious. >> >>I think Daniel, that what has happened, over time, and it's hardly >>restricted to theosophy, is that the line that exists in people's definition >>of "Doctrine" is that it has insensibly merged to a great degree with many >>people's definition of "Dogma". This is a philological and semantic problem >>and not nearly so much a philosophical one. Much of the "blame" for this >>lies in the Religious community which has long confused "doctrine' and >>"Dogma". When mainstream Christianity, islam, and Judaism confuse the two >>how can ordinary people be blamed for the same confusion. I think we'd all >>be on far firmer ground if we'd replace "Doctrine" with "basic philosophy", >>or "basic belief", and leave dogma where it belongs, and that's totally alone. >> >>>>Also, JRC writes, >>>> >>>>> It was not presented as simply one of many "doctrines" ... it >>>>> was presented as a spiritual truth, who's manifestation and incarnation >>>>> in human civilization they considered the single most important mission >>>>> for the Theosophical Society. >>>> >>>>But John -- I agree with you that it is a spiritual truth. This is the >>>>definition of "doctrine," at least among the community of believers in that >>>>tradition. I also firmly feel that "karma" is not a theory, it's a FACT. >>>> But others see it as a hypothesis, and others are quite sure karma is NOT a >>>>fact. All could agree it is a Theosophical doctrine, whether or not they >>>>accept it. >> >>I have two comments/questions here. One: It seems to me that >>"Brother-Sisterhood" is hardly an "intrinsic Spiritual truth", because if it >>were it would be a fact and not simply a dim hope and primary eventual goal. >>A "Spiritual truth", and I am far from sure that any such thing actually >>exists, would, if it did exist, be something both unavoidable and clearly >>extant. We all know that such is very far from true regarding >>"Brother-Sisterhood" as is proved daily in Bosnia, Palestine, Northern >>Ireland, and here in the USA. I have always thought the basic Theosophical >>Agenda" was to create a NUCLEUS FOR "BROTHER-SISTERHOOD, a seed, as it >>were, out of which real "Brother-Sisterhood" could germinate. >> >> >>>>I also agree with you that it is no accident universal brotherhood is the >>>>FIRST Object, the single most important idea in Theosophy, and the one that >>>>the Adepts would have staked Their lives on. >> >>Daniel: That's a poor analogy. Adepts cannot "stake their lives" they're >>consciously immortal. Not physically so, but in consciousness. >>>> >>>>But it is still a "doctrine" which conceivably could (and daily IS) rejected >>>>by many. The KKK are not alone in this. >> >>Brother-sisterhood is a principle which is rejected by most humans because >>while they admit intellectually that it's a "good idea" they just don't >>relate to it. And it is THAT that the Nucleus of Brother-sisterhood" was >>intended to slowly change. >>>> >>>>Why is it okay to say brotherhood is a fact, not a "doctrine" while other >>>>"doctrines" are "dogma"? >> >>I think here you have either a misstatement or a misunderstanding. I don't >>think too many people feel theosophy has any Dogmas at all. What I think >>some people are complaining about (and I am clearly one of them) is that >>there are those who TREAT basic theosophical philosophy as if it were Dogma. >>There's a very big difference. >>>> >>>>All alike were taught by the Masters, even if you are right about the >>>>emphasis placed. >> >>And that is clearly a matter of opinion. >> >>alexis d. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > From alexei@slip.net Tue May 7 19:08:48 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 12:08:48 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960507190848.006a1b08@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB/CWL At 10:42 AM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >On Tue, 7 May 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > >> Jerry writes, >> >> > Rich, you seem to have already reached your conclusion (i.e, >> > that there IS a difference). I guess all JHE has to do now is to tie >> > up some loose ends? Apparently Jim can go home. (?) JHE was >> > unable to demonstrate to me that any real differences exist. Now Jim >> > wants to try his luck. > >>>>>>>>>>.clip. > >> >> But I think Besant and CWL (and later AAB) did a MAJOR number on the >> teachings, left important things out, got the principles and planes >> bass-ackwards, and really jumbled up the public mind about Theosophy. Not >> least in their blunders (though AAB is quite innocent of this one) was the >> Krishnamurti scandal, in fact the whole endeavor of looking for a little boy >> to be the World Teacher, the lawsuits with K's father, and then poor >> Krishnaji finally walking out on the silly Theosophists (good for him !) It >> was a fiasco, start to finish. Not to mention CWL's BIZARRE psychic visions >> of life on Mars etc. etc. that have all been proved a bunch of rot, and even >> been removed from later versions of the CWL books. >> > >Rich: In spite of all the historical events surrounding J Krishnamurti, I >have to speak from personal experience. My exposure to his speeches, >books and videos have helped me to better understand practical >application of Thosophical ideas in day to day life. So I am eternally >grateful for the benefit I have received. This happened after several >decades of exposure to Theosophy. It almost took two and half decades to >make the connection. > >I thought I should share with everyone. > > .....doss > >Doss: Of course you're right, but you're talking about Krishnamurti the Man, and Jerry is talking about what the Theosophical society DID to Krishnamurti the Child. I don't think it's the same subject. There is a very great possibility that "K" became the man he was, not because of, but in spite of, The Theosophical Society. alexis d. > From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue May 7 19:25:11 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 15:25:11 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605072029.QAA18871@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: testing 1,2,3 > I would prefer our leaders to >>have inner spirit. But who will test for this? >> >> Jerry S. >> Member, TI >> >> > > Good question. May be we can talk to them and test the inner spirit >by the outer responses and results? > > ...doss I wonder whether there are any adepts among theos-l lurkers who could undertake such testing, & if there were, would they? Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue May 7 19:30:48 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 15:30:48 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605072035.QAA24182@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Eldon, Re: Brotherhood, sanitized Dear Eldon, Please have a look at my Dalai Lama quote posted early this AM. That says clearer than anything what I mean. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue May 7 19:52:42 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 15:52:42 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605072057.QAA05324@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: gov't stress Hi Bee, Guess New Zealand isn't any different than New Jersey. The must be about the same size. I left my gov't job sooner than I'd planned, because, under Reagan, instead of sending jobless people out on job interviews, we did an intake on them, filed it, had so much paperwork so the computer would get enough statistics, that it was next to impossible to refer someone out on a job anymore. I retired. To this day, I hate paperwork! Won't touch it. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue May 7 20:02:54 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 16:02:54 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605072107.RAA10811@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: HPB/CWL etc. Rich says Don't you think I would be THRILLED to find as many people as possible >spreading the teachings of Theosophy? Rich, Seems to me what you're looking for is another generation of Theosophists, who are carbon copies of HPB. I think that's not what she meant. I think she'd be horrified, at theosophists who'd just try to parrot her. The value of her teachings is that everyone can interpret them in his/her own way. Besides, you guys always get stuck on second generation Theosophists. There are people nowadays who are writing theosophy, & the good ones are really worth looking at & thinking about, because they live now, & interpet theosophy for now, not for 100 years ago. Liesel From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue May 7 21:23:02 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 17:23:02 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960507172301_108642744@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TS/Democratic Spirit & Hierarchical Feeling Alex, I don't know about this aura-testing business. I don't think I would have liked to see HPB's aura on a bad day. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue May 7 21:23:54 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 17:23:54 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960507172354_108643411@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? Alex, There is a saying, perportedly from HPB, the "Theosophy is who Theosophy does." My feeling is that one who, in the words of Voltaire, "defends the poor and helps the oppressed," is far closer to the spirit of theosophy than one who can quote the SD right and left and knows several of the Mahatmas area codes. I was not kidding when I said it would be interesting if theosophy ever really acquired a heart. And the irony of all this is that Eldon is someone who should know that better than anyone else. The problem is that the TS went into full reaction after the madness of Annie and the Bishop and retreated into an alley of blind intellectualism, relegating the idea of helping people to the TOS. Now the Gullo's are wonderful people and this is not to reflect on them in any way, but the TOS has more than it's share of self-righteous baboons who turn off more people than all our merry gang combined. I cannot read their comments on vegetarianism without having this craving for raw meat. But the situation is such that many people in the TS cannot even understand how to show compassion at the death of a loved one of a fellow member. And if real disaster strikes, they say nonsense about Karma and let the person rot. That's how I acquired my housemate. I was the only one who would take her in. I have great affection for HPB (which is why I have so much fun with her girth) and the Colonel not because of her writings, but because of their humanity. Anyone who would go charging off to Ceylon on a bullock cart to toss out the damned missionaries is OK in my book. The time has come for the TSers to become "doers of the word and not hearers only." Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From ramadoss@eden.com Tue May 7 21:27:16 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 16:27:16 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: testing 1,2,3 In-Reply-To: <199605072029.QAA18871@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 7 May 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > > I would prefer our leaders to > >>have inner spirit. But who will test for this? > >> > >> Jerry S. > >> Member, TI > >> > >> > > > > Good question. May be we can talk to them and test the inner spirit > >by the outer responses and results? > > > > ...doss > > I wonder whether there are any adepts among theos-l lurkers who could > undertake such testing, & if there were, would they? > > Liesel > > Liesel: Even if an Adept is lurking or even if they are reading - which they can easily do without access to a computer - I doubt they are going to reveal and undertake the testing. ....doss PS: Even if they volunteer, their status will be questioned and all results trashed. From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Tue May 7 22:19:52 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 15:19:52 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9605072219.AA18195@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL JHE >>.................. Similarly, using Alice Bailey's system to >>interpret HPB's would also, in my opinion, be going (outside?) >>the parameters. We need to understand HPB by reading HPB and >>understand CWL by reading CWL. Kim >(a rule most relevant for your case as you are postulating a >fatal difference in the planes and principles) - anyway I will >await the material you send for CWL. Since we in our last post >discussed *my* understanding you surely would want to use the >first 2 to be able to get references to terms. > I generally use numbers alongside the names which should be a >help. JHE I think this "rule" is universally applicable to any discussion. Call it a presupposition on my part if you wish, but I believe that in order to understand what a person says, it is best to start by asking what they mean. Other people may have opinions about what someone is saying, but I believe that the person uttering the words is the best authority as to what was meant by them. Therefore, if HPB uses the term "manas" and defines it as "a", while, say, Subba Row defines the same term as "b", then I will come to the conclusion that by "manas", HPB means "a" and Subba Row means "b". If Subba Row then says that HPB really meant "b" when she used the term "manas," I would consider his point, but if HPB had clearly said "a" then I will be inclined to side with her as the one who better knew what she meant to say. One reason for my asking the terms you use for different concepts was in order to help me to understand what you mean by them further down the road. From your earlier posts, I anticipated that you will want to discuss the planes to some extent. Therefore, I wanted to start out by having you to tell me the names you use when you talk about different classes of planes. The other reason for my asking for your terminology was so that I might better understand your interpretation of the chart in Vol. XII. I apologize for the unintentional ambiguity of my questions which left you to believe that I was asking you to name the individual planes within each class of planes. Though that was also interesting information, and I'm glad to have it. I trust you will answer my questions in a later post. Kim >>>I have earlier explained on Theos-l (ABC+D thread, january) >>>what the differences arose from. [snip] JHE >>Kim, I think you have completely missed my point here. I'm >>well aware of HPB's efforts to compare and justify the two >>systems. Kim >:-) Her statements and the many statements in the ML that the >systems were differing in terminology and a few trifling details >only. "Effort" makes it sound like you believe her to be not >quite in earnest. JHE Oh, I think her efforts were quite in earnest. She wanted the Theosophical Society to succeed, and in order to do that, she had to minimize the public dissentions of Subba Row, Sinnett and Olcott. I already posted a part of an unpublished correspondence between HPB and HSO, which I believe makes it very clear that HPB did not regard Subba Row's "friendly discussions" (as you put it) to be the least bit friendly. If you want to go into this tangent, it may be productive in the long run to do so. But in order to keep focused, I had suggested some available material that you can go through on your own. JHE >>She attempted to do the same thing with Sinnett who also tried >>to create an opposing Theosophical system. Kim >You are guessing his motives - but this is way outside our >parameters. If you propose I trust your great amount of research >in theosophical history and painstaking investigation of source >material, I would expect nothing less in the realm of >metaphysics and philosophy. JHE No, I'm not "guessing his motives." In his Autobiography, Sinnett made his motives clear enough so that "guessing his motives" isn't necessary. He believed that HPB often lied and gave false information because she was often taken over by "black magicians." Therefore, Sinnett believed that he gave a more correct version of the Theosophical doctrines than HPB. His confirmation of the correctness of his doctrines came (he believed) directly from the Masters through a medium he used for the purpose of communicating with them. I suggest that you read Sinnett's Autobiography. In my opinion, the study of metaphysics and philosophy is inseparable from the historical context in which it was presented. An example of the study of doctrine outside of historical context can be found in the teachings of fundamentalist Christianity. JHE >> In both cases HPB tried to deal with the opposing ideas in >>such a way as not to bruise those male egos and to keep from >>the public eye that Subba Row, and Sinnett were really at odds >>with HPB and competing with her. Kim >And she was not competing? Maybe your perspective is a little >black&white here?. This direction seems to take us away from the >subject. JHE In the sense that she was trying to give to the public a correct understanding of the Theosophical doctrines, she was competing. My bias is that HPB's exposition of the doctrines is the most faithful to her teachers. I'm not saying that she was infallible, but I am strongly suggesting that I believe HPB to have been the closest to her teachers. I'm also making an opinion based upon historical observation, that I believe HPB to have been the most intellectually honest of the bunch. Also, HPB was supposed to have been especially trained to do the job she did. If we believe her special preparation for this job to be so (we can't prove it one way of the other), then we have to accept that HPB was the primary person chosen by the Masters for the establishment of the modern Theosophical movement. Obviously, there were others who had contact with the Masters and played a part. But Sinnett was a "lay chela," and the Masters soon gave up on him. Subba Row's contact with Theosophy began in 1882. Before that, he never showed any interest in metaphysics. After 1885, he was hostile towards HPB. On the other hand, HPB's official contact with the Masters was supposed to have commenced in 1851. If you believe that Sinnett and Subba Row's training and relationship to the Master's was on a equal par with HPB, then perhaps we need to discuss this first. JHE: >> Let us just suffice to say that writers have to stand or >>fall on their own merits. Using Subba Rows system or anyone >>else's to further explain HPB's runs the risk of syncretism. Kim: >When relevant I will take it. I share completely the view of p. >607 of CW XII.The diagram makes everything very clear. These >words are some of her last on the subject and they are clear and >explicit. JHE Then, at best, I might regard Subba Row's interpretation as his opinion of what HPB wrote. At worst, I might regard it as a syncretisation of two systems into a third. But we'll see what happens. Perhaps you will surprise me. Kim >No more talk of dying of boils from disagreeing in public - this >is 1996 and we are doing exactly that! :-) JHE An interesting reading of my question to Nicholas. Though you are having fun with this, Subba Row's comments and Olcott's understanding of them raises some (I think) interesting questions. However, may the god of the pox be forever vanished from this discussion :-) JHE >>I disagree with this interpretation, and I think HPB makes it >>clear that she did not see it this way either. Though HPB >>constantly worked to smooth over Subba Row's, Olcott's and >>Sinnett's ruffled ego's, or when necessary, to confront them. Kim >Again something with the perspective. In fact a major >controversy or complaint by HPB was that Subba Row advised her >to take the mentioning of masters out of the SD. Clearly he saw >this as the proof-reading he was asked to do (even if he >forwarded the opinion before seeing the full manuscript) - and >what a brilliant advice in the light of later theosophical >history. The complaint has become famous and I have never seen >a theosophist in writing trying to see the issue from both >sides - again I think we are wandering far away from our >subject. JHE My understanding was that Subba Row wanted nothing to do with the SD mss because it made certain teachings public that he believed should be kept secret. The issue of the Masters being made public was another issue of TSR that was not connected with the SD. It had to do with the Coulomb troubles. HPB wanted Subba Row and Olcott to stand united against the Coulomb accusations. Both refused to do so for different reasons. Subba Row's reason was that standing up to the Coulombs in a court of law ran the risk of making the Masters an item of public ridicule. Olcott argued that the accusations would disappear on their own if the issue was ignored. Neither one stood up for HPB in or outside of a court of law on this issue. History shows Olcott to have been clearly and tragically wrong in thinking that the accusations would go away. They re-appeared as evidence in the SPR investigation. Since HPB's lawsuit never went to court, we will never know whether or not Subba Row was right about the Masters becoming an object of public ridicule. On the other hand, HSO's and TSR's threats that finally tied HPB's hands into inaction, clearly resulted in the follow up investigation of the SPR and the eventual exposure of HPB, the TS and the Masters to public ridicule anyway. Kim >>>.......would lead them in a similar direction, not necessarily >>>the initial ideas. JHE >>This view is undemonstrable and is as unanswerable as Ireneaus' >>proclamation concerning the reason why there are only four >>genuine Gospels. I don't think we will get very far by pinning >>our interpretations on this kind of thinking. Kim >Jerry, our reasoning are very different in these matters. I am >investigating ideas without much interest in personality >history. If it is possible for an adept to influence an idea (or >even give birth to it) in the mind of another person then, in >such a case, little further information can be conveyed by >studying all sorts of events and previous and later writings of >this person. The IDEA must speak for itself. JHE I don't question the possibility of an Adept influencing an idea in the mind of another person. I do however, question as to when an idea is inspired by an Adept and when it is not. I believe that historical inquiry is often helpful is answering this question. Kim >If the Secret Doctrine can be used as a guideline how to conduct >research then this tracing of ideas is the way to do it. That >is, naturally, when we are discussing philosopy, metaphysics, >etc - not theosophical history (an area where I bow to your >expertise). JHE My experience with the SD is that her tracings are very historical in nature. Using history as a tool for the tracing of ideas is perfectly consistent with HPB's methods in the SD in my opinion. Kim >Also the issue is related more to fx. Eldon?s concept of *bona >fide* writings than gospels. You make the assumption that HPB is >naturally right when she differs from Sinnett or Subba Row. >Without going into the reasonable in this assumption, it must be >stated that there no proof of such an idea at present. In fact >Subba Row?s ideas would be far easier to corroborate since they >are based on extant works and closely related to other systems >of thought. If we choose to trust HPB our reasons at present >are - intuitions. As for pinning our interpretations on it - >what else? JHE As I stated above, my assumption is that HPB's exposition of the doctrines are most faithful to her teachers. That does not make her infallible, but it does make her doctrines the primary ones--next to the Mahatma Letters themselves. I do not see Theosophy as a variety of Hinduism, nor of Buddhism, nor of any other religion. HPB described Theosophy as a proto-religion--the trunk from which all other religions came. Therefore, if Subba Row's ideas are closer to some extant Hindu work, that only proves that his ideas are closer to some extant Hindu work. From my stand point, that does not prove Subba Row's ideas to be a more correct exposition of Theosophical Doctrine, because Theosophical doctrine does not depend upon any given extant religious or philosophical system for its correctness. To express it in another way; if we were discussing Platonism, would we not use Plato's writings as the primary authority for what he wrote? Why can't HPB be the primary authority for what she wrote too? Though Plato is supposed to have been a re-expression of ancient vedic philosophy, that does not mean that we have license to "correct" Plato's writings every time it appears to contradict something in Vedic Philosophy. Plato is Plato. Blavatsky is Blavatsky. Subba Row is Subba Row. Vedic Philosophy is Vedic Philosophy. If Kim Poulsen wants to combine elements in Plato, Blavatsky, Subba Row, Vedic Philosophy etc. into a new, more universal system, then I will call it the Kim Poulsen system (for lack of a better name), and will also defend the right for your system stand or fall upon its own merits. ................................. JHE >But it appears that Kim wishes to operate from the a >priori assumption that HPB and CWL, as well as AB, AAB, TSR etc. >are all compatible under a more inclusive set of occult >doctrines. Until Kim agrees to put this assumption aside (he >doesn't have to reject it), any exploration of the comparison >between HPB and CWL will be just an exercise of circular >reasoning within Kim's third system. Kim >Excellent put and not untrue. But remember we are as yet talking >about 2 or 3 ideas of CWL - a few references to planes and >principles. I will for the exercise put the "3rd system" aside >when your material arrives. What I add from my more "inclusive >set of occult doctrines" you may see as footnotes. Of course we >would have to discuss your own basic assumptions and unprooven >interpretations as well unless you find it permissible to add >them, as well as mine, as comments (or the whole exercise would >have little point). JHE I have tried to be as forthright in the expression of my assumptions as I can. I'm sure that as we progress, more assumptions on both our parts will surface and we will be able to identify them as they appear. So far, identifications of each other's assumptions has been one of the main outcomes of our discussion. I think this kind of exploration is time well spent. Best Jerry ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ramadoss@eden.com Tue May 7 22:32:15 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 17:32:15 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? In-Reply-To: <960507172354_108643411@emout18.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 7 May 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > Alex, > There is a saying, perportedly from HPB, the "Theosophy is who Theosophy > does." My feeling is that one who, in the words of Voltaire, "defends the > poor and helps the oppressed," is far closer to the spirit of theosophy than > one who can quote the SD right and left and knows several of the Mahatmas > area codes. I was not kidding when I said it would be interesting if > theosophy ever really acquired a heart. > And the irony of all this is that Eldon is someone who should know that > better than anyone else. The problem is that the TS went into full reaction > after the madness of Annie and the Bishop and retreated into an alley of > blind intellectualism, relegating the idea of helping people to the TOS. Now > the Gullo's are wonderful people and this is not to reflect on them in any > way, but the TOS has more than it's share of self-righteous baboons who turn > off more people than all our merry gang combined. I cannot read their > comments on vegetarianism without having this craving for raw meat. But the > situation is such that many people in the TS cannot even understand how to > show compassion at the death of a loved one of a fellow member. And if real > disaster strikes, they say nonsense about Karma and let the person rot. > That's how I acquired my housemate. I was the only one who would take her > in. > I have great affection for HPB (which is why I have so much fun with her > girth) and the Colonel not because of her writings, but because of their > humanity. Anyone who would go charging off to Ceylon on a bullock cart to > toss out the damned missionaries is OK in my book. > The time has come for the TSers to become "doers of the word and not hearers > only." > > Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 > Heretic > Troublemaker > Chuck: You have made my day. Talking of anyone who died, I do not know how many here has heard about Carl Stillman who was a member from Atlanta and has served on the Board of Directors and I believe in other capacities. When he died, there was a very small writeup- if my recollection is correct - no more than two column inch - in AT. One the other hand there were many unknowns to many members on whose death large amount of space was allocated in AT to adore the contributions to TSA. I have no problem with using any amount of space to remember any member who passed away. However, the reduced attention paid to Carl's death was very surprising in spite of the fact almost everyone in the BOD knew about him (some for quite some years.) I guess his active stance opposing the (retroactive) change in the bylaws tightening the requirement for the office of the President some years ago (this change apparently was prompted by Bing's running for the office) may have caused him to fall into disfavor with the powers that be. Can somebody who has followed all this enlighten all of us? Facts speak louder than words. ...doss From eldon@theosophy.com Wed May 8 06:19:00 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 23:19:00 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508061900.00682394@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Schizophrenia and the Psychic There was an article in the April 29 issue of the "Los Angeles Times", "Unraveling a Cruel Mystery of the Mind", that discussed a new breakthrough in the study of schizophrenia. The article contained some interesting information, and makes me wonder about how that form of mental illness might be described in theosophical terms. There is a box that defines schizophrenia: LA> What is Schizophrenia? LA> LA> Schizophrenia is not, as was once widely believed, a case of LA> multiple-personality disorder. A rundown on the condition: LA> LA> * Schizophrenia is a severe mental illness characterized by LA> inappropriate emotions, hallucinations, and a disordered LA> thought process. LA> LA> * Some medical journals call it "the worst disease affecting LA> mankind." LA> LA> * Disease strikes in late teens or early 20s. LA> LA> * It affects about 2.5 million Americans, or about 1% of the LA> population. LA> LA> * A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that brain LA> abnormalities, rather than social conditions are the cause. LA> LA> * In the last six years, a host of new anti psychotic drugs LA> has shown great promise in helping schizophrenics make LA> steady recoveries. The major characteristics are inappropriate emotions, hallucinations, and a disordered thought process. All three would come from a perception of the subjective "spheres of effects" that surround our objective, physical earth. When someone sees into the astral light, and what they see is a reflection of the content of their own psyche, we have an hallucination. But is it "real"? Yes, but it is subjective to the individual seeing it, and it is not physical in nature nor objective in the sense that it exists in its own right and can remain unaltered by how we might like it to be. This "sight" is no more real than the experiences that we stage for ourselves in the devachan. Those devachanic experiences are self-made, and represent the working out the content of our consciousness. They don't represent interaction with other beings. The same is true of these "hallucinations" or glimpses of the astral light. The inappropriate emotions would come from a failure to clearly relate to this physical world, being "out-of-focus" as it were, being focused somewhat on the non-physical realms. The person would be responding to internal, subjective events, and not clearly distinguishing the people and events before them in the physical world from these subjective experiences. The disordered thought process would be due, perhaps, to the constant intrusion of thoughts and images into the mind. ---- As to the new findings: LA> What Hollister Found LA> LA> Meggin Hollister's research gives the first indication of a LA> link between a mother's immune system and schizophrenia. LA> What she discovered: LA> LA> 1. The problem starts with a blood-type difference between LA> mother and fetus -- for example, if fetus has positive LA> blood type while mother has negative type. LA> LA> 2. Through a tearing of the placenta or another mechanism, LA> fetal blood comes into contact with the mother's blood. LA> LA> 3. Mother's immune system launches response, producing LA> harmful antibody capable of crossing placenta and LA> reaching fetus. LA> LA> 4. Antibodies affect fetal brain development, possibly LA> leading to schizophrenia. I would expect that the sort of brain change that is represented in schizophrenia is, as said, a breakdown in the normal brain formation, leading to an abnormal experience of life. It is not the sort of brain change that spontaneously arises as a "mutation" or evolutionary step forward. My thinking is that the future faculties and powers that await our race are not along the lines of seeing subjective psychological content as through it were "real". They are not leading towards a greater emphasis on the subjective spheres of effects, the backstage to life, populated by spooks and elementals. They lead, rather, I think, towards greater powers of understanding and comprehension, and towards powers over manifest nature, over nature as found on this and other spheres of causes. Evolution lies in growing *powers of mind*, not powers of sense perception. The ability to learn and understand mathematics, for instance, is a much "higher faculty" or "inner power" than the ability to see what color a rock is on the nth subplane of the astral. The senses we have provide us with an appropriate container for working on that evolution, and rebelling against them is like an impatient child, bored with learning, yearning to escape the confines of the classroom, wanting to run out and play at the upcoming recess. It is a special blessing to be born into this world, with the objectivity and ability to acquire sentience that we have. If we take advantage of this opportunity, we can make great strides towards enlightenment and towards the "saving" of others. The choice, though, is ours to make as individuals. Some opt out, choosing the path of the Pratyeka Buddha, seeking solitary bliss. Others stick it out, supporting the never-ending process of bringing light, love, and upliftment into the world. -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Wed May 8 06:19:11 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 23:19:11 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508061911.0068b13c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB/CWL Jerry S: >>Each plane of existence is a full-featured realm of experience, >>with laws of nature, "physical" forms, and various classes of >>beings from the different kingdoms of nature. >>The seven principles are not an experience of embodied >>existence on seven planes. They are seven aspects or >>ingredients of sentient being, including insight, thought, >>feeling and desire, and sense perception. These qualities >>or attributes of consciousness are necessary for one to >>come into existence on any plane. >Eldon, you have said this many times over >the years. So far, you have never reconciled your views >to HPB's comment that "Each principle is on a different >plane." (Inner Group Teachings p 19). Is HPB wrong? I don't have the book before me, but will refer to it some evening at home. (I often write at work before I get started in the morning, or at lunchtime, using my laptop, and have only whatever book I may have stuck in my briefcase to refer to.) The terms like "ego" or "Monad" are used in more than one manner, and perhaps here plane is used in a slightly different sense than "plane of existence." The most common usage of "plane", as I've found it, is to refer to a world or realm where we can exist, including senses, a form or body, the ability to think and feel, etc. We have all these elements or principles of consciousness here on the physical plane, on Globe D, and anywhere else where we can exist as fully sentient beings. We can also use "plane" as referring to a field of action for a particular consciousness. Our mind's field of action, for instance, ranges over what we know and are capable of understanding. The mind, made of mind-stuff, can be called existing on a thought-plane -- but again, this is a mind and its thoughts, not a body of matter on a world like earth. >>When we look at planes of existence, we have a spectrum >>of possible planes, but there are only certain discrete >>"places" or centers or worlds or levels along this spectrum >>where existence actually takes place. >Eldon, please tell me where you get this stuff. I >thought HPB says that life is everywhere. The same place you say your stuff comes from, except that you support a hybrid CWL/GDP/HPB model, and mine is GDP/HPB. Life is everywhere, in every possible place that it can exist. Our earth planetary chain is only one such place. The chain is composed of seven (or twelve) globes on different planes. This is a discrete number of actual "places" where we can exist, where the objective drama of life happens. About each such globe spheres of effects, where subjective states like devachan happen. >G de P (whom you have studied a lot more than I have) >says that every single geometric point in space is a >living consciousness-center or Monad. True, but there are only seven (or twelve) such points that form the basis for the globes of our planetary chain, the "places" of existence for denizens of earth. There are likely numberless other schemes of existence that interpenetrate the world about us, but we don't visit those places. If we were to leave the earth, it would be on the outer rounds, but that's another story ... >Why do you persist in saying that life/existence >must be confined to certain regions? There is nothing that "confines" it. Rather big lives come into being and play host to countless little lives. A world is born and then it can be inhabited. We are children of the world that we are born into. >Can you give me a quote? About the globes of the planetary chain being the places were we exist on that planet? Or about the distinction between the principles or ingredients of consciousness and the egos/souls or centers of consciousness that we actually form in order to have sentience on a particular world (that resides on a particular plane)? When I get time, I'll look for a quote or two, unless Jerry Hejka-Ekins or Rich Taylor beats me to it, and comes up with something good. -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Wed May 8 06:19:06 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 23:19:06 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508061906.006885f4@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) Chuck: >Ouch! Some of these quotes do seem like the Mahatmas are hitting us on the head! >This is one of the times I find myself wondering what the >real agenda of the Masters was in writing that. But they were speaking to Sinnett, and he may have needed things expressed in a certain way. I'm not sure, though, that they did a good job of training him, considering how he eventually started going to seances to trying to remain in contact with the Masters, resorting to spiritualistic mediums to be his contact! >Given the historic fact that when people think >they have the REAL TRUTH they have this unpleasant tendency >to try to kill everyone who they think has a not so real >truth, why would KH even write such a thing? He also said to Sinnett that his teachings, if told directly, would sound like "insane gibberish," and Sinnett would have to settle for crumbs. Only those that "come to us" would get the full teachings. Given the tendency for people to attack others with different views, I can understand why they would not teach openly, and why the Mysteries are kept secret, reserved for the initiated, for those whose lips are sealed against betrayal. The emphasis on "Truth is one" may have been meant to encourage Sinnett to pay more careful attention to what he was being taught. >Would it not have made more sense from their point of view to >say "Look, everyone makes mistakes, but you get oodles of >incarnations ... to work them out. If you go off on a spiritual >tangent this time, you'll fix it later on." True, everyone makes mistakes, and there's a lot of time left to make up for them. But the purpose of the Hierarchy of Compassion and the Path is so that people can hasten their evolution and more quickly participate in the bodhisattva work, in the work of uplifting the world. We can screw around and take zillions of lifetimes to get our act together, or we can become significant forces for good in the world early on. The choice is individual, but the Masters would be concentrating on those that might help out in the work. >When people start talking about who is a real Theosophist, >they remind of a an incident at Olcott in 1992. >As a prelude to World Parliament of Religions the next year, >a sort of symposium took place ... after the representatives >of some different (and a couple very different) local >religious bodies spoke, one of the plague asked the Lutheran >minister what he was doing on a panel with "false religions"? >At that point John Algeo, who had the misfortune of chairing >the thing, started to turn red in the face and sputter and >looked at me with the obvious thought of "Chuck, you're >right, we shouldn't be doing this." Sounds like an unmoderated discussion list? Anyone can come in, perhaps as a group, and start telling everyone that their beliefs or studies represent a "false religion". The Lutheran Minister sounds like he was open minded, but the heretics (the Jews for Jesus) showed a total narrowness of mind that precluded themselves from seeing anything noble or valuable in the program. We have, though, two different issues there. First is not being narrow-minded, and allowing for other points of view of the same truth, or allowing for other approaches to the same spiritual goal. The other issue is that, simply put, some things are true and others are false, and the reality of life doesn't change because different people hold different and subjective opinions about it. >There may very well be one ultimate spiritual truth but >there are as many paths to it as there are people. As to ultimate spiritual truths and goals, I'd agree. But as to more immediate information about human life, the nature of the world in which we live, and the occult teachings, *these are not ultimate truths*, they are true in a simple and ordinary way, like the fact that the moon orbits the earth, and not simply a matter of personal, subjective opinion. >If we start judging who has the one, true, Theosophy, we are >going to get ourselves into terrible trouble and while I am >very skeptical about Karma, if there is such a thing my >personal guess is that it will heavier on those who judge those >whose spiritual paths are different from their own than on >those who follow the different path. Most people are living ordinary lives, dead to the spiritual, unaware of anything that goes beyond their day-to-day events of life. Some have a vague spiritual yearning, and are looking for something, but don't know just what. A few are approaching the Path, and are engaging real evolutionary processes within. When you talk about each person having their own path, and not judging others, that's fine. But you need to specify which type of people you're talking about before we can proceed. The ordinary soulless person, someone not ensouled in the spirit, is definitely lacking in something, and they are not following an equal but different path; they are simply asleep. Some may be ready for awakening; most may not have inwardly ripened to the point of being ready to open up to the sun. >It's a damned big universe out there and we really know very >little, to little to say who is right. The "no one knows" argument only goes so far. It's a useful idea to present for purposes of keeping peace among people of widely different views, especially if the people tend to be combative. But the idea stands before us as a barrier to our own deeper studies if we actually take it seriously! -- Eldon From jmeier@microfone.net Tue May 7 19:49:44 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 19:49:44 -0400 From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Message-Id: <199605072349.AA18663@vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (Rich/JerryS.) Rich: >> I think the questions you are asking and the proedure you are following >>is the only way to explain how original Theosophy differs from neo-Theosophy, >>and goes a long way toward explaining WHY they differ. Jerry S.: > Rich, you seem to have already reached your conclusion (i.e, >that there IS a difference). I guess all JHE has to do now is to tie >up some loose ends? Apparently Jim can go home. (?) JHE was >unable to demonstrate to me that any real differences exist. Now Jim >wants to try his luck. I respectfully suggest that their discussion will >"prove" nothing, because everyone already seems to have their minds >made up. Hmmm... "J" and "K" are next to each other on a keyboard; were you meaning "Kim"? In reference to the thread between Kim & Jerry: maybe everyone has their minds made up now, but there's hope for us. :) To me, it's fascinating history -- a little out of my league, but fascinating nonetheless. When they get to the part about agreed differences in the systems (as best as can be agreed upon, anyway), I hope it will continue on to the *significance*, if any, of those differences. Then I hope they go back to that side-thread about Subba Row and maybe Sinnet... and then maybe I'll pipe up about AAB. :) Jim From poulsen@dk-online.dk Wed May 8 04:13:30 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 02:13:30 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3C84.0F242FC0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (part 2) Encoding: 173 TEXT JHE >No, I don't need support for the ideal of universal planes nor do >I question the philosophical propositions concerning extension. >As I explained earlier, I'm just trying to get a feel for how you >understand the terms you use. But for clarity, I will rephrase >my question: If the "universal planes" are "states external to >our solar system", then what are they internal to? e.g.: Our >galaxy?; Our family of galaxies?; the entire universe? It would be useless to guess as to the nature of universal consciousness. Kim >> they are the white circle plane in the black field. The 6th is completely >> unknown. The vedantins place their Parabrahm on the first plane, the >> seventh being prakritic, the 5th universal mind. JHE >Which chart are you using here? Beginning of Proem and the Subba Row/Schwarz diagrams JHE > What do you call the planes of the solar system? Kim >>I do not call them anything. I like to use the terminology of >>the author. I use numbers. In CW XII p. 658 the 3 lower (Figure >>B) are called Jivic ("egoic" also mental), Astral and Objective >>(physical) If I may choose, I choose the terminology of AAB >>which remains the same from her first volume to her 24th and >>last. JHE: >Sorry. My question was unintentionally ambiguous. I was really >asking for an overall term for the planes--like "solar planes." >I didn't mean to ask you to enumerate them. But I'm glad for >this answer too. Kim: :-) I am trying to give you something to work on. Planes would be fine for normal use - since their sub-planes are of minor importance and the universal planes is rarely under consideration. See below for detailed description. JHE >>>What do you call the planes for the earth's system of globes? Kim >>4 lower planes of the solar system also called planes of the 4 >>ethers (AAB). see again CW XII p. 658 for grossest globe (ours) >>on 7th or objective plane. - an error here. The 4 lower should be called 4th etheric, gaseous, liquid and dense. JHE >Again thanks for this answer. But again I was looking for an >overall term. This would only confuse the matter as they are also planes of the solar system. JHE >>>What do you call the planes for the sun's system of globes? Kim >>Our planetary chain ARE one of our sun's systems of globes (at >>least affiliated with this solar system)? Or do you mean the >>sacred planets? JHE >No, I don't mean the sacred planets. I was asking for the overall >term for the planes of the sun's system of globes, ie the sun's >globes A - E. Your question was extremely confusing. You mean by the the sun's system of globes the visible, physical globes (as I understand it). They would generally be globe D of the various chains - all on the seventh plane. JHE >>>What do you call the planes where are to be found the human >>principles? Kim >>On all planes of the solar system and hence the planes of the >>planetary chain except the highest. The important principles are >>the relation between monad and ego - ending with the mental >>plane, the 5th. These constitute the buddhist skandhas and the >>correlations of atma, so to speak, in hinduism. They are >>correlation of force or spirit rather than correlation of >>elements, elementals. The knowledge of these principles >>constitute a whole science for itself. JHE >Then you are saying that the human "astral body" is on the solar >"astral plane" and the "mental body" is on the solar mental >plane? Kim Generally yes. But a mental body is a very simplified concept except if used for the causal body, karana sarira JHE >Please enumerate for me the terms you use for the seven >principles of man. For our purpose the one on p. 607 of CW XII will do, supported by the one between p. 524-5. The 4 eternal principles are here atma, buddhi, manas and the auric envelope, together inner man or monad-ego relation - and the 3 outer aspects, lower mind, astral and physical (prana as the l ife-force of the etheric web). In short 7 principles on 6 planes (2 on the dual mental plane). It is the best and most occult enumeration by HPB in my opinion. To recapitulate if we are to concentrate on HPB - I would like to use: For the 7 principles - the diagram on p. 607 For the universal or macrocosmic planes Figure A of p. 658. The names relates only to forces manifesting within the solar system and no attempt is made to designate them on their own plane. For the solar physical body or prakritic planes Figure B of p. 658. These are the planes of the solar system. On the 4 lower we have the 7 globes of a chain. For the sub-planes of these planes of consciousness see diagram C. They are also the seven parts of consciousness as manifesting on either plane. Must not be confused with seven principles. For explanation of AAB see Cosmic Fire p. 116-7 (for want of a diagram by CWL) On p. 116 is explained the position of seven planes of solar system as sub-planes of cosmic physical. On p. 817 the the planes of the solar system is shown in the diagram "Cosmic Physical Plane" In the diagram is shown the major principles and their correlations on the planes. They correspond to Auric body and atma-buddha-manas in CW p. 607 tabulation. Astral and physical bodies are ignored in the diagrams but treated of elsewhere JHE >Since we are not comparing Subba Row to HPB, I don't find your >illustration very helpful. Can you find something in HPB or CWL >to illustrate your point? See above JHE: >importantly, I think that what your wish to advocate this overall >system goes far beyond the scope of our discussion--viz the >compatibility of HPB and CWL. I suggest that we begin by >exploring the compatibility between HPB and CWL. With regard to planes and principles I hope. As I will not ask you to accept this notion of a common esoteric system it will have no influence on our discussion. I can retain it without any effect whatsoever as it is not forwarded as a proof. JHE >HPB only asks for three preliminary propositions. For me, no >others are necessary. I am talking of these but also of the axiomatic style of the SD, ML etc.- see beginning of ML XI for more propositions. In fact a whole range of assumptions are needed few of which are prooven. >As for CWL, I have opinions based upon a lot of historical research. So in >this sense, he is not neutral ground for me either. I am sure you will be as neutral and objective as possible. In friendship, Kim From uyik00@mcl.ucsb.edu Wed May 8 00:24:36 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 17:24:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Kelly Yi Subject: Re: Repartee versus substance In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960507225733.229f9064@mail.eden.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Universal Brotherhood means to realize the interdependence of all beings and things in the entire universe and cosmos; to realize every single thought and action has an effect on the whole as a whole. We have to stop identifying with parts of the whole in just the manifest realm. It actually would be more appropriate to negate the idea of Universal Brotherhood and simply identify with the wholistic Being of manifest and unmanifest creation as It Is in the Present Moment in its totality. We should realize that "i" as individual entity always exists in a larger context and *never* outside of that context. Thus, "I" should represent the Totality, rather than a part of the whole that is ripped out of context by thought. So Universal Brotherhood should not imply simply seeing beings as *other* beings which are your brothers but seeing all as part of One's Self. If this is truly contemplated, it will hold true even for an atheist. -N,O From Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Wed May 8 00:27:40 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 96 17:27:40 PDT From: Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Subject: Schizophrenia Message-Id: <9605080030.AA29789@orchid.tc.pw.com> Schizophrenia is a very interesting disease, but very frightening, as well. I doubt that its symptoms are identical in any one case. My "mother in law" was schizophrenic and maintaining her illness was part of the daily routine that existed when she lived with us for the last 9 years prior to her death by metastatic lung cancer. For Gloria, the onset of her illness was a combination of many things. First, she was a naturally hyperactive and precocious child, hard to control, hard to please. It seems the illness came with the onset of menopause (so it was late and NOT in her 20's), and a series of personal tradgedies that put her under incredible stress. It took some time before the illness manifested itself as "a voice", audio hallucinations. It seems that had her illness been treated correctly at the start, which was in the 60's, perhaps it would not have progressed the way it did. She was subjected to all sorts of barbaric medical procedures, including electro-shock therapy, and took every anti-psychotic medication in the book. An aside was dealing with the medication's side effects. Back about 6 years ago, we took her to a small town doctor in Milford, Connecticut, who diagnosed her with Grave's Disease. Turns out the malfunction of her thyroid was directly related to the audio hallucinations. She had a hard time when her husband died and had to be hospitalized, but when we took her out, she was still having small problems with the voice. Once her Grave's was recognized and treated, the voice g radually disappeared never to make its presence known again in her life. So, this story has a happy ending. Gloria lived to be 69 years old, and the last 9 years of her life were spent stable, productive, and healthy. This, the product of strict routine, good food, regular and uninterrupted medicine, and lots of heavy duty conversations where she was pushed to take responsibility for her behavior and her life whenever it was possible -- helped prevent an acute episode of an illness that in her case was primarily biological, not emotional -- directly related to the chemicals in her brain. From RIhle@aol.com Wed May 8 00:36:12 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 20:36:12 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960507203611_289315123@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Big Bang Two Darrin quotes Paul Brunton> >But present-day students do not need to study her writings first, as the >point of view in the present teaching is different from that taken in her >published work. In her esoteric instruction, her students were told "to >reduce everything to terms of consciousness." Richard Ihle writes> Thank you for passing this along, Darrin. I wonder what would happen if some individuals followed this instruction and then came to the sincere conclusion that HPB's elaborate exposition of Anthropogenesis, in particular, was not primarily meant to be taken *literally* by advanced students? What would happen if many came to believe that the "biggest blind" of them all is that "Globes," "Rounds," "Root Races" etc. are not to be taken as actual "translifetime details," but rather, merely as symbolic representations in the Grandest Allegory of all times? What if the next deeper layer of the "Principal Theosophical Doctrine" in THE SECRET DOCTRINE is not found to be concerned with what might have happened pre- or post-incarnation, but that it pertains to a hitherto largely "hidden" psychogenetic ("psychomaturational") process in the life of each individual? Even if it could be shown that such a new "shedding of an outer garment" had much greater potential for the development of practical adeptship, how would theosophical scholars greet a possible "dematerialization" of their painfully acquired macro-nuts-and-bolts, now potentially "allegorical" knowledge? Would general acceptance require something more than someone's bringing forth the right "Psychological Key," or would it be necessary to have the Theosophical equivalent of Big Bang Two in order to blow the lock off entirely? Godspeed, Richard Ihle From Richtay@aol.com Wed May 8 01:14:33 1996 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 21:14:33 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960507211431_108820062@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: HPB's sources Alexis writes, > HPB was perfectly correct in her total rejection of Tantra. In the past many > years I have associated with many valid and "advanced" Indian Teachers > including Sri Aurobindo and some of Yogananda's original disciples and they > all agree that Tantra is harmful and foolish. Actually, there is a WORLD of difference between the Hindu and Buddhist Tantras. I would agree that the vast majority of Hindu tantras appear to be of the "left hand path," i.e. personal, sensual gratification for earthly results. But the topic is not Hindu tantras, but the Buddhist Tantras preserved in Tibet. And HPB did not "totally reject Tantra" as one may see reading only the Preface of the SECRET DOCTRINE. See my last post on that topic. From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed May 8 01:44:38 1996 Date: 07 May 96 21:44:38 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: TS as "abortion" Message-Id: <960508014437_76400.1474_HHL49-1@CompuServe.COM> > But unlike my fellow gang members I am not about to write it off >yet. There are too many variables at work for me to do that and I tend to be >afflicted with more patience than dumb ol' Job at times. Chuck, I haven't written them off just yet, either. They are down, but not yet out. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed May 8 01:44:41 1996 Date: 07 May 96 21:44:41 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: The Big Question Message-Id: <960508014440_76400.1474_HHL49-2@CompuServe.COM> >I think my primary question would have to be: Why are your various letters >so mutually contradictory? > >akexus d. This one made me fall out of my chair . Personally, I can't think of a better question myself except maybe, Why don't you precipitate one more letter explaining all the inconsistencies in your previous ones. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed May 8 01:44:44 1996 Date: 07 May 96 21:44:44 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Mind, matter and evolution Message-Id: <960508014444_76400.1474_HHL49-3@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: >Jerry: As you know better than most, when it comes to "magic" and healing is >in a way magic, because it conforms to the definition "alter reality in >conformity with will", there are quite a few people who regularly do that. >There are unfortunately very very few of us theosophists that do that, some >theosophists that might be able to do it, but won't, and a majority of >theosophists who neither can do it nor will do it. >As I see and do healing it is a first object action not a third object >action. What is more productive of a nucleus of "Brother-Sisterhood" than >restoring life and health to a person in need. What better demonstrates the >reality of the greater reality beyond human reality more clearly than >healing someone from a terrible disease when medicine has totally "given >up"? As I see it, that's far more productive than aporting tea cups. Agree, 100%. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed May 8 01:44:49 1996 Date: 07 May 96 21:44:49 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: HPB's sources Message-Id: <960508014449_76400.1474_HHL49-5@CompuServe.COM> Some responses to Rich: Rich, I agree completely up until the following: >I think HPB would have had a VERY difficult time explaining to the Victorian >public exactly how to distinguish between LITERAL and METAPHORICAL sexual >symbolism, and so probably thought it better to leave off discussion of the >Tantras. She was most certainly opposed to monks LITERALLY practicing sex >according to Tantric symbolism, becuase it would not only break their vows >but because of all the occult effects of sexual relations which she discusses >in a few private documents. This is also the position of the Gelug-pa school >today, that the sexual symbolism in the Tantras CANNOT be practised >physically by monks. The "the occult effects of sexual relations" is flapdoodle. Its *only* a bad thing if you have taken a vow of celibacy. The vast majority of Tibetan Tantric practitioners endorse sex with what they call the karmamudra (action seal) or sexual partner. In fact, the general canon is that it is absolutely necessary in order to generate the bliss that is needed to unite with emptiness. This is usually symbolized by meditation on the Buddhas and saints in sexual union with their feminine consorts. However, a higher form of sexual magic is practiced called jnanamudra or meditation seal, where the sexual partner is a visualization-- the anima in a psychological sense. Herbert Guenther's THE TANTRIC VIEW OF LIFE describes the karmamudra, jnanamudra, and mahamudra quite well. Other that this differing view on sexual magic ala tantricism, I enjoyed your post and agree with you. Jerry S. Member, TI This is very disappointing to modern Westerners, who have rushed to the stores to buy "tantric sex" books. Forgive me, but I have only the most nauseous reaction to this kind of materialization of the Tantras. They were never meant as a kind of "Kama-sutra" to titillate the public, but formed the culmination of YEARS of straight Abhidharma and Mahayana study, reserved only for the elite, initiated few. This kind of materialization could only have been expected, however, and HPB thus spoke of Tantras as little as possible, knowing that they would be made public by the lama preservers soon enough. At least, that's my take on it. From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed May 8 01:44:45 1996 Date: 07 May 96 21:44:45 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: TS/Democratic Spirit & Hierarchical Feeling Message-Id: <960508014444_76400.1474_HHL49-4@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: > I'd have loved to compare Blavatsky's, Olcott's or >Judge's Auras with those of the "second generation leadership. Me too. But from their writings, I already suspect what we would find. Jerry S. Member, Ti From eldon@theosophy.com Wed May 8 10:25:14 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 03:25:14 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508102514.006a5f9c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: The Seven Principles Here's an interesting quote on the seven principles. I haven't come across one that I was looking for, but still thought this was worth posting. -- Eldon ---- > The Secret Doctrine was the universally difused religion > of the ancient and prehistoric world ... > There were portions of the Secret Science that for > incalculable ages had to remain concealed from the > profane gaze. But this was because to impart to the > unprepared multitude secrets of such tremendous > importance, was equivalent to giving a child a lighted > candle in a powder magazine ... > The danger was this: Doctrines such as the planetary > chain, or the seven races, at once give a clue to the > sevenfold nature of man, for each principle is > correlated to a plane, a planet, and a race; and the > human principles are, on every plane, correlated to > sevenfold occult forces -- those of the higher planes > being of tremendous power. So that any septenary > division at once gives a clue to tremendous occult > the abuse of which would cause incalculable evil to > humanity ... This is from "The Secret Doctrine", I, XXXIV. Note that HPB was saying that the principles were correlated to planes, planets, and races, not that there were found in such. Another interesting aspect of this quote is that we're reminded of how these doctrines are, and still, for the most part, I suspect, are concealed from the profane gaze. There is the fact that true knowledge of the inner workings of nature brings power, as well as other reasons, like the higher doctrines would simply not be understandable to the untrained and uninitiated. There's tremendous value to what we have, though, fragmentary as it is, and it's a worthy endeavor to preserve and pass on this gift to future generations. -- Eldon From nils.thorell@sbbs.se Wed May 8 09:30:13 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 11:30:13 +0200 From: Nils-Erik Thorell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: German! Message-Id: <09301337122439@sbbs.se> Please, don't mix Scandinavian and Norwegian! At 12.25 1996-05-05 -0400, you wrote: >John >German food is nowhere near as bland as Scandanavian. I once had this >Norwegian girlfriend... >But God has been merciful to all of them. " He has created them without >tastebuds." >(Sorry Victor.) >Of course now you realize that you will probably be numbered among the ES >agents sent to destroy the internet for talking about something besides pure >theosophy, whatever that may be. > >Chuck the Barbaric Gourmand MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"Take two tons of Blavatsky and a ton and a half of chutney" The >Theosophical Cannibal Cookbook > > From ramadoss@eden.com Wed May 8 16:50:46 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 11:50:46 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: White Lotus Day (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi It is 00:30 hrs on May 8. Just remembered it is White Lotus Day. Let us remember HPB for all the sacrifices she made so that you and I and everyone else have access to all the Theosophical Literature we have today. I consider myself fortunate in having been exposed to Theosophy and also I had the previlege of being associated with a lodge at whose inauguration she was present - which is a very rare occurrence. Let us send our loving thoughts to her and every worker of Theosophy and hope next year may be a better year for the Humanity. ....doss From alexei@slip.net Wed May 8 19:51:21 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 12:51:21 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508195121.00670eb0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: German! At 05:41 AM 5/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >Please, don't mix Scandinavian and Norwegian! > >At 12.25 1996-05-05 -0400, you wrote: >>John >>German food is nowhere near as bland as Scandanavian. I once had this >>Norwegian girlfriend... >>But God has been merciful to all of them. " He has created them without >>tastebuds." >>(Sorry Victor.) >>Of course now you realize that you will probably be numbered among the ES >>agents sent to destroy the internet for talking about something besides pure >>theosophy, whatever that may be. >> >>Chuck the Barbaric Gourmand MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >>Heretic >>Troublemaker >> >>"Take two tons of Blavatsky and a ton and a half of chutney" The >>Theosophical Cannibal Cookbook >> >> > > >Nils: Please explain. I've always thought that Scandinavia consisted of (listed alphabetically) Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Historically the political divisions between them have been changeable to say the least. Finland was an integral part of Sweden until Russia took it from her. Norway, Sweden and Denmark were once under one Crown, and Sweden and Norway were one nation for the longest time. The only Scandinavian nation that is really separate in any way is Finland and that is due to the Finno-Urgic ethnicity of the Finns. They are all the children of Skaadi. I cook in all four cuisines, and there are distinct national differences there, and I don't find them at all bland, but then I'm not Sicilian. (Or was it his Girlfriend that was bland?). By the way I've spent quite a bit of time in all four countries and love them all equally but for different things. alexis d. From eldon@theosophy.com Wed May 8 10:59:27 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 03:59:27 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508105927.00695520@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Sister/Brotherhood as fact Liesel: Your quote from the Dalai Lama was good. It illustrates in a very practical way the interdependence of life, how everything depends upon everything else for its existence. Our very being is defined in terms of this unity. It's only when the mind acts up, and misbehaves, that it leads us to the delusion that says "I'm a separate finger, different than all the other fingers and with a life of my own, apart from the hand itself!" Beautify as the analogy is, though, there is a paradoxical flip side to this. We exist due to our interdependence, we co-create the world, we are that bundle of energy that composes our links of living karma with others. And yet we are unique, special, and with something important to contribute to life, something that only we can do, something that will forever remain unseen, unfelt, and unappreciated if we hold back and fail the world. We're responsible to become independent forces for good in the world, and not remain the passive experiencers of the effects of others. -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Wed May 8 11:18:29 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 04:18:29 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508111829.0067d910@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: 7 Principles and Sheaths Jerry S: Here's a quote closer to the type that I was looking for. It's by G. de Purucker, taken from page 337 of Volume II of "The Dialogues of G. de Purucker". > ... The seven principles are not vehicles. They > are not sheaths. To call the seven 'principles the > seven 'elements' of man's constitution is just as > good a manner of speaking. It depends upon the point > of view whether we speak of seven 'principles' or > seven 'elements.' The two are the same. They are > principles when looked at from one point of view > and elements when looked at from some other point > of view. The vehicles, on the other hand, are > aggregrated centers or focuses or vortices in which > the respective egos live, but these vortices, focuses, > are in each themselves all composed of the seven > principles or elements. -- Eldon From RIhle@aol.com Wed May 8 04:29:15 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 00:29:15 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960508002914_289492973@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Eldon writes> >My thinking is that the future faculties and powers that await >our race are not along the lines of seeing subjective >psychological content as through it were "real". They are not >leading towards a greater emphasis on the subjective spheres of >effects, the backstage to life, populated by spooks and >elementals. They lead, rather, I think, towards greater powers >of understanding and comprehension, and towards powers over >manifest nature, over nature as found on this and other spheres >of causes. > >Evolution lies in growing *powers of mind*, not powers of sense >perception. The ability to learn and understand mathematics, for >instance, is a much "higher faculty" or "inner power" than the >ability to see what color a rock is on the nth subplane of the >astral. The senses we have provide us with an appropriate >container for working on that evolution, and rebelling against >them is like an impatient child, bored with learning, yearning to >escape the confines of the classroom, wanting to run out and play >at the upcoming recess. > Richard Ihle writes> One advantage I have found in being perhaps over-generous in my willingness to grant the existence of adept powers--of at least some degree, in at least some circumstances--to others is that I am also thereby entitled to grant some modicum of adeptship to myself. As I mentioned previously, however, I am one of your more "homey-type" adepts--quite unlike, in most ways, those the prodigies one meets in theosophical literature. Be that as it may, I have found a curious thing about the little bit of adeptship I am familiar with: Most of it does not seem to involve ~knowing what to do~, but rather ~knowing what NOT to do~. Now, in reading your post about the possible connection between schizophrenia and the psychic, I could not help asking myself, "Is it possible that Eldon does not realize that bringing up this presently quiescent subject again--especially in this manner--is going to set-off JRC and possibly Alexis and possibly some others in a predictable way again?" Oh well, if your personal adeptship was not there telling you NOT to do it, perhaps it will turn out better than I think. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From Richtay@aol.com Wed May 8 05:14:52 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 01:14:52 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960508011452_486586331@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: HPB's sources Kim writes, > Actually a team of theosophists developing linguistic capabilities and > using a scholarly approach could do wonders to theosophy. The internet will > make such a thing possible. Yes, I agree. I would point out that this is exactly what David Reigle in Colorado has attempted in forming his Eastern School of Theosophy -- a training ground for Theosophists to do research into their own roots, and present this research effectively to the public. It seems to me that the more we can legitimize HPB to the public, thoe more the existing scholars will take an interest in what you and I are talking about. In the meantime, there's just the few of us that there are. Yes, I am taking more Sanskrit. I hate it though, which makes me a very poor student. Sadly, my Tibetan is WORSE. What to do? I'm thinking of taking time off my program to go live with David Reigle, take his course, and get really good at both languages. We'll see if that's a possibility. From Richtay@aol.com Wed May 8 05:15:00 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 01:15:00 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960508011500_486586416@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Krishnamurti defended Doss writes, > Rich: In spite of all the historical events surrounding J Krishnamurti, I > have to speak from personal experience. My exposure to his speeches, > books and videos have helped me to better understand practical > application of Thosophical ideas in day to day life. So I am eternally > grateful for the benefit I have received. This happened after several > decades of exposure to Theosophy. It almost took two and half decades to > make the connection. > > I thought I should share with everyone. > > .....doss Doss -- please don't misunderstand me. I have learned a great deal from Krishnamurti, and his teachings make a great deal of sense to me. To millions ! My point is that being chosen as the "World Teacher" by CWL, and then Krishnaji walking off, was a HEAVY blow to the TS, and nearly did poor Annie Besant in. Actually, I don't think she lived too many years beyond that sad event. Krishna wasn't causing the problem, though, it was the mucky-mucks who had picked out 12 Apostles for him, formed a hige 5,000 member Star of the East organization, and had it all fall to pot when Krishnaji finally said, "You know what? I don't want to be the Messiah and I'm leaving to Ojai and please don't follow me." [Okay not those exact words, but you get my drift.] I suspect that Krishnamurti did FAR, FAR more good after he left the TS than he would have been allowed to accomplish WITHIN it. Hmmm. From Richtay@aol.com Wed May 8 05:15:05 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 01:15:05 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960508011503_486586428@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: 1st Dalai Lama Nicholas Weeks writes, > The books I've read say Gedun Drup (a disciple of Je Tsongkhapa) was the > First Dalai Lama, not Je Rinpoche himself. Do you have some evidence for > this? Nicholas, as usual you are right and I am wrong. I get to writing very quickly and make many mistakes. Thanks for catching that one ! From Richtay@aol.com Wed May 8 05:15:09 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 01:15:09 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960508011508_486586448@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL etc. Liesel wrote, > Rich, > > Seems to me what you're looking for is another generation of Theosophists, > who are carbon copies of HPB. I think that's not what she meant. I think > she'd be horrified, at theosophists who'd just try to parrot her. The value > of her teachings is that everyone can interpret them in his/her own way. > Besides, you guys always get stuck on second generation Theosophists. There > are people nowadays who are writing theosophy, & the good ones are really > worth looking at & thinking about, because they live now, & interpet > theosophy for now, not for 100 years ago. Well, I think I agree with you halfway, Liesel. It is hard for me to take Theosophists seriously if they haven't heard of HPB and teach stuff quite differently than what she taught. For me, the modern Theosophical movement begins with her, and there would have been no Theosophical movement (in the narrow sense) last century if she hadn't sacrificed herself for it. So yes, I really look for people to take her seriously and learn fro her. But to be fair to myself, I regularly bring up many, many Theosophical workers today who aren't necessarily ULT associates who I think are carrying on the work wonderfully. Even if we have significant disagreements. Eldon, Jerry HE, Daniel Caldwell, David Reigle, lots and lots of others are publishing, working, and doing their level best to bring the teaching to the public and to scholars. Some of them are Purucker students, some of them are TOTALLY independent of any school or system of Theosophy. But they seem to be presenting stuff in line with what the Masters gave out to start with. Sure, further developments are great, but contradictions with the original stuff makes me take a step or two back and think "uh -oh !" From alexei@slip.net Wed May 8 05:29:40 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 22:29:40 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508052940.0069862c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Gangus defunctus At 02:48 PM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960507060929.006afc04@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>I will say, however, that it's hardly something for you to get >>"miffed" at any of the five of us over, if you want to be "miffed' look to >>Eldon. >> >>alexis d. > >Not miffed at all - just puzzled at being included (by anyone) in a >"gang" without prior invitation to join. Some of Eldon's posts are very >long and repetitive. Some I read with interest all the way through, >some don't get beyond the first paragraph - maybe I deleted his remarks >on this one way back! > >Alan :-) >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > No problem Alan, as far as I'm concerned c'est fini...c'est tout finis! I, for one, shan't mention it again. I have even suggested that chuck let it die. If Eldon wants to continue gnawing old bones it's his perfect right, but I, at least, won't encourage it by any response at all. I agree with you, I read most of his messages for about one paragraph and then delete. Others I read with interest all the way through, just as you do. But I think that's the way to use these kinds of lists. I delete after one paragraph when I see it's going to be a long discussion of theosophical terminology too. I don't think there's anything to complain about when people read the things that interest them and politely press the "out" button when they see it doesn't. The last time people forced me to pay attention to things in which I wasn't interested was during my military service when I had very little choice. When I left military service I made three vows and I've kept them all. One was never ever to get my head shaved again. Another was never ever to sleep on the ground again. And the third was never to do anything I didn't want to do again. fondly alexis d. From ramadoss@eden.com Wed May 8 05:33:44 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 00:33:44 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: White Lotus Day Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi It is 00:30 hrs on May 8. Just remembered it is White Lotus Day. Let us remember HPB for all the sacrifices she made so that you and I and everyone else have access to all the Theosophical Literature we have today. I consider myself fortunate in having been exposed to Theosophy and also I had the previlege of being associated with a lodge at whose inauguration she was present - which is a very rare occurrence. Let us send our loving thoughts to her and every worker of Theosophy and hope next year may be a better year for the Humanity. ....doss From alexei@slip.net Wed May 8 05:40:16 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 22:40:16 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508054016.006aa468@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: testing 1,2,3 At 05:30 PM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: Even if an Adept is lurking or even if they are reading - which >they can easily do without access to a computer - I doubt they are going >to reveal and undertake the testing. ....doss > >PS: Even if they volunteer, their status will be questioned and all >results trashed. > Doss: I have a question for you. Why would an adept bother to read this list without a computer when the expenditure of energy is negligible with a computer and considerable without one? I believe that you will eventually find that the Adeptii never waste any energy at all, especially in doing something psychically that they could much more easily do physically. I have a second question too. Do you honestly thing that any homo-sapiens has the ability, knowledge, and the perspicacity to actually "test" an Adept and evaluate the results? St. Paul advised people to "test the spirits, lest they lie" but he wasn't talking about Adeptii, and he clearly was one. It has long been said the "People get the governments they deserve", they also get the leaders they deserve. alexis d. > > From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed May 8 05:56:22 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 01:56:22 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960508015619_486604071@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? Alan, Then by all means consider yourself invited! We would be heartbroken to proceed without you. Your perspicacity and wit are an inspiration to us all. And besides, you put up with us. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From alexei@slip.net Wed May 8 06:07:47 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 23:07:47 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508060747.00694f14@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? At 05:26 PM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >There is a saying, perportedly from HPB, the "Theosophy is who Theosophy >does." My feeling is that one who, in the words of Voltaire, "defends the >poor and helps the oppressed," is far closer to the spirit of theosophy than >one who can quote the SD right and left and knows several of the Mahatmas >area codes. I was not kidding when I said it would be interesting if >theosophy ever really acquired a heart. Oh you are quite definitely right, or should I say Voltaire is always right! I think Theosophy had a heart, but it stopped on May 8th 1891. My question for you is this: How can it acquire a heart if it never does anything but quote the Secret Doctrine and yammer about "The Masters". It is my impression that, by and large, most (not all but most) theosophists could never, ever, in any circumstances, meet an Adept of whom they'd approve! Most Adepts including the group that founded the theosophical movement would never be seen as anything but "un theosophical" by the average organizational theosophist. >And the irony of all this is that Eldon is someone who should know that >better than anyone else. The problem is that the TS went into full reaction >after the madness of Annie and the Bishop and retreated into an alley of >blind intellectualism, relegating the idea of helping people to the TOS. That was when the folks to whom the organization meant more than its mission decided that any opinion at all was worse than no opinion at all, because any opinion might just possible cause trouble, and the Krishnamurti Debacle was more trouble than they ever wanted again. Now >the Gullo's are wonderful people and this is not to reflect on them in any >way, but the TOS has more than it's share of self-righteous baboons who turn >off more people than all our merry gang combined. I cannot read their >comments on vegetarianism without having this craving for raw meat. The Gullos are really nice folks, but the TOS has an extremely narrow and limited idea of "service". And yes you are right about the "self-righteous", The E.S., The TOS, The Co-Masons, and The LCC are full of self-righteous folks, but then that is the normal manifestation of the religious experience, it makes people self-righteous. With those people it seems to me that Theosophy is no different than Presbyterian! As to vegetarianism, as I see it that has to be a personal choice. There's no real proof that it's at all more healthy than any other diet, and as you know my multi-PHD'd Bro in Law say's it's less nutritional for creatures that are normally omnivorous. But I do believe it's an ethical choice, and, if it suits one, a good one. As I've told you if I had to kill it myself, I'd be a vegetarian, but I don't so I'm not. That makes me a hypocrite, I fully admit it. But then Hitler was a vegetarian for moral reasons...so what does it prove? What I do object to strongly is when vegetarians attempt to coerce others into it. I have an inate tendency to resist coercion most fiercely. I think to say "I don't eat meat because..." is perfectly fine...but to go on and say "and you mustn't either" is not fine. But the >situation is such that many people in the TS cannot even understand how to >show compassion at the death of a loved one of a fellow member. And if real >disaster strikes, they say nonsense about Karma and let the person rot. > That's how I acquired my housemate. I was the only one who would take her >in. Chuck: I have to admit that this is a situation I have never noticed. A lot of fellow Theosophists have died in my time and everyone I know has shown compassion for their loved ones. Now as to the one who died, well, as Theosophists we can miss them, we can love them, but after all everyone dies and to a truly believing theosophist, so what? It's the people with the loss that require compassion, for the "dead" person is hardly lost. >I have great affection for HPB (which is why I have so much fun with her >girth) and the Colonel not because of her writings, but because of their >humanity. Anyone who would go charging off to Ceylon on a bullock cart to >toss out the damned missionaries is OK in my book. It was a Goat Cart more frequently than a bullock cart. Don't you think they both know and appreciate how you feel? Neither of them think of you as either a heretic or a blasphemer or a "trouble maker" and they both know very well what a really nice, compassionate, feeling man you are. You may fool some people but you ain't fooling them! Far too many of their contemporaries thought they were heretics, blasphemers, and trouble-makers too! And remember she was accused of being a spy! >The time has come for the TSers to become "doers of the word and not hearers >only." The time for TSers to become "doers" and not simply "hearers" was in 1875...we're still waiting. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > Alexis d.> From alexei@slip.net Wed May 8 06:10:59 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 23:10:59 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508061059.006a748c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TS/Democratic Spirit & Hierarchical Feeling At 05:25 PM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I don't know about this aura-testing business. I don't think I would have >liked to see HPB's aura on a bad day. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > Why chuck: You got anything against thunder storms? The interesting thing today, would be to see haw many auras could be outshown by a 5 watt bulb! (not Halogen either) alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Wed May 8 06:17:13 1996 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 23:17:13 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508061713.006b20dc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? At 06:33 PM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: > > > >Talking of anyone who died, I do not know how many here has heard about >Carl Stillman who was a member from Atlanta and has served on the Board >of Directors and I believe in other capacities. > > >Facts speak louder than words. > > ...doss > > >Doss: Oh that makes me sad. I knew Carl Stillman and liked him immensely. Theosophy lost a really good man when he went on to other things. What you say about the lack of attention and respect given to his passing both saddens and disgusts me. I won't say that the people who are running the society today aren't "good theosophists" because no one has the right to say that, but I will say that they aren't good people, and I think that's far more important. alexis d. From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed May 8 06:16:12 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 02:16:12 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960508021611_109080119@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) Eldon, Your points are well taken, as usual. What I am most concerned with is the human tendency to impose things, ideas, actions, etc. on others whether they are ready for them or not. I know at times I seem like an arrogant, self assured SOB who does not believe that he can be wrong, but I have made enough mistakes in my life that I am hesitant about assuming that any position I take is automatically the right one. And the thought of my fellow theosophists acting as if they are totally certain because they have a particular interpretation of the writings makes me very nervous. What I argue for is patience and the willingness to examine ideas and beliefs without becoming married to them. And while I have an actual tremendous respect for the SD, I cannot believe that it is the final word on the ways things work. In a very real sense, I see Theosophy as a transcending the written teachings, using them as a starting point but the real process is something that occurs in the individual Theosophist and is far more mysterious. It is, in a very real sense, something that cannot be expressed in words, merely experienced and that experience is the true goal of Theosophy. The study of the writings has a place. We would be immeasureably the poorer without them, but there is something more and I hope that we do not get so caught up in the writings that we miss it, just as it is important to not be so concerned about playing the notes that one misses the music. The TS, in its various manifestations, spends almost all its time working on the head. It should begin working on the heart as well. Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 Heretic Troublemaker From moonunit@ozemail.com.au Wed May 8 09:32:25 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 19:32:25 +1000 (EST) From: Darrin Potaka Message-Id: <199605080932.TAA04626@oznet02.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Paul Brunton's Notebooks Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 02:37 AM 7/05/96 -0400, you wrote: >At 10:49 PM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: > >>>> >>Hi Alexis. I agree. I first stumbled on the Noteboooks in 1991. I felt = like >I'd come home. In the thousands of entries contained therein, (and I've = not >read them all) I've yet to read one that did not strike a chord. During = 1992 >I went through all 16 Notebooks and extracted every reference I could fi= nd >to theosophical history, teachers, people, places, schools etc. The exer= cise >resulted in some 90 A4 typed pages. I was using a typewriter at the time= so >I don't have a text file to send to any interested parties.=20 >>Here's another entry that relates to the two above: Notebook 10 (The >Orient: Its Legacy to the West) Chapter One (Meetings of East and West) >Subdivision - Western Assimilation of Eastern Thought. >>... The western peoples will never be converted wholesale to Hinduism o= r >Buddhism as religions, nor will their intelligentsia take wholesale to >Vedanta or Theosophy as philosophies. These forms are too alien and too >exotic to affect the general mass. Historically, they have only succeede= d in >affecting scattered individuals. The West's spiritual revival must and c= an >come only out of its own creative and native mind.... >> >>and also from volume Ten >> >>..Regarding Blavatsky's teachings, it is not essential nowadays to know= all >that she taught. Nevertheless a book like her Key to Theosophy provides = an >excellent preparation for the study of philosophy. But present-day stude= nts >do not need to study her writings first, as the point of view in the pre= sent >teaching is different from that taken in her published work. In her esot= eric >instruction, her students were told "to reduce everything to terms of >consiousness." This, of course, is pure mentalism. >>Nice chatting with you >>Darrin >> >> >>Darrin:=20 > >I've got a number of Paul Brunton's works but not the Notebooks. I will = look >for them and see if I can find them in print somewhere. If I don't locat= e >them would you be willing to xerox them and mail them to me? I'd be happ= y to >cover your costs. I certainly have noproblems with, and in fact agree wi= th >both of your quotations. They represent things I've been saying and teac= hing >for over 20 years now. But I'm sure you must know that you're going to g= et >in trouble! >Nice chatting with you again. I have a house guest who arrived three wee= ks >ago from Syndey (He started out in Guernsey) > >alexis d. > Hi alexis They are definetely still all in print and should be easily found statesi= de. (avail in HC and PB). You could point a web browser at http://www.lig= htlink.com/larson/ and check them out directly at the Larson site on the = Web or order Volume 1 of the Notebooks (a representative survey of the en= tire series) from your favourite metaphysical/alternative bookstore. (ISB= N: 0943914124) Xeroxing them would be unsuitable. (There are 16 volumes at 300-400 pages= each!)... so my costs would be =91out of this world=92 and I'd go mad be= fore completeing the task. Ha! What follows is a cut back version of an a= rticle I penned for a newsletter that I typeset for the bookshop I work f= or. It gives an overview of the series. Sydney's a great city, it's a sec= ond home for me now. You should come check it out sometime - maybe the 20= 00 convention... Darrin The Notebooks of Paul Brunton are one of those rare individual contributi= ons that sets the standard for a whole generation in its field. Its clari= ty, comprehensiveness, beauty, unpretentious authority, and thoroughly mo= dern no-nonsense perspective have established a new high water mark for b= ooks promoting independent, individualized spiritual self-discovery and d= evelopment. The =91Notebooks=92 series consists of sixteen independent but inter-rela= ted volumes. Topics are arranged according to twenty-eight major categori= es, each of which explores a unique dimension of human character or spiri= tual potential. Within these the editors have arranged Brunton=92s writin= gs, which are like aphorisms, in compliance with the guidelines set down = by the author himself prior to his death in 1981. The whole series is quite simply unmatched for its combination in simple = English, of: * profound depth * straightforward simplicity * wealth of practical detail * uplifting inspirational power * uncannily consistent common sense. During the 1930=92s and 40=92s Paul Brunton=92s reputation as a knowledeg= able and influential exponent of East-West culture and philosophic though= t grew rapidly. In particular, titles like A Search in Secret India, The = Quest of the Overself, The Hidden Teaching Beyond Yoga, and The Wisdom of= the Overself, bought an awareness to thousands of Westerners of the ben= eficient practices of Yoga and meditation. His last book, prior to the po= st-humously published notebooks, was The Spiritual Crisis of Man. (1952) In 1963, after several years of travelling and living in the United State= s, Australia and New Zealand, Brunton withdrew to the serenity of the Swi= ss Alps. It was here that he deepened and intensified his own spiritual p= ractices while writing and =91researching=92 quietly. More than 10,000 pa= ges of =91notes=92 or =91ideas=92 pertinent to the Spiritual quest as he = called them, were written between 1963 and 1981.That body of work eventu= ally became the notebooks. Throughout these writings there is a wisdom nourished, rather than challe= nged, by facts; a serenity comprehending, rather than oblivious to, event= s; a spiritual maturity fulfilled in, rather than at odds with, efficient= practicality. Nowhere else will you find such a profound synthesis of Ea= st-West philosophic mysticism stripped of all the usual obscurity and ext= ravagances. To give the Notebooks a brief overview is all that is possible here. It i= s this writer=92s hope that enough of the power and value of these writin= gs has been conveyed to spark interest in even a small portion of Adyar B= ooknews readers. If that be the case, any interested party could do no better than perusin= g Volume 1, titled Perspectives (pictured below) which is a representativ= e survey of topics in all 28 categories of the series. It contains the ma= xims considered by the compliers to be most important. Finally, and mindful that the label =91guru-worship=92 may vitiate from t= his short piece, I feel compelled to add that hearts and minds of PB=92s = stature are rare in any century. Challenge yourself, drink from the eloq= uent pen of this sage. Darrin From moonunit@ozemail.com.au Wed May 8 09:32:21 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 19:32:21 +1000 (EST) From: Darrin Potaka Message-Id: <199605080932.TAA04617@oznet02.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: repartee vs. substance Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 04:37 AM 7/05/96 -0400, you wrote: >>There are several different factors=3D >> behind such failures. The two which concern us here are first, lack of= any=3D >> practical workable method to implement the ideal, and second, belief = in=3D >> the delusion that a group can do better what only an individual can do= for=3D >> himself. This is where philosophy shows its superiority. In reference = to=3D >> the first of these two factors, it teaches us exactly what we can do w= ith=3D >> our bodies, our feelings, our thoughts, and our intuitions to bridge t= he=3D >> wide gap between ideals and their actualization. In reference to the s= econd=3D >> factor, it proves that to practise individualism, self-reliance, is=3D >> essential to real progress..... >>Kind Regards >>Darrin >>Blavatsky Lodge, Sydney Australia > >Well put! Darrin! & thank you for saying it. As a Karma Yoga person, I'v= e >been saying for months exactly what you put so nicely. Maybe it'll sink = in >when you say it. > >Liesel =20 > Hi Liesel I'm glad you liked the above however I did not =91pen=92 it. It was extra= cted from The posthumously published Notebooks of Paul Brunton, Notebook = 11(The Sensitives), Chapter Eight (Christian Science, Other Spiritual Mov= ements), Subdivision -Virtues/Faults and was posted because I believed it= to be a relevant observation regarding the goal of universal brotherhood= . Kind regards Darrin From moonunit@ozemail.com.au Wed May 8 09:32:36 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 19:32:36 +1000 (EST) From: Darrin Potaka Message-Id: <199605080932.TAA04666@oznet02.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: Brotherhood exploration At 11:28 PM 6/05/96 -0400, you wrote: (Darrin and Eldon chewing on Brotherhood) >Darrin: >Thanks for responding to my wish that advocates of the doctrine >of Universal Brotherhood attempt to spell out with some >detail and substance how they understand the doctrine. > >>I'm not anti the doctrine but the following extract from the=20 >>Notebooks of Paul Brunton rang with me when I first read it:=20 >>Notebook Seven (Healing of the Self/The Negatives) > >Good ... we're talking about what the doctrine might mean, >rather than repeating it mindlessly like a political slogan. Yes, analysis of it is important and might help us take up the real= challenge: really living it >(I could picture a group of people picketing a theosophical >convention, with signs reading "Universal Brotherhood Now!", >marching back and forth outside the hall doors, chanting >"We want brotherhood now!" I might ask one of them what it >meant, and what exactly they wanted. The man might sputter, >"Well, you know, it, er, means what it says -- brotherhood." >I'd smile and say, "Well, that's fine," and go inside the >hall, looking forward to something with a bit more substance >to dwell on. ) :-) I'd go with you, hoping the same. > >>"... In the heart's deepest place, where the burden >>of ego is dropped and the mystery of soul is penetrated,=20 >>a man finds the consciousness there not different in any=20 >>way from what all other men may find." > >Yes, it is this part of ourselves where we realize the >heart of brotherhood. But even as we drop lower, and leave >this realization behind, we find that inter-dependence is >an essential rule of life. Even when we lose our awareness >of our essential unity, we find that we cannot exist except >in cooperation and interaction (and hopefully harmony!) >with other living beings. Being in my infancy with meditative/contemplative exercises, (and I'm= assuming that this was what was being implied as one of the best route's to= the =91hearts deepest place=91, by the writer in the above quote), I= cannot speak with personal experience of =91penetrating the mystery of= soul=92. Therefore, for me to pass comment on "dropping lower"(?) to even= deeper realizations would be inappropriate. However, I can and do accept= intellectually that inter-dependence is a fundamental rule of the One Life,= and it is here that for me, the main pillar upon which brotherhood sits is= found. So my friend, I'm standing outside the restaurant, smelling with= approval the fine cuisine being cooked therein, and wondering what it= tastes like. It seems I would do well to find the coinage, (grow= proficiency with deep meditation?) and try the real thing. Maybe it might= make it more natural for me (or anyone) to live with genuine compassion= issuing forth from my (or their) point of consciousness, after dining= regularly from the buffet table.=20 >>"The mutuality of the human race is thus revealed as=20 >>existing only on a plane where its humanness is transcended." > >I might put this differently. One of the ways that our=20 >mind currently works creates the illusion of a separate, >distinct personality, with its own private needs and desires. It probably is illusory from a larger, more grand vantage point from where I= spend a good deal of my time looking out from. The fact remains however,= that I, and it seems a large portion of my brethren, have to function/deal= within and from this particular quality of mind. Sometimes, for me, it= feels that the personality projection from that mind, likes to feel loved,= appreciated and cared for and feels well when doing the same in return - we= all share this don't we? . Might it help the cause of= brotherliness/sisterliness within the world (and within oneself) to hang= onto and try to foster that within the personality? Or if one feels the= grace of a =91love-quality stream=92 slowly beginning to trickle from= within outwards, do all that is possible to make it's running path freer= into the world by straightening any =91crinks=92 within the personality? My= personality, and the personage of Darrin currently incarnate does feel= =91real=92 and not entirely illusory. Although perhaps the apprehension of= it, and from within it, often is. >When our mind functions in this mode, we tend to be >selfish and unbrotherly. When this functioning of the mind >ceases, personal considerations simply don't occur to us; >we see value in everyone's needs, and consider things and >make choices based upon the greatest good. This is=20 >practical brotherhood. It's not based upon someone's >political agenda, it's simply the living of a higher mode >of consciousness. Wouldn't it be a nicer place if more minds functioned in the =91higher= consciousness=92 mode that you point at. Sadly though, this is obviously= not the case when we look around at the world. Many minds are obviously not= ready (mine included although I'm trying to break these kinds of bonds) to= naturally drop the =91ugly and dark=92 selfish concerns that you speak of= below. > >>"This is why all attempts to express it in political and=20 >>economic terms, no less than the theosophic attempts to form=20 >>a universal brotherhood, being premature, must also be=20 >>artificial. This is why they failed..." > >Brotherhood is more than an attitude towards others. It is >the experience of life from a particular standpoint where >the ugly and dark cloud of selfish concerns no longer blinds >one to the true face of life. It is measured in intangibles, >in modes of consciousness, not in the artificial terms of >someone else's definition of what would be good for people >to do. What you say I agree with. Brunton does use the word premature, the use of= which I took to mean that he felt a more brotherly/humanely way of living= would (or could) come to pass for the race. I based that assumption on the= understanding that for him, evolution of the individual human mind into a= deepening affinity within Universal Mind, and consequently living in a= manner concurrent with brotherliness, slowly occurred for most. To push and= force that before the flowering naturally occurs (although certainly trying= to help the process in the best way one finds possible) was therefore= =91artificial=92 to him and might result in the internal fission, fighting,= general acts of un-brotherliness etc. at which he points at. That I feel I= am not an equal in the physical, emotional, or mental sense to a crazed and= murderous Rawandan soldier for example, or a psychotic/schizophrenic that= happens to stumble into a lodge meeting in a drunken and dazed condition,= doesn't mean that I don't believe as a metaphysical fact, there is a level= where these things are transcended and that the part of my consciousness= that joins the universal there, is in no way different to their own.=20 > >>The next one (from Notebook 11) I also found incisive. > >>"...The term 'universal brotherhood' is idealistic but vague,=20 >>pleasant sounding -- but windy. An attempt to form a society=20 >>whose main object was to become the nucleus of a universal=20 >>brotherhood was made by the Theosophists, and by less known=20 >>cults." > >The way that I've often seen Universal Brotherhood described, >I'd also find it "idealistic but vague, pleasant sounding -- >but windy." This is why I'd like to see it given the same >degree of attention and respect that the other theosophical >doctrines are accorded. I wonder why it hasn't Eldon. Certainly the importance of it was stressed in= early literature like the ML (Mahachohan's letter another example).=20 > >>"Moreover, they added constant talk about 'the service of=20 >>humanity' to their other prattle." > >Again, we have but an empty slogan if it's just a phrase >that people parrot without really thinking about it. > >>"Not only did all such groups end in failure to actualize=20 >>their ideal and in inability to influence the remainder=20 >>of mankind, but most ended in bitter disputes, harsh quarrels,=20 >>and internal fission." > >This may be partly due to a narrowness of mind that fails >to accept and live in mutual tolerance with people of >other views. It also shows a lack of depth to the insight >and spirituality of the people involved. The spiritual >is actualized *by internal awakening*, not by pious observation >of the politically correct, of the socially correct, and of >the religiously correct platforms -- other people's agendas >to change people according to their ideas of what makes >better people. If we don't change ourselves first, we have >nothing to offer to others. Yeah. Maybe =91internal awakening=92 is pretty thin on the ground. > >>"There are several different factors behind such failures.=20 >>The two which concern us here are first, lack of any >>practical workable method to implement the ideal," > >Here, organizations can do good if they limit themselves >to providing resources to members to discover and work towards >their individual approaches to bettering the world. Yes. And maybe things like meditation classes, for example, might do more= good, and appeal to a lot more people than half-baked instruction in= obscure and difficult to digest doctrines surrounding speculative= metaphysics. > >>"and second, belief in the delusion that a group can do=20 >>better what only an individual can do for himself." > >A group, per se, can do nothing. But there can be specific >projects to do good in the world, and some people may find >a group useful in working for a particular project. That >choice to work with a group, though, is individual, and it's >neither good nor bad to work independently. What is good is >to work *according to one's inner dictates*,=20 I'm trying to sort that out for myself at present. and what is bad >is to ignore what one feels is right, and remain inactive. >We have the phrase that says that inactivity in an act of >charity is an activity in a deadly sin, and I'd agree with it. Me too. > >>"This is where philosophy shows its superiority. In reference to >>the first of these two factors, it teaches us exactly what we=20 >>can do with our bodies, our feelings, our thoughts, and our=20 >>intuitions to bridge the wide gap between ideals and their=20 >>actualization." > >Yes, one of our first steps towards actualizing brotherhood >is to clean up ourselves, to make ourselves nobler people, >to open up our minds and hearts and become better able to >express the unseen beauties of life. Thank you, well put. I agree. something I was getting at earlier but used= way to many words... > >>"In reference to the second factor, it proves that to=20 >>practice individualism, self-reliance, is essential to=20 >>real progress....." > >And this is to neither be motionless in acts of mercy, devoid >of pity for others in sad situations, inexpressive of >compression, nor is it to be like the leaf in the wind, blown >about by every passing gust, a passive expression of external >forces. What it does refer to is the state where we're=20 >becoming a positive force for good in the world, a channel >of new impulses for intelligence, beauty, compassion -- all >the higher qualities. becoming less selfish...asserting the good, the true, the beautiful, into= the world if and when one feels it... > >The quote that you gave is useful to the discussion on >Universal Brotherhood, but it's also good to try to put >some of the ideas in your own words. I've tried, albiet somewhat weakly. For myself, when Iput things in my own words, I understand the subject much >better, and find that there are many new things that I=20 >learn; it's a valuable experience. There's always the >risk, though, that someone on the list won't like what >you say, and trounce upon your views. That's also, though, >a useful learning experience, helping one learn to deal >with attacks upon one's ideas and pointing out where in >one's writings a clearer reexpression is needed.=20 Groovy stuff. Why is it a risk tho...? Not that I'd delight in finding= opposition to anything that I might have expressed but how might it hurt= me? Everyone is entitled to their say aren't they. I'll have to unsubscribe= from the list soon though. Mainly because I don't feel I can keep up with,= and do the discussions real justice. I would like the= opportunity/permission to exchange with you personally through= eldon@theosophy.com > >A playful name for this list is "theos-hell", as there seem >to always be other people willing to play "demon" and >come after one. When that happens, we have at >least three options. We can oppose them, testing our >hand-to-hand combat. We can practice avoidance, like a >prey being stalked by a monster, a clever prey that gets >away. Or we can practice magic, and term demons into >princes and nobility! I've watched some of your attempts at magic. Good for you.. > >(Disclaimer. For those unable to detect that the previous >paragraph was intended *to be funny*, I'll state the=20 >obvious and say so. I'm not thinking of any particular >person on the list, and don't need the question "Did you >mean *ME* when you wrote that awful stuff about monsters!!!!") > I've only floated in here once before - is it really true that some people= might need the above disclaimer to not feel personally intimidated by your= description of this loka. >Best wishes and greetings to the Blavatsky lodge, > >Eldon > I'm telling a few at Blavatsky about this strange new cyber activity and= will explain that there is more than one kind, welcoming, inhabitant... Peace to you and yours Darrin From RIhle@aol.com Wed May 8 10:58:11 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 06:58:11 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960508065807_393458126@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Big Bang Two (poss. dup.) Darrin quotes Paul Brunton> >But present-day students do not need to study her writings first, as the >point of view in the present teaching is different from that taken in her >published work. In her esoteric instruction, her students were told "to >reduce everything to terms of consciousness." Richard Ihle writes> Thank you for passing this along, Darrin. I wonder what would happen if some individuals followed this instruction and then came to the sincere conclusion that HPB's elaborate exposition of Anthropogenesis, in particular, was not primarily meant to be taken *literally* by advanced students? What would happen if many came to believe that the "biggest blind" of them all is that "Globes," "Rounds," "Root Races" etc. are not to be taken as actual "translifetime details," but rather, merely as symbolic representations in the Grandest Psychological Allegory of all times? What if the next deeper layer of the "Principal Theosophical Doctrine" in THE SECRET DOCTRINE is not found to be concerned with what might have happened pre- or post-incarnation, but that it pertains to a hitherto largely "hidden" psychogenetic ("psychomaturational") process in the life of each individual? Even if it could be shown that such a new "shedding of an outer garment" had much greater potential for the development of practical adeptship, how would theosophical scholars greet a possible "dematerialization" of their painfully acquired macro-nuts-and-bolts, now potentially "allegorical" knowledge? Would general acceptance require something more than someone's bringing forth the right "Psychological Key," or would it be necessary to have the Theosophical equivalent of Big Bang Two in order to blow the lock off entirely? Godspeed, Richard Ihle From RIhle@aol.com Wed May 8 11:04:38 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 07:04:38 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960508070437_393459706@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Eldon writes> >My thinking is that the future faculties and powers that await >our race are not along the lines of seeing subjective >psychological content as through it were "real". They are not >leading towards a greater emphasis on the subjective spheres of >effects, the backstage to life, populated by spooks and >elementals. They lead, rather, I think, towards greater powers >of understanding and comprehension, and towards powers over >manifest nature, over nature as found on this and other spheres >of causes. > >Evolution lies in growing *powers of mind*, not powers of sense >perception. The ability to learn and understand mathematics, for >instance, is a much "higher faculty" or "inner power" than the >ability to see what color a rock is on the nth subplane of the >astral. The senses we have provide us with an appropriate >container for working on that evolution, and rebelling against >them is like an impatient child, bored with learning, yearning to >escape the confines of the classroom, wanting to run out and play >at the upcoming recess. > Richard Ihle writes> One advantage I have found in being perhaps over-generous in my willingness to grant the existence of adept powers--of at least some degree, in at least some circumstances--to others is that I am also thereby entitled to grant some modicum of adeptship to myself. As I mentioned previously, however, I am one of your more "homey-type" adepts--quite unlike, in most ways, those the prodigies one meets in theosophical literature. Be that as it may, I have found a curious thing about the little bit of adeptship I am familiar with: Most of it does not seem to involve ~knowing what to do~, but rather ~knowing what NOT to do~. Thus, in reading your post about the possible connection between schizophrenia and the psychic, I could not help asking myself, "Is it possible that Eldon does not realize that bringing up this presently quiescent subject again--especially in this manner--is going to set-off JRC and possibly Alexis and possibly some others in a predictable way again?" Then I thought, "Oh well, if Eldon's personal adeptship is not there telling him NOT to do it, perhaps it will turn out better than I think. . . ." Godspeed, Richard Ihle From am455@lafn.org Fri Apr 26 03:18:07 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 20:18:07 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199604260318.AA08431@lafn.org> Subject: Burden of Proof, students & critics Around 1907 Katherine Tingley wrote the following, as part of her preface to the series of ~Theosophical Manuals~. ******************** Theosophy strikes unfamiliar ground in modern civilization, because it does not come under any particular one of the familiar heads of Religion, Science, Philosophy, etc., into which our age has divided its speculative activities. It date back to a period in the history of mankind when such distinctions did not exist, but there was one Gnosis or Knowledge embracing all. Religion and Science, as we have them today, are but imperfect growths springing from the remnants of that great ancient system, the Wisdom-Religion, which included all that we all know as religion and science, and much more. Hence Theosophy will not appeal to the same motives as religion and science. It will not offer any cheap and easy salvation or put a premium upon mental inactivity and spiritual selfishness. Neither can it accommodate itself to the rules laid down by various schools of modern thought as to what constitutes proof and what does not. But it can and does appeal to the Reason. The truth of doctrines such as Theosophy maintains, can only be estimated by their ability to solve problems and by their harmony with other truths which we know to be true. But in addition to this we have the testimony of the ages, which has been too long neglected by modern scholarship, but which is now being revealed... It may perhaps be as well also to remind those who would criticize, that the state of modern opinion is scarcely such as to warrant anybody in assuming the attitude of a judge. It would be quite proper for a Theosophist, instead of answering questions or attempting to give proofs, to demand that his questioners should first state their own case, and to be himself the questioner. The result would certainly show that Theosophy, to say the very least, stands on an equal footing with any other view, since there is no certain knowledge, no satisfying explanation, to be found anywhere... Until, therefore, religious teachers have something definite, consistent, and satisfactory to offer, and until science can give us something better than mere confessions of nescience or impudent denials with regard to everything beyond its own domain, Theosophy can afford to assume the role of questioner rather than that of questioned, and does not *owe* anybody any explanations whatever. It is sufficient to state its tenets and let them vindicate themselves by their greater reasonableness; and any further explanation that may be offered is offered from goodwill than from any obligation... An earnest student of Theosophy will be wise enough to hold many of his difficulties in reserve, until, by further investigation, he has gained better acquaintance with his subject. In the case of those who are not willing to adopt these wise and patient methods of study, it may be reasonably questioned whether they are the more anxious to learn or to disprove... ************************ -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From SeussInUse@gnn.com Wed May 8 07:45:42 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 07:40:29 From: SeussInUse@gnn.com (Virginia Behrens) Message-Id: <199605081145.HAA01868@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB/CWL Tue, 7 May 1996 18:21:14 -0400 Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: >JHE >My understanding was that Subba Row wanted nothing to do with the >SD mss because it made certain teachings public that he believed >should be kept secret. VB Didn't this continue after HPB and TSR had died - this action to thwart what HPB had revealed through her writings because they revealed too many secrets that some people from India (and possibly nearby regions) didn't want made public? This issue may have been discussed already - sorry to raise it if it has. Call me paranoid if you want, but I think there has been a steady stream of purposeful misinformation and deliberate misdirection from a host of "minor characters", who originated in India and adjoining regions, targeted at people involved in theosophical works. My position [VB] is that some of the more obvious results of this counter movement to "keep the secrets secret" are the events and works of people such as AB, CWL, and AAB. What a better way to bury what has been revealed than to lead the leaders into a confusion and mish-mash of ideas. And in the mean time what do we know of the ancient Vedic philososphy that HPB kept toting to everyone? Almost nothing over more than a century later. Where are up to date and *extensive* translations into any english or any other European language by anyone who has an inkling of occult knowledge? Where are these works so people in the "west" can judge for themselves? Any theosophists in India on this list care to help me out here? >JHE >HPB wanted Subba Row and Olcott to stand united against the >Coulomb accusations. Both refused to do so for different reasons. >.....Olcott argued that the accusations would disappear on their >own if the issue was ignored....History shows Olcott to have been >clearly and tragically wrong in thinking that the accusations >would go away. They re-appeared as evidence in the SPR >investigation....On the other hand, HSO's and TSR's threats that >finally tied HPB's hands into inaction, clearly resulted in the >follow up investigation of the SPR... VB I disagree about H.S. Olcott. The Coulomb accusations did formulate publicly into the SPR report against HPB. They didn't go away in the lifetime of HPB or HSO but what has history proven up to the present date? What group (whether it be one or many organizations) has flourished the more - theosophy or SPR? Whose version of the issues in the SPR report on HPB has been vindicated by history? What I can't understand is why HPB and HSO both put any emphasis at all on the SPR at the time. They had hundreds and hundreds of different people and organizations tearing them apart and trying to mutilate them during their days. Why focus on the SPR? By paying so much attention to this report they gave it life. HSO was on the right tract and history has proved him right in the *long* run. Only HPB and HSO had to die first before the SPR report could die also. I [VB] once again have my own theory as to the unreasonable power of the Coulomb accusations. In Volume 1 of HSO's diaries read the nature of the relations HPB had with her female cooks and housekeepers. The way I see it, something had to balance out. >JHE >I don't question the possibility of an Adept influencing an >idea in the mind of another person. I do however, question as to >when an idea is inspired by an Adept and when it is not. I >believe that historical inquiry is often helpful is answering >this question. >[snip] >As I stated above, my assumption is that HPB's exposition of >the doctrines are most faithful to her teachers. That does not >make her infallible, but it does make her doctrines the primary >ones--next to the Mahatma Letters themselves......Why can't HPB be >the primary authority for what she wrote too? Though Plato is >supposed to have been a re-expression of ancient vedic philosophy, >that does not mean that we have license to "correct" Plato's >writings every time it appears to contradict something in Vedic >Philosophy. Plato is Plato. Blavatsky is Blavatsky. Subba Row >is Subba Row. Vedic Philosophy is Vedic Philosophy.... VB Yes! Agree wholeheartedly. Historical inquiry, comparison of written (or recorded) works, and straight intuition - what other way can I judge if Adept so and so communicated with someone or not? So far, I can't identify anyone who wrote since 1870 who had as direct a connection as HPB did. HPB's works are her works. She openly said she drew from many sources. But her writings are her own and she presented them that way from what I can tell. Authors who mix their sources, call it someone's else's and not their own ideas, and then don't tell where they got their mixture from cause me more confusion than reading them is worth. Virginia Behrens TI, TSA From olcott@cedar.cic.net Wed May 8 13:12:21 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 09:12:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: Paul Brunton's Comments on the TS In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960507063712.006968d8@mail.slip.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII The Notebooks of Paul Brunton (16 volumes) are in print and available from: Larson Publications 4936 Route 414 Burdett, NY 14181 607-546-9342 800-828-9344 (for VISA and MC orders) The price per volume is $16.95 paper for most of them (some are $12.50, $14.95 or $19.95) or $29.95 cloth (a couple are only $25.00). A discount is offered if the whole set is purchased. All volumes can be borrowed from the Olcott Library, if you are a member of TSA resident in the US, or a member of the library. Elisabeth Trumpler Head Librarian Olcott Library & Research Center e-mail: olcott@dupagels.lib.il.us phone: 708-668-1571 or 800-669-1571 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 7 May 1996, alexis dolgorukii wrote: >>snip<< > > I've got a number of Paul Brunton's works but not the Notebooks. I will look > for them and see if I can find them in print somewhere. If I don't locate > them would you be willing to xerox them and mail them to me? I'd be happy to > cover your costs. I certainly have noproblems with, and in fact agree with > both of your quotations. They represent things I've been saying and teaching > for over 20 years now. But I'm sure you must know that you're going to get > in trouble! > > alexis d. > > From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed May 8 17:59:48 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 13:59:48 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960508135946_393694013@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Gangus defunctus Alex, If you think it's just getting to the point where people are taking us too seriously, ok, but it would still be fun to give greetings from us at the convention. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From am455@lafn.org Wed May 8 18:00:20 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 11:00:20 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199605081800.AA19818@lafn.org> Subject: White Lotus Day To those who are always united (and) serving, I give, along with love, that buddhi-yoga by which they come to me. On account of sympathy for them, I, standing in the form of atma, destroy darkness born of ignorance, with the lighted lamp of knowledge. Bhagavad Gita 10, 10-11 -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed May 8 18:05:36 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 14:05:36 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960508140534_393697832@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? Alex, Happy White Lotus day. The problem with the TS and true compassion is that its members sometimes take the Karma stuff too seriously. And it's not the vegetarianism that I object to. People have a right to eat anything they want to as long as it isn't one of my cats. It's the preaching that sends me over the battlements. By the way, I was at Olcott last night to hear Stephen Hoeller. I tried to talk him into coming onto the net, but I think he finds this stuff a little to intimidating. Anyway, I think JA is mad at me and when I walked in I was greeted by one friendly staff member as "That heretic and troublemaker, (laughter)" so someone there is reading this stuff. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From alexei@slip.net Wed May 8 19:08:45 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 12:08:45 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508190845.0068f244@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TS as "abortion" At 09:49 PM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >> But unlike my fellow gang members I am not about to write it off >>yet. There are too many variables at work for me to do that and I tend to be >>afflicted with more patience than dumb ol' Job at times. > > Chuck, I haven't written them off just yet, either. They >are down, but not yet out. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Oh I haven't "written "us" off either, I just thought it might be advisable to drop the "Gang of...." sobriquet. I thought so probably becuase I was the one catching the flack for it. I'm not entirely "flame proof" and as I appear to be diverting the "flaming" from others I was just feeling that I was receiving more than my share. I still think there's a distinct affinity group forming on this list, just as there has apparently long been another affinity group in existence. I don't think like minded people associating is "gangsterism" nor do I think, on a board like this, that people who agree with one another can't be cooperative. I don't think we're even slightly down, I'd just feel more comfortable named something I like rather than something I do not like. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Wed May 8 19:11:52 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 12:11:52 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508191152.0068f270@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: The Big Question At 09:49 PM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >>I think my primary question would have to be: Why are your various letters >>so mutually contradictory? >> >>akexus d. > > This one made me fall out of my chair . Personally, >I can't think of a better question myself except maybe, Why don't >you precipitate one more letter explaining all the inconsistencies >in your previous ones. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >It's probably because those letters were sent so precipitously! alexis d. P.s. I think the real answer is that most of those letters were written by others, and those contradicted the ones they themselves wrote. From alexei@slip.net Wed May 8 19:12:42 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 12:12:42 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508191242.006a9538@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TS/Democratic Spirit & Hierarchical Feeling At 10:02 PM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis: >> I'd have loved to compare Blavatsky's, Olcott's or >>Judge's Auras with those of the "second generation leadership. > >Me too. But from their writings, I already suspect what we >would find. > >Jerry S. >Member, Ti > > >D'accord, mon ami. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Wed May 8 19:20:17 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 12:20:17 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508192017.006a9b74@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: White Lotus Day At 01:35 AM 5/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >Hi > >It is 00:30 hrs on May 8. Just remembered it is White Lotus Day. Let us >remember HPB for all the sacrifices she made so that you and I and >everyone else have access to all the Theosophical Literature we have >today. I consider myself fortunate in having been exposed to Theosophy >and also I had the previlege of being associated with a lodge at whose >inauguration she was present - which is a very rare occurrence. Let us >send our loving thoughts to her and every worker of Theosophy and hope >next year may be a better year for the Humanity. > > ....doss > > >Doss: So glad you remembered the Founder of this all. Without her there would be no Theosophy. But it is also good to remember that today is the anniversary not of her passing, but of her release from years and years of pain and suffering. She stayed years longer than anyone else would have in an attempt to finish her work. It proved impossible but her physical suffering was intense and extended, and she went through it willingly. She has long been free of it. But, while those who don't approve of the Third Object will disapprove,I believe she's still with us in spirit, sticking her "oar" in when she thinks it's needed alexis d.. From alexei@slip.net Wed May 8 19:22:36 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 12:22:36 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508192236.006a9570@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? At 01:59 AM 5/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alan, >Then by all means consider yourself invited! We would be heartbroken to >proceed without you. Your perspicacity and wit are an inspiration to us all. >And besides, you put up with us. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >Heretic >Troublemaker > That's why I keep insisting he's "Saintly"! alexis From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Wed May 8 19:17:42 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 13:17:42 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic In-Reply-To: <960508070437_393459706@emout07.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 8 May 1996 RIhle@aol.com wrote: > > Thus, in reading your post about the possible connection between > schizophrenia and the psychic, I could not help asking myself, "Is it > possible that Eldon does not realize that bringing up this presently > quiescent subject again--especially in this manner--is going to set-off JRC > and possibly Alexis and possibly some others in a predictable way again?" Nothin' coming from this quarter. The "Theosophical analysis" of schizophrenia and the psychic" appeared to be more of "How schizophrenia and the psychic correspond in Eldon's personal worldview" - but the thing was so silly that it discredited itself. -JRC From alexei@slip.net Wed May 8 19:51:15 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 12:51:15 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508195115.0069e21c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic At 12:32 AM 5/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >Richard Ihle writes> >One advantage I have found in being perhaps over-generous in my willingness >to grant the existence of adept powers--of at least some degree, in at least >some circumstances--to others is that I am also thereby entitled to grant >some modicum of adeptship to myself. As I mentioned previously, however, I >am one of your more "homey-type" adepts--quite unlike, in most ways, those >the prodigies one meets in theosophical literature. Richard: I think the "homey-type" adept, you know folks like Voltaire and Herodotus are far more real than the "prodigies" one meets in theosophical literature. I don't believe the "prodigies" to be real at all but rather to be "Blinds" to divert attention away from the real ones. > >Be that as it may, I have found a curious thing about the little bit of >adeptship I am familiar with: Most of it does not seem to involve ~knowing >what to do~, but rather ~knowing what NOT to do~. Maybe it just involves KNOWING, the thing in itself. > >Now, in reading your post about the possible connection between schizophrenia >and the psychic, I could not help asking myself, "Is it possible that Eldon >does not realize that bringing up this presently quiescent subject >again--especially in this manner--is going to set-off JRC and possibly Alexis >and possibly some others in a predictable way again?" No, Rich it's not going to "set me off", anyone who's been involved in parapsychology and various religious alternatives for as long as I have is quite used to the fact that the majority of our academic and scientific communities consider the psychic function to be largely the function of pathology. That's their right, as I see it. What one hasn't experienced is very hard to imagine. I think many folks are afraid of psychic things because they are afraid they will not be taken seriously by most people (they aren't) and that as a result, people will take them less seriously. Obviously it's not for everyone,and that is not said judgmentally. I'm an abstract impressionist artist, that's not for everyone either. > >Oh well, if your personal adeptship was not there telling you NOT to do it, >perhaps it will turn out better than I think. . . . > >Godspeed, > >Richard Ihle > alexis d. > > > > From alexei@slip.net Wed May 8 19:51:19 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 12:51:19 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508195119.00691c5c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (Rich/JerryS.) At 07:51 PM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: > >To me, it's fascinating history -- a little out of my league, but >fascinating nonetheless. When they get to the part about agreed differences >in the systems (as best as can be agreed upon, anyway), I hope it will >continue on to the *significance*, if any, of those differences. Then I >hope they go back to that side-thread about Subba Row and maybe Sinnet... >and then maybe I'll pipe up about AAB. >:) > >Jim > > >Jim: Best walk carefully, I understand AAB is a kind of "forbidden subject" among many theosophists. I have two complete sets of her books (both inherited) and I guess I think studying her is every bit as important as studying CWL for they are both "faces" of theosophy. But I do understand that in Adyar they are most fierce in their disapproval. Some of my closest friends helped AAB get started and my Cousin Alexander financed the work. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Wed May 8 20:05:45 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 13:05:45 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960508200545.006bf338@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Gangus defunctus At 02:11 PM 5/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >If you think it's just getting to the point where people are taking us too >seriously, ok, but it would still be fun to give greetings from us at the >convention. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: The trouble is not that they're taking us too seriously, but that they're using the sobriquet to AVOID taking us seriously. I think they, or rather Eldon, coined it to make us, as a group look ridiculous. I also think he didn't really know or realize how insulting it was (The original Gang of Four were a bunch of murderous thugs). Now I think our taking it for a symbol rather than simply taking umbrage was the right thing to do. That's why I've compared us to Cyrano de Bergerac so frequently. Adopting a sobriquet as a motto is an accepted method of "de-fanging" the insult. That's why "Queer Nation" calls itself what it does. But I was beginning to see that it had reached a point were at least two people included in the "gang" were objecting to it (JRC and Alan) and so, to me, that said "time to let go". Now maybe we ought to actually choose a name for ourselves as a group, for group we're becoming. Think of some choices why don't you? I'll try too. alexis d. From blafoun@azstarnet.com Wed May 8 20:32:56 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 13:32:56 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199605082032.NAA27608@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (part 2) A question to Jerry S. Jerry S, Do you agree with all tht HPB says in her text (pp.557-6, HPB's CW, Vol. 12) accompanying this diagram No. IV (p. 658). I quote below what Kim says about this diagram. Daniel. > To recapitulate if we are to concentrate on HPB - I would like to use: > > For the 7 principles - the diagram on p. 607 > For the universal or macrocosmic planes Figure A of p. 658. The names >relates only to forces manifesting within the solar system and no attempt >is made to designate them on their own plane. > For the solar physical body or prakritic planes Figure B of p. 658. >These are the planes of the solar system. On the 4 lower we have the 7 >globes of a chain. > For the sub-planes of these planes of consciousness see diagram C. They >are also the seven parts of consciousness as manifesting on either plane. >Must not be confused with seven principles. From ramadoss@eden.com Wed May 8 20:50:12 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 15:50:12 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Krishnamurti defended In-Reply-To: <960508011500_486586416@emout07.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 8 May 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > Doss writes, > > > Rich: In spite of all the historical events surrounding J Krishnamurti, I > > have to speak from personal experience. My exposure to his speeches, > > books and videos have helped me to better understand practical > > application of Thosophical ideas in day to day life. So I am eternally > > grateful for the benefit I have received. This happened after several > > decades of exposure to Theosophy. It almost took two and half decades to > > make the connection. > > > > I thought I should share with everyone. > > > > .....doss > > Doss -- please don't misunderstand me. I have learned a great deal from > Krishnamurti, and his teachings make a great deal of sense to me. To > millions ! My point is that being chosen as the "World Teacher" by CWL, and > then Krishnaji walking off, was a HEAVY blow to the TS, and nearly did poor > Annie Besant in. Actually, I don't think she lived too many years beyond > that sad event. > > Krishna wasn't causing the problem, though, it was the mucky-mucks who had > picked out 12 Apostles for him, formed a hige 5,000 member Star of the East > organization, and had it all fall to pot when Krishnaji finally said, "You > know what? I don't want to be the Messiah and I'm leaving to Ojai and please > don't follow me." [Okay not those exact words, but you get my drift.] > I just read a statement that JK made about the Star Members. The members wore a star on their lapel and in one of his talks he stated that having the star buttons is like carrying a check book with no bank account! I have been thinking about the whole affair of JK charting his own direction. Here I would like to refer to a statement that KH makes in one of his letters, when refering to the His Superiors that KH himself could not fathom their thinking or something to that effect. If that be the case and if the World Teacher was planning to come and Teach, how could *any* one know how and what strategy He will be adopting. No one but Himself perhaps knows the strategy. What AB and CWL tried to do was to extrapolate from the past. Considering the fact world was shrinking due to transportation and communication, I am not in the least surprised that the old technique and strategy may not have been found by Him to be totally ineffective. We little mortals cannot understand what His overall plans are. There is also a brief summary of the conversation that Ernest Wood had with JK regarding what in JK's opinion is likely to be the role of TS. I will try to post later when I have access to Wood's book. So I compeletely agree with you 100%. > I suspect that Krishnamurti did FAR, FAR more good after he left the TS than > he would have been allowed to accomplish WITHIN it. Hmmm. > From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed May 8 23:18:49 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 19:18:49 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960508191848_109564680@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The Seven Principles Eldon, Very true. Just because we may not understand or appreciate everything we have does not mean that future generations will not benefit from it. Happy White Lotus Day. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed May 8 23:19:46 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 19:19:46 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960508191945_109565372@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TS/Democratic Spirit & Hierarchical Feeling Alex, I love thunderstorms but being struck by lightning is not my idea of fun. By the way, that happened to Jim Edgar's plane today. He was almost gone blown out the sky which would have left Illinois with a nut for a governor. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed May 8 23:19:51 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 19:19:51 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960508191949_109565401@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Rich, I'm trying very hard not to let myself get set off. The problem with the line of reasoning here is that it assumes that psychic work will induce psychotic states when what the research in question is showing is that certain psychotic states mimic or induce psychic functioning. Now we have known that for a very long time. After all, all psychic function has an interface with the physical brain and the chemical imbalances that often induce psychosis also affect those parts of the brain that deal with that interface, so naturally there will be a relationship. Add to that that it was not very long ago when if a person had a truly spiritual experience he would have been thought crazy and lobotomized, you can see the utter unreliability in using psychiatric practice as a guide for anything in these matters other than putting people back together again when something really blows. Still, it's not the first time in my life someone has said I was crazy. Happy White Lotus Day. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed May 8 23:19:53 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 19:19:53 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960508191952_109565441@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Krishnamurti defended Rich, All true except for one detail. Mrs. Besant was in her nineties at the time and would not have lived much longer anyway, so it is impossible to say that his leaving the scene contributed to her death. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed May 8 23:32:48 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 19:32:48 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605090037.UAA03383@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: schizophrenia Donna, > It seems that >had her illness been treated correctly at the start, which was in the 60's, >perhaps it would not have progressed the way it did. You have to take into consideration that in the 60ies they didn't know very much about how to treat mental illnesses. I think that was about the time Milltown, the 1st tranqulizer, was invented. That was sort of the starting point of the medical/psychiatric profession finding out how to treat certain mental illnesses. What may have happened to your mother-i-l is that she improved as knowledge re what to do with her improved. ie the people who treated her weren't necessarily incompetent. Liesel From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Thu May 9 00:42:05 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 17:42:05 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9605090042.AA01442@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: "Theosophy is who Theosophy does." Chuck wrote: >Alex, >There is a saying, perportedly from HPB, the "Theosophy is who >Theosophy does." My feeling is that one who, in the words of >Voltaire, "defends the poor and helps the oppressed," is far >closer to the spirit of theosophy than one who can quote the SD >right and left and knows several of the Mahatmas area codes. I >was not kidding when I said it would be interesting if >theosophy ever really acquired a heart. JHE Chuck, she really did write this in the ~Key to Theosophy.~ It is one of her most often quoted remarks. But you will have to look in the original edition to find it. Joy Mills edited it out of her edition. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Thu May 9 00:44:00 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 17:44:00 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9605090044.AA04135@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: HPB/CWL (Virginia B.) >>JHE >>My understanding was that Subba Row wanted nothing to do with >>the SD mss because it made certain teachings public that he >>believed should be kept secret. VB >Didn't this continue after HPB and TSR had died - this action to >thwart what HPB had revealed through her writings because they >revealed too many secrets that some people from India (and >possibly nearby regions) didn't want made public? This issue >may have been discussed already - sorry to raise it if it has. >Call me paranoid if you want, but I think there has been a >steady stream of purposeful misinformation and deliberate >misdirection from a host of "minor characters", who originated >in India and adjoining regions, targeted at people involved in >theosophical works. JHE You might find Victor Endersby's ~Hall of Magic Mirrors~ interesting in respect to the possibility of a "Brahman plot" to take over the Theosophical Society and to thwart its mission. Victor gave a "private talk" on this subject to some invited guests back in 1984. I remember at the time thinking to myself "come on Victor--not another conspiracy theory--let's let this one drop---even if they are true, they are always unprovable--- etc." Well, the course of the TS from the time of the Judge case to the present is enough to make anyone paranoid about Brahman conspiracies. Besant did adopt Hinduism and with the exception of John Coats' short stay, the TS has been controlled by the same family ever since. I don't know if it is true, and it probably can never be proven, but the circumstantial evidence is in abundance. VB >My position [VB] is that some of the more obvious results of >this counter movement to "keep the secrets secret" are the >events and works of people such as AB, CWL, and AAB. What a >better way to bury what has been revealed than to lead the >leaders into a confusion and mish-mash of ideas. And in the >mean time what do we know of the ancient Vedic philososphy that >HPB kept toting to everyone? Almost nothing over more than a >century later. Where are up to date and *extensive* >translations into any english or any other European language by >anyone who has an inkling of occult knowledge? Where are these >works so people in the "west" can judge for themselves? Any >theosophists in India on this list care to help me out here? JHE Yes, the submersion of deeper teachings brings attention to them. But the confusion of those teachings by changing the terminology and then putting it into another context works very well. I think most people in the TS (and probably on this board) honestly believe that the teachings of HPB, TSR, APS, AB, CWL etc. are really consistent. I remember a woman in Long Beach (California) who came to visit me. I asked her what her group studies. She named books from all of the above authors, and she said that they compare them to each other. I asked her what they do when the find a contradiction. She said; "we talk about it until the contraction goes away." >>JHE >>HPB wanted Subba Row and Olcott to stand united against the >>Coulomb accusations. Both refused to do so for different >>reasons. .....Olcott argued that the accusations would >>disappear on their own if the issue was ignored....History >>shows Olcott to have been clearly and tragically wrong in >>thinking that the accusations would go away. They re-appeared >>as evidence in the SPR investigation....On the other hand, >>HSO's and TSR's threats that finally tied HPB's hands into >>inaction, clearly resulted in the follow up investigation of the SPR... VB >I disagree about H.S. Olcott. The Coulomb accusations did >formulate publicly into the SPR report against HPB. They didn't >go away in the lifetime of HPB or HSO but what has history >proven up to the present date? JHE Unless I'm missing something, I think we are agreeing very well. Those accusations are still with us. VB >What group (whether it be one or many organizations) has >flourished the more - theosophy or SPR? JHE I don't know quite what you mean by "flourished." I don't think the TS has flourished, but rather is dying. Certainly the SPR has a better reputation among the public than the TS. The SPR is regarded as a scientific organization that studies phenomena. The TS is regarded as a funny little cult that mainly attracts little old ladies in tennis shoes. VB >Whose version of the issues in the SPR report on HPB has been >vindicated by history? JHE SPR's so far. Vernon Harrison's report not withstanding. VB >What I can't understand is why HPB and HSO both put any emphasis >at all on the SPR at the time. They had hundreds and hundreds >of different people and organizations tearing them apart and >trying to mutilate them during their days. Why focus on the >SPR? By paying so much attention to this report they gave it >life. JHE I don't know about "hundreds and hundreds" but HPB and the TS did have enemies. HPB spent a lot of time arguing with them in ~The Theosophist~ and through the press. The difference between those people and organizations and the SPR was simply that HPB was restrained from answering the Coulombs and the SPR. Rather, they put her on a boat and shipped her out of Adyar. VB >HSO was on the right tract and history has proved him right in >the *long* run. Only HPB and HSO had to die first before the >SPR report could die also. JHE But it has not died. It is resurrected in every unfriendly biography and article about Blavatsky that has even been written. Even the recent ~Smithsonian~ article resurrected it. VB >I [VB] once again have my own theory as to the unreasonable >power of the Coulomb accusations. In Volume 1 of HSO's diaries >read the nature of the relations HPB had with her female cooks >and housekeepers. The way I see it, something had to balance >out. JHE Jean Overton Fuller published a similar view in did not give her domestic help enough respect, and that Emma Coulomb sought revenge against HPB for the way she was treated. Well, it could be a factor. But the evidence one way or the other really isn't there. The other, more accepted argument has the documentary support: HPB made Emma Coulomb return the donations she was collecting from TS members for her own proposed Organization. Coulomb, in anger swore revenge against HPB and sold (probably forged) incriminating letters to the ~Christian College Magazine.~ >>JHE >>I don't question the possibility of an Adept influencing an >>idea in the mind of another person. I do however, question as >>to when an idea is inspired by an Adept and when it is not. I >>believe that historical inquiry is often helpful is answering >>this question. >>[snip] >>As I stated above, my assumption is that HPB's exposition of >>the doctrines are most faithful to her teachers. That does not >>make her infallible, but it does make her doctrines the primary >>ones--next to the Mahatma Letters themselves......Why can't HPB >>be the primary authority for what she wrote too? Though Plato >>is supposed to have been a re-expression of ancient vedic >>philosophy, that does not mean that we have license to >>"correct" Plato's writings every time it appears to contradict >>something in Vedic Philosophy. Plato is Plato. Blavatsky is >>Blavatsky. Subba Row is Subba Row. Vedic Philosophy is Vedic >>Philosophy.... VB >Yes! Agree wholeheartedly. > >Historical inquiry, comparison of written (or recorded) works, >and straight intuition - what other way can I judge if Adept so >and so communicated with someone or not? So far, I can't >identify anyone who wrote since 1870 who had as direct a >connection as HPB did. > > >HPB's works are her works. She openly said she drew from many >sources. But her writings are her own and she presented them >that way from what I can tell. Authors who mix their sources, >call it someone's else's and not their own ideas, and then don't >tell where they got their mixture from cause me more confusion >than reading them is worth. JHE Yes. Two things will really make me impatient with an occult or a non fiction work: when there are no citations, and when there is no index. Occasionally a book without an index turns out to be worth while, so I usually end up indexing it myself. But a book without citations....&%@*#$!! :-) JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed May 8 23:45:57 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 19:45:57 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605090050.UAA11272@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: sister/brotherhood as a fact Eldon, I agree with you. The fact that everyone is an individual with an individual contribution to give isn't very emphasized in my "forinstance". But it doesn't contradict it either. Each finger has a specialty, or they can act together. Just reminds me of something I've remembered over the years from a tape of a lecture Yves Marcel gave at Ojai. The Bretons believe that wisdom resides in the pinkie. "how do you know?" "My pinkie told me" Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed May 8 23:52:47 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 19:52:47 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605090057.UAA14503@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: evolution >>Evolution lies in growing *powers of mind*, not powers of sense >>perception. I've really been taught that mind & emotions go together. In this sense, I wonder what ESP is, which is supposed to be the next perception we're going to develop. You, for sure, have to be able to discern clearly with your mind what it is yoou're seeing, but then, intuition is supposed to have a part in it too. How do you suppose that figures? Liesel From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu May 9 00:59:44 1996 Date: 08 May 96 20:59:44 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Message-Id: <960509005943_76400.1474_HHL49-1@CompuServe.COM> "Schizophrenia is what happens when you confound the planes." Jerry S. Eldon: >When someone sees into the astral light, and what they see is a >reflection of the content of their own psyche, we have an >hallucination. But is it "real"? Yes, but it is subjective to the >individual seeing it, and it is not physical in nature nor >objective in the sense that it exists in its own right and can >remain unaltered by how we might like it to be. I submit that ALL that anyone can ever see is a "reflection of their own psyche." The resulting "hallucination" is called maya. All of our sensory data is "subjective to the individual seeing it." Just because another person agrees with our perception, doesn't make that perception any more (or less) real. Eldon, you sound very much like a materialist here. >I would expect that the sort of brain change that is represented >in schizophrenia is, as said, a breakdown in the normal brain >formation, leading to an abnormal experience of life. The problem is Kundalini, a spontaneous opening of one or more chakras when the person is totally unprepared. The result is a confusion between what is occuring on the physical plane vs what is occurring on the astral plane. Such persons hear voices and see things on the astral, but think it is on the physical (most have no knowledge at all of higher planes). Since scientists and doctors also know nothing of higher planes, they believe it to be the result of brain damage. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu May 9 00:59:44 1996 Date: 08 May 96 20:59:44 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Message-Id: <960509005944_76400.1474_HHL49-2@CompuServe.COM> Schizophrenia is what happens when you confound the planes. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu May 9 00:59:49 1996 Date: 08 May 96 20:59:49 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL Message-Id: <960509005948_76400.1474_HHL49-3@CompuServe.COM> Eldon: >The most common usage of "plane", as I've found it, is >to refer to a world or realm where we can exist, including >senses, a form or body, the ability to think and feel, etc. >We have all these elements or principles of consciousness >here on the physical plane, on Globe D, and anywhere else >where we can exist as fully sentient beings. Eldon, I suspect that with the definition of a plane is where we have most of our differences. I believe that "we can exist as fully sentient beings" only on Globe D. Certainly not during sleep or death--for most of us. We "feel" only on the physical & astral, and "think" only on the physical & astral & mental. We use logic and reason only in the waking state on Globe D with use of the brain. Only an Adept can use logic and reason while out of the physical body. We need to better define "plane." >snip< >True, but there are only seven (or twelve) such points >that form the basis for the globes of our planetary >chain, the "places" of existence for denizens of earth. >There are likely numberless other schemes of existence >that interpenetrate the world about us, but we don't >visit those places. Yes, I agree that as physical humans in a physical body, we are limited to Earth, or Globe D. But we can leave our physical body. Our consciousness can shift to another focus, and venture out into the planes. What do you suppose would stop the mayavi-rupa from going *between* Globes C and E, for example? I can conceive of nothing at all. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu May 9 00:59:58 1996 Date: 08 May 96 20:59:58 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Big Bang Two (poss. dup.) Message-Id: <960509005958_76400.1474_HHL49-6@CompuServe.COM> RI: >I wonder what would happen if some individuals followed this instruction and >then came to the sincere conclusion that HPB's elaborate exposition of >Anthropogenesis, in particular, was not primarily meant to be taken >*literally* by advanced students? My guess would be a very big food fight between traditionalists and the 'Gang.' >What would happen if many came to believe that the "biggest blind" of them >all is that "Globes," "Rounds," "Root Races" etc. are not to be taken as >actual "translifetime details," but rather, merely as symbolic >representations in the Grandest Psychological Allegory of all times? What if >the next deeper layer of the "Principal Theosophical Doctrine" in THE SECRET >DOCTRINE is not found to be concerned with what might have happened pre- or >post-incarnation, but that it pertains to a hitherto largely "hidden" >psychogenetic ("psychomaturational") process in the life of each individual? As "many" came to believe this, then this would become the traditionalist point of view, and those who thought it all literally true would be the revisionists. Actually, because of the maxims that man is the microcosm of the macrocosm, and 'as above so below', the principles outlined in the SD for Root Races should be applicable to every one of us over our lifespan. > Would general acceptance require something more than someone's bringing >forth the right "Psychological Key," or would it be necessary to have the >Theosophical equivalent of Big Bang Two in order to blow the lock off >entirely? No matter who came out with the "right" psychological key, only a few would accept it as such. I am afraid that a Big Bang two is in order here. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu May 9 00:59:54 1996 Date: 08 May 96 20:59:54 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: 7 Principles and Sheaths Message-Id: <960509005954_76400.1474_HHL49-5@CompuServe.COM> Eldon quoting G de P: > ... The seven principles are not vehicles. They > are not sheaths. To call the seven 'principles the > seven 'elements' of man's constitution is just as > good a manner of speaking. It depends upon the point > of view whether we speak of seven 'principles' or > seven 'elements.' The two are the same. ... Thanks for the quote, Eldon, but I am not sure what you mean by it. No one on theos-l, that I know of, has ever equated the principles with the vehicles. I would equate vehicle with body or sheath, however. Kama, or emotion, for example, is clearly not a body or vehicle. Who says otherwise? When talking about "subtle bodies" I agree with HPB that uphadi or vehicle is a better term than body. CWL does not equate principles with bodies either, that I am aware of, but simply ignores the term principles altogether. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu May 9 00:59:53 1996 Date: 08 May 96 20:59:53 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: The Seven Principles Message-Id: <960509005953_76400.1474_HHL49-4@CompuServe.COM> Eldon, after quoting HPB: >Note that HPB was saying that the principles were >correlated to planes, planets, and races, not that >there were found in such. Eldon, you and JHE both love to derive facts from omissions. While its true she says "correlated" here, you cannot jump to the conclusion that that they are not "found in such" just because she omits saying that here. She says exactly that in THE INNER TEACHINGS on page 19: "Each principle is on a different plane." Each principle is on a plane, AND also can be correlated to that plane. But it is NOT equal to a plane. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu May 9 01:00:04 1996 Date: 08 May 96 21:00:04 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (Rich/JerryS.) Message-Id: <960509010004_76400.1474_HHL49-9@CompuServe.COM> >Hmmm... "J" and "K" are next to each other on a keyboard; were you meaning >"Kim"? Yes. Sorry, Jim. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu May 9 01:00:07 1996 Date: 08 May 96 21:00:07 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: HPB's sources Message-Id: <960509010007_76400.1474_HHL49-10@CompuServe.COM> Rich: >Actually, there is a WORLD of difference between the Hindu and Buddhist >Tantras. I would agree that the vast majority of Hindu tantras appear to be >of the "left hand path," i.e. personal, sensual gratification for earthly >results. > >But the topic is not Hindu tantras, but the Buddhist Tantras preserved in >Tibet. And HPB did not "totally reject Tantra" as one may see reading only >the Preface of the SECRET DOCTRINE. See my last post on that topic. Oh my God! I find myself in total agreement with Rich on this one. Excuse me, I have to go sit down. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu May 9 01:00:04 1996 Date: 08 May 96 21:00:04 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Message-Id: <960509010003_76400.1474_HHL49-8@CompuServe.COM> RI: >Thus, in reading your post about the possible connection between >schizophrenia and the psychic, I could not help asking myself, "Is it >possible that Eldon does not realize that bringing up this presently >quiescent subject again--especially in this manner--is going to set-off JRC >and possibly Alexis and possibly some others in a predictable way again?" Oh yeah, Eldon realizes it. But he does it anyway. It has something to do with integrity, I think. I am doubtless one of the "some others" you are referring to. Eldon's a Prince. By periodically bringing up this topic and giving us further insights into the traditional TS view on the horrors of psychism, he allows us to vent our spleen. Its very cathartic all around. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu May 9 01:00:15 1996 Date: 08 May 96 21:00:15 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (part 2) A question to Jerry S. Message-Id: <960509010014_76400.1474_HHL49-11@CompuServe.COM> >Jerry S, >Do you agree with all tht HPB says in her text (pp.557-6, HPB's CW, Vol. >12) accompanying >this diagram No. IV (p. 658). Dan, I am not at all sure what you mean by "agree with." If you mean, is this how I experience the planes, then I must say no. But if you mean, is this in agreement with my understanding of the HPB Model, then I would say yes, to a degree. But pp 657-659 is very cloudy and not at all as clear as it first looks. For example, in Figure B (p 658) she has the lowest plane as "1st or Objective" and this under the title of "Prakritic Planes." But there is an asterisk here, with a baffling note that this is "The Fourth Globe of every Planetary Chain." Now, is it a plane or a globe, and is she confusing the two? My own interpretation (and her whole model is full of interpretations, whether we like it or not) is that Globe D, the 4th of her 7, the lowest of every planetary chain, is located on the Objective or lowest prakritic plane-- which is our physical plane. In other words, she is saying that every planetary chain has a "lowest" plane, on which is located its lowest and most gross globe. Now, and here is where the whole thing gets messy, we really only need to confine ourselves to the lower universal plane or solar system of 7 planes. But, some folks like to think of each cosmic plane containing its own planetary chain of globes. Lets use the Qabala as a reference. The teaching there is that there are 4 worlds--Assiah (matter, humanity, shells), Yetzirah (formative, angels), Briah (creative, archangels), and Atziluth (archetypal, deity). I have seen Qabalists who insist that there are 10 Sephiroth on each of these worlds. But I have also seen folks who teach that these "worlds" are really planes within our solar system. If we look at the figure on page 200 of Vol 1 of the SD (I keep harping on this figure, don't I?) we will note that HPB give the names of the 4 lower planes as the names of the 4 worlds of the Qabala. She also places her 7 globes on these 4 planes. The Big Question here is: Is this a figure of the 7 cosmic planes, or of the 7 prakritic planes within our solar system? I would submit that anything outside or beyond the scope of her figure on page 200 of Vol 1 of the SD is irrelevant to us, and should be ignored. Thus *our* universe consists of 7 planes, containing 12 globes, with her 7 globes A through G on the lowest 4 planes, just beneath the Abyss which divides the lower 4 planes from the upper 3 (denoted in her figure by a triangle). Now, only with this in mind, can we make sense out of Diagram IV on page 658. > For the 7 principles - the diagram on p. 607 Yes, and I agree that the 3 lower are aspects rather than principles. Principles tend toward longevity, while our 3 lower aspects only last for 1 lifetime. But, sadly, this list of principles doesn't jive with Figure C on p 658, as I will demonstrate. >> For the universal or macrocosmic planes Figure A of p. 658. The names >relates only to forces manifesting within the solar system and no attempt >is made to designate them on their own plane. Right. > For the solar physical body or prakritic planes Figure B of p. 658. >These are the planes of the solar system. On the 4 lower we have the 7 >globes of a chain. OK, but the names she uses here are extremely confusing. I hate the name "Objective" preferring "physical," which is what she really means. Astral is ok. Jivic and Fohatic are terrible names to use because neither Jiva nor Fohat are confined to these planes as these names would suggest. I wish she had stuck to the 4 Qabalistic terms that she used in the SD. Anyway, the Abyss goes either between the 4th and 5th plane or is itself the 5th plane, depending on how we want to define it. And her 7 globes are only the lowest 7 of the chain, not the entire chain itself. > For the sub-planes of these planes of consciousness see diagram C. They >are also the seven parts of consciousness as manifesting on either plane. >Must not be confused with seven principles. These are really the 7 stages of consciousness, not the subplanes themselves. The names here refer to consciousness on each of the 7 subplanes, rather than to the subplanes themselves. And even here we see some confusion. I would assume that Objective=Physical. But what is her Astral? She gives Kama-Pranic for the 3rd, which I would think would be the emotions. But if so, to what does her Astral refer? (Astral usually refers to the emotions). Also, her names here fly in the face of those given on page 607. On page 607, we see that the four principles are atman, buddhi, the auric envelope and manas. The lower 3 principles or "aspects" are given as prana, linga-sarira, and lower manas. However, when we apply these 7 to the 7 planes, it doesn't look like Figure C on page 658, which it should. Figure C should show buddhi as the 5th, with manas as the 4th, lower manas (which includes kama) as the 3rd, prana as the 2nd, and linga-sarira as the 1st. But it doesn't. The lowest and highest planes are ok, but the in-between are all off by one. With the above problems, I don't see how anyone can make an intelligent argument of HPBs Model using the figures on p 658 and the principles of p 607, because the two don't match. In her INNER TEACHINGS she clearly says "Each principle is on a different plane" (p 19). So why doesn't she simply place them that way? Instead Figure C is a mish-mash. Jerry S. Member, TI From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu May 9 00:11:32 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 20:11:32 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605090116.VAA25591@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: hpb/cwl etc Hi, Rich, taking HPB seriously - agreed presenting stuff in line with what the Masters gave out - great. What I wish I could see, instead of all this digging around in all these horribly complicated & unfruitful past relationships between theosophists, is HPB's ideas & the Masters' ideas applied to modern day problems. For instance in the conversations with the Dalai Lama which I just read about, he applies Buddhism to population control, because he says if we don't have family planning,(please note PLANNING, abortion *wasn't* mentioned) there will be even more starving children. He also applies Buddhist beliefs to conservation - to working with the earth instead of against it. Liesel From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed May 8 23:37:48 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 00:37:48 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <6m9GDLAMBTkxEwI7@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: There is no real "Gang" In-Reply-To: <960508015619_486604071@emout13.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960508015619_486604071@emout13.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Your perspicacity and wit are an inspiration to us all. >And besides, you put up with us. > >Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA You are too kind! However, I must decline the invitation to part of a gang ... I prefer being a members of a family. Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed May 8 23:43:05 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 00:43:05 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <82cHXPAJGTkxEwo9@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Dead persons In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960508060747.00694f14@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960508060747.00694f14@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >Now as to the one who died, well, as >Theosophists we can miss them, we can love them, but after all everyone dies >and to a truly believing theosophist, so what? It's the people with the loss >that require compassion, for the "dead" person is hardly lost. Right on! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu May 9 00:37:14 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 01:37:14 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Gangus very defunctus Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960508200545.006bf338@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960508200545.006bf338@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >Now maybe we ought to actually choose a name for ourselves as a group, for >group we're becoming. Think of some choices why don't you? I'll try too. > >alexis d. > With all due respect to both of you (Alexis and Chuck) I beg to differ. While we may have more in common than otherwise, I genuinely believe that to suggest forming a "group" of this sort would be counter- productive, and justifiably be seen as divisive. As I have pointed out before, Eldon, along with many others on theos-l, is, like ourselves, a member of TI. And being a member of TI places us all where, IMO, we properly belong, as members acknowledging *together* their place within the human family. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed May 8 23:56:10 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 00:56:10 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Big Bang Two In-Reply-To: <960507203611_289315123@emout17.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960507203611_289315123@emout17.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes >Even if it could be shown that such a new "shedding of an outer garment" had >much greater potential for the development of practical adeptship, how would >theosophical scholars greet a possible "dematerialization" of their painfully >acquired macro-nuts-and-bolts, now potentially "allegorical" knowledge? > Would general acceptance require something more than someone's bringing >forth the right "Psychological Key," or would it be necessary to have the >Theosophical equivalent of Big Bang Two in order to blow the lock off >entirely? > >Godspeed, > >Richard Ihle It would, IMHO, need Big Bang Two. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu May 9 00:01:00 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 01:01:00 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: White Lotus Day In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960508192017.006a9b74@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960508192017.006a9b74@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >I believe she's still with us in spirit, sticking her >"oar" in when she thinks it's needed > >alexis d.. You bet! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From eldon@theosophy.com Thu May 9 09:24:09 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 02:24:09 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509092409.006bfdc8@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: sister/brotherhood as a fact Liesel: >I agree with you. The fact that everyone is an individual with an individual >contribution to give isn't very emphasized in my "forinstance". But it >doesn't contradict it either. Each finger has a specialty, or they can act >together. Just reminds me of something I've remembered over the years from a >tape of a lecture Yves Marcel gave at Ojai. The Bretons believe that wisdom >resides in the pinkie. "how do you know?" "My pinkie told me" You're right of course. Although we're all interdependent, and cocreate the world we live in, some have more wisdom to offer than others. Each has an individual contribution to make, but in this case, the pinkie may have the most important words of wisdom for us to listen to. This reminds me of a great quote that you gave the list last year, during another round of discussions with the psychics, where they were repeating their claim that only they could understand what is going on. Your quote said something to the effect: A: How can you know it is true if you aren't me and haven't experienced it? B: How can you know I'm not right if you're not me? The quote said it much better, and I was unable to locate it in the archives. Perhaps if you remember where you got it, you might repost it? -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Thu May 9 09:36:23 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 02:36:23 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509093623.006a8c64@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: evolution Liesel: >I've really been taught that mind & emotions go together. In this sense, I >wonder what ESP is, which is supposed to be the next perception we're going >to develop. In a general sense I'd agree. Although our sense perceptions are less in some respects than that of the animals. I think that there's only so far that the senses can take us, and then the expanding consciousness and awareness of life needs different directions to expand. >You, for sure, have to be able to discern clearly with your mind what it is >you're seeing, but then, intuition is supposed to have a part in it too. >How do you suppose that figures? One way of putting it is that intuition is "seeing" with the mind, and the intellect is the process of making sense of that "image". Both are important, as you say -- the stimulus or raw input for the mind and the ability to comprehend and assimilate the new experiences. -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Thu May 9 09:57:59 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 02:57:59 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509095759.006c7880@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB/CWL Jerry: >>True, but there are only seven (or twelve) such points >>that form the basis for the globes of our planetary >>chain, the "places" of existence for denizens of earth. >>There are likely numberless other schemes of existence >>that interpenetrate the world about us, but we don't >>visit those places. >Yes, I agree that as physical humans in a physical >body, we are limited to Earth, or Globe D. But we can leave >our physical body. Our consciousness can shift to another >focus, and venture out into the planes. What do you suppose >would stop the mayavi-rupa from going *between* Globes C >and E, for example? I can conceive of nothing at all. We could go between them, in a contained atmosphere that would be the equivalent of a "space ship" for the plane that the two globes would be on. On them, I suspect, we'd find a binary planet. For the inhabitants of either, they'd see the other as a barren globe, since the two globes are on different subplanes. Between the two globes is the same apparent "empty space" as we see between our Earth and Moon. Is it possible to find an inhabited planet (or globe of a planet) in that space? Yes, but not on the particular subplane of the physical that our Globe D and its Moon exist on. As long as we exist in our human egos, appropriate to the earth planetary chain, we can visit its globes, a discrete number of "places". We have to leave the earth to be on a planet (globe) on a slightly different plane or in a slightly different location on a plane. To do so requires us to have evolved the necessary egos to step into, the necessary skandhas and karmic ties to the inhabitants of that other planet. I don't think that's really possible, although it's conceivable that some leave the earth for the outer rounds, and visit the seven sacred planets. This has nothing to do, of course, with being on "higher planes" of our earth scheme. -- Eldon From RIhle@aol.com Thu May 9 03:26:50 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 23:26:50 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960508232649_109757837@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Jerry S. writes> > Oh yeah, Eldon realizes it. But he does it anyway. It has >something to do with integrity, I think. I am doubtless one of the >"some others" you are referring to. Eldon's a Prince. By periodically >bringing up this topic and giving us further insights into the traditional >TS view on the horrors of psychism, he allows us to vent our spleen. >Its very cathartic all around. Richard Ihle writes> Actually, I am impressed by the controlled responses which have resulted. No one has seemed to indulge desire-mental consciousness, but at least "up-leveled" to the mental--i.e., taken egoic refuge in his or her dispassionate knowledge on the subject. Some, perhaps, have even shown the characteristics of the Spirit-mental (Buddi-manas) in that they almost seemed to regard the possible finding of "schizophrenia-stigmata" on their own psychic experiences as altogether inconsiderable considering their direct and "widened" (but not necessarily "logical" or articulatable) apprehension of the subject. Eldon allowed us an opportunity *not* to vent our spleens, didn't he? I think I was forgetting my own "bullhead" story when I doubted him for a second. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From poulsen@dk-online.dk Thu May 9 07:47:33 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 05:47:33 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3D6B.211A7E40@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL Encoding: 240 TEXT JHE (on Sinnett) > No, I'm not "guessing his motives." In his Autobiography, >Sinnett made his motives clear enough so that "guessing his >motives" isn't necessary. He believed that HPB often lied and >gave false information because she was often taken over by "black >magicians." Therefore, Sinnett believed that he gave a more >correct version of the Theosophical doctrines than HPB. Kim: He had in his possession the mahatma letters - the material you put higher than HPB herself as an authority . His trust in these, the observations of and comments on HPB within this material and his reliance upon his own powers of observation can explain much in this standpoint. The exact same accusations has been forwarded against TSR in the last couple of days on Theos-l. All is in the eye of the beholder. JHE > In my opinion, the study of metaphysics and philosophy is >inseparable from the historical context in which it was >presented. An example of the study of doctrine outside of >historical context can be found in the teachings of >fundamentalist Christianity. I have not yet found the time for answering your pleas for a scholarly approach, your ideas of methodology etc. Obviously historical context means a lot to you and it is certainly a possible approach with modern writers. As soon as we move before 1450 it is far more questionable if this approach can be of any help. The difference between certain datings in theosophical writings and commonly accepted chronology (the basis of course of any historical context) will be well known. Personally I do not have very high regards for the science of chronology with regard to written sources and hence the scholarly standards in this direction. A short example (unrelated to theosophy but still relevant): Many years ago I researched the political history of Denmark in the 11th-12th c. and spend 2-3 years on the project. As a beginning I read every single primary source on the subject. Now while the 12th c. is well-documented the 11th is not so: the whole material is made up of a few letters, a few short notes in foreign chronichles and a not very large collection of stories in verse (danish and icelandic sagas) written down in the 13th c. Most of the century is a near blank, an unknown period. Yet with great surprise I followed - while reading the works of modern scholars - 4 generations of modern, supposedly critical historians creating, each period of scholars building upon the previous, a complete history for the period. Complete with year-by-year events (basically the sagas strung on a conjectural time frame). All sorts of loose ideas, hobby-horses and assumptions would also find its way into this near-phantasy (especially in the case where a number of historians built upon their common teacher or respected "leading authority on the subject"). Yet never, ever did one of these historians state in writing that their ideas was mostly guesswork. To analyse the arising of this history a mere reading of all sources would not be sufficient - an analysis of the habitual thinking of each historian (and historians in general) would also be needed. This (much too long) example is far from an exception. Especially in the case of little known periods (like most of the history of India) I have a distinct feeling that almost anything goes: the volumes of history must be written! Back to our subject JHE (on HPB) > In the sense that she was trying to give to the public a >correct understanding of the Theosophical doctrines, she was >competing. My bias is that HPB's exposition of the doctrines is >the most faithful to her teachers. I'm not saying that she was >infallible, but I am strongly suggesting that I believe HPB to >have been the closest to her teachers. Yes the first sentence here is certainly biased. It is very clear from p. 607 of CW that her real system "on strict esoteric lines" is very close to TSR (except in the terminology in a few of the principles), that previous writings of hers also is labeled semi-exoteric by herself and as a result that a whole range of accusations against TSR by devout thesophists can be disregarded. The neutral analyzer (with your high scholarly standards) would have to ask: Did TSR in reality see the explanations as semi-exoteric rather than "selfishly not wanting to see HPB divulge esoteric truths" (a common opinion among theosophists)? Why would HPB to her own private students make the comments on p.607? Certainly not for reasons regarding the public, the future of theosophy, etc. If we really want go into ascribing various motives (other than benevolence) to people for writing on spiritual subjects. Or rather that such a motive would influence the writing: I had a motive for entering this discussion, did this have any effect on my determination to write what I see as the truth? Certainly not! Why did Shankara incarnate and reversed the effect of buddhism, why did he choose the vedantic form and destroyed buddhism in India. I almost hear the devout, historical complaint: "influenced by left-hand sorcerors, jealous, impure motives, died young from certain karmic reasons." Has this any relevance to TSR? Mainly one: is all this really necessary? My bias is that a great number of people do have pure motives, especially spiritually oriented people. JHE >I'm also making an opinion based upon historical observation, that I >believe HPB to have been the most intellectually honest of the bunch. Kim Well I like to think that "intellectual honesty" is a common trait among chelas and lay-chelas (only to their day of failure of course) - based on history *and* observation. JHE > If you believe that Sinnett and Subba Row's training >and relationship to the Master's was on a equal par with HPB, >then perhaps we need to discuss this first. Kim > see below JHE > My understanding was that Subba Row wanted nothing to do >with the SD mss because it made certain teachings public that he >believed should be kept secret. The issue of the Masters being >made public was another issue of TSR that was not connected with >the SD. Kim: Letter of Feb 24, 1888 (quoted in Zirkoff ed. of SD p [47]): "Now Tookaram writes me a letter. In it he says that S. R. told him that he was ready to help me and correct my S.D *provided* I took out from it every reference to the Masters!" JHE > My experience with the SD is that her tracings are very >historical in nature. Using history as a tool for the tracing of >ideas is perfectly consistent with HPB's methods in the SD in my >opinion. Kim: Yes but "using history as a tool for the tracing of ideas" is what I see myself as doing. If I wants investigate the meaning of a term like "paramartha" used in the SD, I consult the works of Shankara, Asanga and Nagarjuna in that order since they are all regarded as master & initiates and all treats of the subject in detail. Rather than bothering with any contemporary writers - unless the subject arises in a direct dialogue. Of course in certain areas like the chronologizing of letters your historical approach comes in as highly useful. I cannot see the SD as similar in approach. Not a single historical context is provided in depth, ideas are simple picked out of their context and presented on their own face value - regardless of the author. JHE > As I stated above, my assumption is that HPB's exposition of >the doctrines are most faithful to her teachers. That does not >make her infallible, but it does make her doctrines the primary >ones--next to the Mahatma Letters themselves. Kim My assumption is that these teachers used HPB to write teachings to which I ascribe high authority. My second assumption is that at least part of the Mahatma Letters were written by the same teachers. My third assumption is that HPB on her own, so to speak, was a chela of the same degree of initiation as TSR and that their writings belong to the same degree of "authority". To roughly the same level I would assign - because of translation problems - the Buddha, Shankara and then a line of teachers Tsong-ka-pa, Patanjali, Krishna, Asanga and others. With my level of trust mostly depending on my mastery of the language in which their works was written. JHE: I do not see Theosophy as a variety of Hinduism, nor of Buddhism, nor of any other religion. HPB described Theosophy as a proto-religion--the trunk from which all other religions came. Kim: I see the Ancient Wisdom-Religion proposition as the source of all religions and philosophical systems and theosophy as the synthesis - because it is a synthesizing mode of thinking. And where the disregard of the components of this synthesis would be a disaster. I see esoteric buddhism, vedanta and theosophy as a common, true system - and exoteric buddhism, vedanta and theosophy as a differing, untrue form. We do not need to exchange quotes on this. JHE >Therefore, if Subba Row's ideas are closer to some extant >Hindu work, that only proves that his ideas are closer to some >extant Hindu work Kim Are you really refering to the upanishads as some "some hindu work". I prefer "priceless esoteric treatises". "That his ideas are closer to some priceless esoteric treatises". JHE > To express it in another way; if we were discussing >Platonism, would we not use Plato's writings as the primary >authority for what he wrote? Kim I would certainly bring up Pythagoras, the neo-platonists and probably some eastern works as well - in an attempt to understand his way of thinking rather than getting involved in an broadside-exchange of quotes of lesser and higher authority. JHE: > Why can't HPB be the primary authority for what she wrote too? Who says she cannot? Do I read you right as saying: A) Theosophy is the true (and only true) expression of the ancient Wisdom-Religion, which is the esoteric "truth" B) HPB is the most "intellectually honest" expounder and highest authority on this. C) From this follows (my assumption) that HPB is the highest authority on esoteric subjects. If there is some measure of truth in presenting this as your view it seems like a very rigid system devoid of much attempt of synthesis of religion. philosophy and science. I believe in the latter as a method of investigatiom rather than the sub-title of a Bible-like work. JHE: >If Kim Poulsen wants to combine elements in Plato, Blavatsky, Subba >Row, Vedic Philosophy etc. into a new, more universal system, then I will >call it the Kim Poulsen system (for lack of a better name), Kim Somehow I would like "old, more universal system" and "commentary on theosophical thought and esoteric philosophy" better. Maybe I lack ambition! JHE: >So far, identifications of each other's assumptions has been one of the >main outcomes of our discussion. I think this kind of exploration is time >well spent. I hope so, since they are certainly time-consuming and Alan hates long posts! :-) In friendship, Kim From ramadoss@eden.com Wed May 8 05:33:44 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 00:33:44 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: White Lotus Day Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi It is 00:30 hrs on May 8. Just remembered it is White Lotus Day. Let us remember HPB for all the sacrifices she made so that you and I and everyone else have access to all the Theosophical Literature we have today. I consider myself fortunate in having been exposed to Theosophy and also I had the previlege of being associated with a lodge at whose inauguration she was present - which is a very rare occurrence. Let us send our loving thoughts to her and every worker of Theosophy and hope next year may be a better year for the Humanity. ....doss From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed May 8 23:12:29 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 19:12:29 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605090017.UAA22236@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: White Lotus Day Also a better year for the TS. Liesel >Hi > >It is 00:30 hrs on May 8. Just remembered it is White Lotus Day. Let us >remember HPB for all the sacrifices she made so that you and I and >everyone else have access to all the Theosophical Literature we have >today. I consider myself fortunate in having been exposed to Theosophy >and also I had the previlege of being associated with a lodge at whose >inauguration she was present - which is a very rare occurrence. Let us >send our loving thoughts to her and every worker of Theosophy and hope >next year may be a better year for the Humanity. > > ....doss From ramadoss@eden.com Fri May 10 19:24:16 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 12:24:16 -0700 From: MKR Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Subject: Re: TS/Arundale/Sri Ram/Radha Burnier X-Beyondmail-Priority: 1 Message-Id: Conversation-Id: Hi In various postings on theos-xxxx over last several months, it has been mentioned that Sri Ram's family has "controlled" TS and all the problems laid at their door. It is far from truth based on what I am aware of. For those who may not know the full family connections, I am providing a brief description. 1. The first member of the family who got into TS is Francesca Arundale. She is the one who brought up her nephew, George Arundale since he was an infant. She was of independent financial means and everyone who had known of George, know that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. 2. George Arundale, as a young man out of college, came to India to work for TS and also work in other activities in which Annie Besant was involved. So when he came to India, he was financially very self sufficient and so no TS funds were spent on him to support him. He came to India because he believed in the cause of Theosophy. 3. George Arundale married Rukmini Arundale. Rukmini is the daughter of Nilakanta Sastry who was a Brahmin and was a member of TS. While Rukmini's father was supportive, the marriage took place under great opposition from the orthodox Brahmins of South India. (Brahmins have always spearheaded every social and political change that took place for the better in India). 4. George and Rukmini did not have any children. 5. N. Sri Ram is the brother of Rukmini. After he graduated from college, he went to work for Annie Besant as her private secretary. She must have found him to be a very able and capable person. His command of English language was appreciated even by C. Jinarajadasa. When CJ was President of TS, he routinely consulted with Sri Ram before he put out any important written documents. It was a labor of sacrifice that Sri Ram took and was not looking for a job which paid lucrative salary. 6. George Arundale was elected as President of TS after Annie Besant passed away. 7. C. Jinarajadasa, succeeded George Arundale as President of TS. 8. When CJ did not seek reelection as President, N. Sri Ram ran and elected as President. 9. After Sri Ram passed away, John Coats was elected as President. 10. Radha Burnier is the daughter of Sri Ram. She does not have any children. 11. After John Coats passed away, both Radha Burnier and Rukmini Arundale ran for the office of President and Radha Burnier was elected as the President. 12. I lived in India for nearly four decades (only 200 miles from Adyar) and have met numerous members of TS in various cities. I even lived in Madras City (Adyar is a suburb of Madras City) for four years. During all this time, I have never heard even a *single* complaint about any of the above mentioned leaders even though some of their administrative decisions may have been unpopular with some members. If there had been anything going on which was out of line or questionable, it would have come to light. Also many of the members who live at Adyar and see what is going on at Adyar day in and day out, are all financially independent members and many of them have held some of the highest offices in private and public sector and pay rent for their accommodation and not receive any *stipend* for their work at TS Headquarters. They would not put up or support anyone or any activity which is questionable. 13. Many times the Presidents of TS are blamed for actions coming out of the President's office. There is a General Council, which in most cases goes along with the President. But they do not always rubber stamp everything the President presents. I know of a case when Annie Besant was the undisputed leader of TS, the General Council voted down one of her proposals. As none of the National Presidents (Secretaries) share any of the going ons in the General Council with their national membership, wrong conclusions are drawn by members due to lack of information. 14. The Sri Ram family has done invaluable services to TS and other related causes. 15. Rukmini single handed brought back the Indian Dance to its modern recognition and popularity. Today the school she started, Kalashetra is the premier National Institution devoted to Dance, Music and Arts and some years ago it was designated as a National University. 16. Rukmini was very active in prevention of cruelty to Animals (Brotherhood applied to all living beings.) Everyone in India knows about her contribution to this cause. She was appointed to the Upper Chamber of the Indian Congress and server as a legislator for a couple of terms. Later when she was even offered to be appointed as the President of India, she declined. 17. Sri Ram worked for the TS for decades and decades and is one of the lowest keyed persons I have seen. I did not even knew much about him until after he was elected as the President of TS. So I think we all should not ignore his sacrifices and contributions. 18. Radha Burnier, who is a protege and one of the first Dance students of Rukmini, again worked full time for decades as the National Secretary (President) of Indian Section and has extensive experience in dealing with the lodges and their problems in India. Again she is of independent means and does not depend on TS for her living. So I think we all should not ignore her sacrifices and contributions. 19. After J Krishnamurti started speaking of his ideas of Truth and solving human problems, the decline in the membership of TS started and TS has never recovered from it. To place the blame on Sri Ram family or anyone else for the lack of increase in membership of TS is not fair. 20. Even assuming that leadership at Adyar not taking correct steps, let us see what has happened at National Level. For example with all the well known leaders at the helm at Wheaton, the membership of TSA has not gone up in spite of their best efforts. So leadership may not be the only reason for all the ills. 21. After J Krishnamurti started speaking about his ideas of truth and solving human problems, there has *never* been *any* leader of his stature and charisma. So may be it is that his message is more needed for the present day. 22. The International and National leaders can do only so much. The activities and increase in membership of TS has to come about from the Lodge level, which means *you* and *me*. So we may have to look at our own local activities and see what we can do to popularize Theosophy. It does not need any anointment from any leaders at National and International level. In conclusion, I think it is not fair to place any blame on Sri Ram family for any of the problems of TS. On the other hand, they have provided invaluable service to TS and Theosophy and we should be grateful. ...Doss From nils.thorell@sbbs.se Thu May 9 17:25:21 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 19:25:21 +0200 From: Nils-Erik Thorell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: German! Message-Id: <17252161927528@sbbs.se> However, it is almost un insult to call Norwegian food "Scandinavian". But, I guess you have to be born in one of these countries to see the difference. At 15.52 1996-05-08 -0400, you wrote: >At 05:41 AM 5/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >>Please, don't mix Scandinavian and Norwegian! >> >>At 12.25 1996-05-05 -0400, you wrote: >>>John >>>German food is nowhere near as bland as Scandanavian. I once had this >>>Norwegian girlfriend... >>>But God has been merciful to all of them. " He has created them without >>>tastebuds." >>>(Sorry Victor.) >>>Of course now you realize that you will probably be numbered among the ES >>>agents sent to destroy the internet for talking about something besides pure >>>theosophy, whatever that may be. >>> >>>Chuck the Barbaric Gourmand MTI, FTSA, M G of 5 >>>Heretic >>>Troublemaker >>> >>>"Take two tons of Blavatsky and a ton and a half of chutney" The >>>Theosophical Cannibal Cookbook >>> >>> >> >> >>Nils: > >Please explain. I've always thought that Scandinavia consisted of (listed >alphabetically) Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. >Historically the political divisions between them have been changeable to >say the least. Finland was an integral part of Sweden until Russia took it >from her. Norway, Sweden and Denmark were once under one Crown, and Sweden >and Norway were one nation for the longest time. The only Scandinavian >nation that is really separate in any way is Finland and that is due to the >Finno-Urgic ethnicity of the Finns. They are all the children of Skaadi. I >cook in all four cuisines, and there are distinct national differences >there, and I don't find them at all bland, but then I'm not Sicilian. (Or >was it his Girlfriend that was bland?). By the way I've spent quite a bit of >time in all four countries and love them all equally but for different things. > >alexis d. > > From alexei@slip.net Thu May 9 19:59:23 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 12:59:23 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509195923.0069e668@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: German! At 01:43 PM 5/9/96 -0400, you wrote: >However, it is almost un insult to call Norwegian food "Scandinavian". >But, I guess you have to be born in one of these countries to see the >difference. > Nils: I think you've hit the nail on the head. To those of us who have actually spent time in all of the three Nordic Countries and Finland those of you who aren't Finno-Urgic or Lapp are remarkably homogeneous. There are small differences, for instance I noticed that Norwegians tend to be a little broader and darker than Swedes, and Danes tend to be finer featured, As to cuisine, Lutefiske seems to be more Norwegian than anything else, and the Swedes are more meat oriented, and Danish food tends off to the German, and the Finns mix Russian and Swedish cooking happily a \nd gleefully. I guess you have to be born there. But I'll tell you this all of the food is good, and I found while wandering there that most of the people are very nice indeed! I received a welcome in Norway that I'll never forget. alexis From eldon@theosophy.com Thu May 9 10:59:10 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 03:59:10 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509105910.006b5fcc@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Richard Ihle: >I have found a curious thing about the little bit of >adeptship I am familiar with: Most of it does not seem to involve ~knowing >what to do~, but rather ~knowing what NOT to do~. Both are important, I think. It was an coincidence that I would happen to find that article in the newspaper to clip at lunchtime, and only have found a few minutes to read and comment on it recently. The article ties in with a number of topics that have been discussed in the past month or two. I can think of perhaps half a dozen topics that could come out of this article. Some would elicit certain reactions that I've come to expect: One person would say, "Non-psychics can be as crazy as anyone else." Another would say, "I'm psychic and you're not so I certainly know more about this than you ever will!" A third person would immediately assert: "They're quivering in terror! The poor fools are afraid of the psychic! It's pure fear!" And I'd just have to smile, shake my head, and think, "what nonsense!" even though I'd have to keep my mouth shut, most of the time, in the nature of putting up with petty slights in the name of brotherhood. I could go on, and on, and on, listing the words I hear time after time. There's no new information, though, and it's all an attempt to quash any discussion that would put the psychical in a neutral light, even if it embraces science in some way, like a discussion of mental illness, how it might relate to psychic abilities, and how it ties in with the theosophical scheme that we find outlined in "The Mahatma Letters". >Now, in reading your post about the possible connection between schizophrenia >and the psychic, I could not help asking myself, "Is it possible that Eldon >does not realize that bringing up this presently quiescent subject >again--especially in this manner--is going to set-off JRC and possibly Alexis >and possibly some others in a predictable way again?" That thought crossed my mind. The information in the article, though, is interesting, and draws our attention away from 'the gang' nonsense. It would be tempting to use the same rhetoric and harsh words that I read daily, but that would only further enrage people, and not be productive nor helpful. Also, the article, in a way, appeared to me and attracted my attention, and the timing of it was coincidental in a synchronistic way. I think that it may serve a useful purpose, even if I did not foresee that purpose when posting it. >Oh well, if your personal adeptship was not there telling you NOT to do it, >perhaps it will turn out better than I think. . . . I think that the final result of *everyone's* postings is that we'll all tire of things we realize inflame each other with anger, and instead learn to find words that inflame each other with the spirit. That requires some personal experience of the futility of nasty, condemning, condescending, vehement words. With enough experience, we'll change our ways, one by one, and become more productive people in the world. -- Eldon From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Thu May 9 04:09:12 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 21:09:12 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9605090409.AA16706@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: HPB/CWL (part 2) JHE >>No, I don't need support for the ideal of universal planes nor >>do I question the philosophical propositions concerning >>extension. As I explained earlier, I'm just trying to get a >>feel for how you understand the terms you use. But for >>clarity, I will rephrase my question: If the "universal >>planes" are "states external to our solar system", then what >>are they internal to? e.g.: Our galaxy?; Our family of >>galaxies?; the entire universe? Kim >It would be useless to guess as to the nature of >universal consciousness. JHE My question doesn't concern the consciousness aspect, but the "extension" aspect. Kim >> they are the white circle plane in the black field. The 6th is >>completely unknown. The vedantins place their Parabrahm on the >>first plane, the seventh being prakritic, the 5th universal >>mind. JHE >Which chart are you using here? Kim Beginning of Proem and the Subba Row/Schwarz diagrams JHE There are no charts in the Proem, only symbols. I never heard of the "Subba Row/Schwarz diagrams." I didn't even know they met. But these would probably be outside the parameters of this discussion anyway, unless they are a commentary on some specific teaching of HPB or CWL. JHE >>>>What do you call the planes for the earth's system of globes? Kim >>>4 lower planes of the solar system also called planes of the 4 >>>ethers (AAB). see again CW XII p. 658 for grossest globe >>>(ours) on 7th or objective plane. >- an error here. The 4 lower should be called 4th etheric, >gaseous, liquid and dense. JHE Is AAB's definition supposed to be representative of HPB or CWL? Can you give me an HPB or CWL quote and nomenclature instead? I don't find the terms "etheric" "gaseous" "liquid" and "dense" used anywhere on p. 658. Can you give me HPB's corresponding terms from p. 658? JHE >>Again thanks for this answer. But again I was looking for an >>overall term. Kim >This would only confuse the matter as they are also planes of >the solar system. JHE You are saying that the planes for the earth's system of globes are the same as the planes of the solar system? Do you have a name for it? JHE >>>>What do you call the planes for the sun's system of globes? Kim >>>Our planetary chain ARE one of our sun's systems of globes (at >>>least affiliated with this solar system)? Or do you mean the >>>sacred planets? JHE >>No, I don't mean the sacred planets. I was asking for the >>overall term for the planes of the sun's system of globes, ie >>the sun's globes A - E. Kim >Your question was extremely confusing. You mean by the sun's >system of globes the visible, physical globes (as I understand >it). They would generally be globe D of the various chains - all >on the seventh plane. JHE The Sun's system of globes would be seven solar globes, just as the Earth's system of globes would be terran seven globes. HPB normally refers to the globes of any system of globes as globe A, globe B, globe C, etc. Now, these seven globes are found on the four lower planes of a system of seven planes. What is the overall name you use for this system of seven planes? JHE >>>>What do you call the planes where are to be found the human >>>>principles? Kim >>>On all planes of the solar system and hence the planes of the >>>planetary chain except the highest. The important principles >>>are the relation between monad and ego - ending with the >>>mental plane, the 5th. These constitute the buddhist skandhas >>>and the correlations of atma, so to speak, in hinduism. They >>>are correlation of force or spirit rather than correlation of >>>elements, elementals. The knowledge of these principles >>>constitute a whole science for itself. JHE We will have plenty of time to get into a description of these planes. But at present, I'm simply looking for a noun. For instance, if you were to ask me what I call my correspondent who lives in Denmark, I would answer "Kim Poulsen." So, in the same vein, what do you call the plans where are to be found the human principles? JHE >>Then you are saying that the human "astral body" is on the >>solar "astral plane" and the "mental body" is on the solar >>mental plane? Kim >Generally yes. But a mental body is a very simplified concept >except if used for the causal body, karana sarira JHE Are you saying that the term "mental body" can denote the "causal body" and/or the "karana sarira"? JHE >>Please enumerate for me the terms you use for the seven >>principles of man. Kim >For our purpose the one on p. 607 of CW XII will do, supported >by the one between p. 524-5. The 4 eternal principles are here >atma, buddhi, manas and the auric envelope, together inner man >or monad-ego relation - and the 3 outer aspects, lower mind, >astral and physical (prana as the life-force of the etheric >web). In short 7 principles on 6 planes (2 on the dual mental >plane). It is the best and most occult enumeration by HPB in my >opinion. JHE You are giving me three here. Two from vol. 12, and yours described above, which I tabulated below for comparison. The enumerations in volume twelve are fine, and we can go by them. Later, we will have to add CWL's. You will be receiving CWL's diagrams shortly. Kim p. 607 p. 524-25 atma atman atman auric envelope auric envelope buddhi buddhi buddhi manas manas manas lower mind lower manas lower manas kama-rupa astral linga sarira linga sarira prana prana physical Kim >To recapitulate if we are to concentrate on HPB - I would like >to use: > For the 7 principles - the diagram on p. 607 JHE Done. Kim >For the universal or macrocosmic planes Figure A of p. 658. The >names relates only to forces manifesting within the solar system >and no attempt is made to designate them on their own plane. JHE By "universal planes" you mean what HPB calls "macrocosmic planes"? OK Kim >For the solar physical body or prakritic planes Figure B of p. >658. These are the planes of the solar system. On the 4 lower we >have the 7 globes of a chain. JHE Then for the planes of the solar system, you call them "the solar physical body"? By "7 globes of a chain" you mean both the earth chain and the sun chain? Kim >For the sub-planes of these planes of consciousness see diagram >C. They are also the seven parts of consciousness as manifesting >on either plane. Must not be confused with seven principles. JHE Diagram "C" represents the sub-planes of each of the 7 prakritic planes in figure "B"? Kim >For explanation of AAB see Cosmic Fire p. 116-7 (for want of a >diagram by CWL) JHE I don't know whether AAB is representative of CWL. Let's wait until you have a diagram from CWL. Kim >On p. 116 is explained the position of seven planes of solar >system as sub-planes of cosmic physical. On p. 817 the >planes of the solar system is shown in the diagram "Cosmic >Physical Plane" > In the diagram is shown the major principles and their >correlations on the planes. They correspond to Auric body and >atma-buddha-manas in CW p. 607 tabulation. Astral and physical >bodies are ignored in the diagrams but treated of elsewhere JHE I don't have a copy of ~Cosmic Fire~ at the moment. But a comparison of ~Cosmic Fire~ to the ~CW~ seems to be outside of the parameters of discussion anyway. JHE: >importantly, I think that what your wish to advocate this >overall system goes far beyond the scope of our discussion--viz >the compatibility of HPB and CWL. I suggest that we begin by >exploring the compatibility between HPB and CWL. Kim >With regard to planes and principles I hope. As I will not ask >you to accept this notion of a common esoteric system it will >have no influence on our discussion. I can retain it without any >effect whatsoever as it is not forwarded as a proof. JHE With regard to CWL's "constitution of man" compared to HPB's "constitution of man." As for your "notion" of a common esoteric system, I understand that you operate from this assumption. The reason why this or any other assumption can't be forwarded as proof is because doing so is an exercise in circular reasoning. OK, so far, here is what I understand of your nomenclature: Kim HPB CWL Universal planes Macrocosmic planes (B:CW XII:658) ? Solar physical body Prakritic planes ("") ? JHE >As for CWL, I have opinions based upon a lot of historical >research. So in this sense, he is not neutral ground for me >either. Kim >I am sure you will be as neutral and objective as possible. >In friendship, JHE Shouldn't be any problem. I can easily separate him as a person from his system. Best Jerry ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Thu May 9 04:11:19 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 22:11:19 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic In-Reply-To: <960508232649_109757837@emout12.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 8 May 1996 RIhle@aol.com wrote: > > Eldon allowed us an opportunity *not* to vent our spleens, didn't he? I > think I was forgetting my own "bullhead" story when I doubted him for a > second. . . . > Yes ! And I'm just *certain* that was his *intention*, wasn't it? -JRC From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Thu May 9 04:22:11 1996 Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 22:22:11 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: sister/brotherhood as a fact In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960509092409.006bfdc8@mail.deltanet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 8 May 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > > This reminds me of a great quote that you gave the list last year, during > another round of discussions with the psychics, where they were repeating > their claim that only they could understand what is going on. Your quote > said something to the effect: Er, was that before or after the intellectuals implied possession of a certain "way of knowing" that gave them insight beyond second-hand information they had read in books, and allowed them to claim knowledge of something with which they hadn't even the vaguest experience - and then of course catagorically declined any demonstration that would permit people to judge whether their "wisdom" was as "subjective" as that of the "psychics"? Oh, that's right, they don't need to live up the standards they hold "psychics" to - as their wisdom is "objective". And you know its true because they say so. -JRC From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu May 9 04:28:36 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 00:28:36 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960509002835_531362510@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Gangus defunctus Alex, Well, let's see, there's The Grand Lodge of Theosophical Heresiarchs, First Church of Theosophy Reformed, The Demons of Theos-Hell, ...I dunno. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed May 8 23:32:24 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 00:32:24 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) In-Reply-To: <960508021611_109080119@emout07.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960508021611_109080119@emout07.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >The study of the writings has a place. We would be immeasureably the poorer >without them, but there is something more and I hope that we do not get so >caught up in the writings that we miss it, just as it is important to not be >so concerned about playing the notes that one misses the music. How very true. Without the writings I would be posting to theos-lists, and it is unlikely that I would have found Kabala. Having found and read them, I also find I rarely need to go to them that often, for it is putting the principles into action that matters to me - and, IMO, to all of us. The writings lead to study of the teachings. Study of the teachings leads to attempts to follow the way of life that the teachings encourage. Trying to follow this way of life leads to a gain in wisdom - the *sophia* part of *theo-sophia*. So, if you like, the *theo* leads, via the writings, to the *sophia*. Now and then we need, for sure, to go back to the writings, *and also to OTHER writings* to enhance and develop our understanding of what if really means to be "on the Path" - but as one teach put it, "Fine; and then?" Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Thu May 9 06:14:34 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 23:14:34 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509061434.006b2200@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TS/Democratic Spirit & Hierarchical Feeling At 07:20 PM 5/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I love thunderstorms but being struck by lightning is not my idea of fun. By >the way, that happened to Jim Edgar's plane today. He was almost gone blown >out the sky which would have left Illinois with a nut for a governor. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > From what I know about how you feel about Jim Edgar, that would have made you very unhappy. alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu May 9 06:20:29 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 23:20:29 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509062029.006a27dc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? At 03:05 PM 5/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Happy White Lotus day. >The problem with the TS and true compassion is that its members sometimes >take the Karma stuff too seriously. And it's not the vegetarianism that I >object to. People have a right to eat anything they want to as long as it >isn't one of my cats. It's the preaching that sends me over the battlements. >By the way, I was at Olcott last night to hear Stephen Hoeller. I tried to >talk him into coming onto the net, but I think he finds this stuff a little >to intimidating. Anyway, I think JA is mad at me and when I walked in I was >greeted by one friendly staff member as "That heretic and troublemaker, >(laughter)" so someone there is reading this stuff. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >I wish I'd known you were going to see Stefan Hoeller, I'd have sent a message to him and asked for him to contact me. I don't think it's what's on the net he finds intimidating but the hardware itself. As to who's reading this stuff, what about Elisabeth Trumpler, we know she's on the list and every once and a while she makes a helpful comment or gives some information vis a vis books being searched for. There may be others, but I think you can safely assume that JA is "mad at you", you stand clearly for everything he disapproves of. As to vegetarians who "preach" well, I treat them just as I do the other folks that "preach" the Christians. "Preaching" has no redeeming social value. alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu May 9 06:28:52 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 23:28:52 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509062852.006cab24@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Paul Brunton's Comments on the TS At 09:16 AM 5/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >The Notebooks of Paul Brunton (16 volumes) are in print and available >from: > Larson Publications > 4936 Route 414 > Burdett, NY 14181 > 607-546-9342 > 800-828-9344 (for VISA and MC orders) > >The price per volume is $16.95 paper for most of them (some are $12.50, >$14.95 or $19.95) or $29.95 cloth (a couple are only $25.00). A discount >is offered if the whole set is purchased. > >All volumes can be borrowed from the Olcott Library, if you are a member >of TSA resident in the US, or a member of the library. > >Elisabeth Trumpler >Head Librarian >Olcott Library & Research Center >e-mail: olcott@dupagels.lib.il.us >phone: 708-668-1571 or 800-669-1571 > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Why thank you Elisabeth, I will order them as soon as I get moved into the new house and new library and have room for 16 additional volumes. My library is very "in ordnung" and everything is both alphabetized and separated by subject matter. My new house will have more than twice the shelf space I do now. I must admit to being surprised that someone who is as critical of the society as is Paul Brunton would be available in the Olcott Library. Congratulations and a big gold star to you! That's the kind of theosophical society I love. alexis From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Thu May 9 06:25:57 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 00:25:57 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960509105910.006b5fcc@mail.deltanet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII WOW! This post is just remarkable. When you launched that little description of your descent into hell to enlighten us - complete with the highly polished halo on your head - I figured that was *irony*, a joke on yourself ... but apparently you actually *believe* you are some peaceful innocent that simply looks down in tolerance on the children. And of *course* your latest little shot at the "psychic" was just an entirely pure hearted effort to get a peaceful, reasonable discussion going on the topic. Apparently, however, unable to get anyone to even take your delibrate, and wholly *transparent* bait, you then used a post by Liesel to take another shot - again using a post having absolutely nothing to do with the topic to introduce the subject (or rather, your own very special point of view on it). Isn't it getting difficult even for *you* to hold onto the illusion of yourself as kind benevolent soul innocently in the name of "brotherhood" taking all those nasty shots from people? Look, *right now* Eldon - if the list descends yet again into this argument ... *YOU* started it ... as you virtually always have in the past. I'll engage you, if you wish ... have a bit `o fun ... but let's from the very beginning drop this pretense that you are some saviour, `kay? You are not bringing "light" to "hell" as part of some noble self-sacrifice ... you cause as much divisiveness - contribute as much to the "hell" as anyone else here - and probably more than most. >The article ties in with a number of topics that have been >discussed in the past month or two. I can think of perhaps half >a dozen topics that could come out of this article. Some would >elicit certain reactions that I've come to expect: Actually, the article didn't. Your little "analysis" might. >One person would say, "Non-psychics can be as crazy as anyone >else." Another would say, "I'm psychic and you're not so I >certainly know more about this than you ever will!" A third >person would immediately assert: "They're quivering in terror! >The poor fools are afraid of the psychic! It's pure fear!" Ah! But you forgot the most important one! "Psychism is wholly subjective, untrustworthy, and mostly hallucination, as opposed to a "higher" way of "knowing" that "certain people" can possess" - a position *every bit* as predictable as the others, no? But I forget, you never include your own perspective when you categorize those of others. >And I'd just have to smile, shake my head, and think, "what >nonsense!" even though I'd have to keep my mouth shut, most of >the time, in the nature of putting up with petty slights in the >name of brotherhood. As many others do when you decide to yet again enlighten us with your insights on the "psychic". Do you actually *really believe* you are as above us all as this paragraph indicates you do? Are you really living in that much of a fantasy world? In *one paragraph*, you actually manage to come right out and call a whole list of different people's perspectives *nonsense*, and then claim that *you* will gracefully "tolerate" the people who will respond to you *in the name of brotherhood*. [Bet you're doing it *right now*, aren't you!] It is not *tolerance* to throw rocks at a bunch of people, and then not fight back when they come after you. I knew kids like that in grade school. They'd continually whisper behind the scenes - attempt to goad the other kids into doing things ... and then stand back as the poor innocents when everyone got caught. They would then, of course, get the bejeebers whupped out of them on the playground later that day .. of course causing the teachers to take even more pity on them as the helpless victims of mean kids. These kids were absolutely *nasty*, but their nastiness was not in overt actions or words, but in petty manipulation ... the teachers always loved them - but this was driven by a bad neurosis: *To look good in their own eyes, and in the eyes of authority figures, they tried to manipulate other kids to make them look bad ... the worse they could get the other kids to behave, the more praise they got from authority figures, the better they looked in their own eyes*. How painful must be the insecurity that drives this sort of behaviour! [I really try to give you the buzz you seek, I really do! Look how nasty JRC is being *now*! Look at the heroic (and of course totally blameless) Eldon rising above it in the name of "brotherhood"!] >I could go on, and on, and on, listing the words I hear time >after time. Never, of course, listing the words you *say* "time after time" ... usually to *start* it. >There's no new information, though, and it's all an attempt to >quash any discussion that would put the psychical in a neutral >light, Oh, so *your* opinions are "neutral", while everyone else's are attempts to "squash discussion". Tell me, what "new" information did *you* bring here? You gave a couple of quotes from a newspaper article (that did not even obliquely refer to "psychism"), and then introduced pretty much the exact same opinions about the psychic you've spoken over and over again. >even if it embraces science in some way, like a discussion of >mental illness, how it might relate to psychic abilities, and >how it ties in with the theosophical scheme that we find >outlined in "The Mahatma Letters". This was a great one. How psychic abilities might relate to *mental illness*? This is your "neutral" position? The entire question, the entire framing of such a discussion denotes a massive *bias*. Are you really going to try to pull off the notion that you are simply interested in a calm, "scientific" discussion of schizophrenia? And the "psychic"? Okay, what are your qualifications to even raise the subject or postulate a connection? What is your background in neurophysiology? What are the neurotransmitters thought to be involved in the condition? It is an illness so complex that some of the most brilliant scientists in the field as of yet do not understand it. What *are* your qualifications to tie something as complex as this to "psychism"? *Upon what foundation do you claim knowledge of the psychic*? Ahhh! You will respond by saying "One doesn't need to have the experience to have knowledge of it that is as true (in fact even *more* true) than those who do". But that is not an answer, rather is simply a means of *avoiding* an answer. and the answer is to a question that *IS* relevent prior to *any* "scientific" or "neutral" discussion of the topic. When asked, over and over, to state the foundations for your claims to be able to speak competently about "psychism", all you've ever said is that *not* being psychic doesn't *dis*qualify you - but not being *disqualified* is not a *qualification*. You seem to have, at best, a passing familiarity with the science of brain chemsitry (those that have studied it would be rather unlikely use a *newspaper article* as source literature for a conversation about it), and your familiarity with psychism seems to derive entirely from books you've read (or at least I've never heard you say anything that one couldn't take almost word for word from the anti-psychics in the TS). This was not some noble attempt to introduce a neutral, scientific discussion of an issue - you just took an article you read and used it to further articulate the same opinions you've been articulating ad infinitum (with the charming twist that psychism is now related to schizophrenia) ... >>Now, in reading your post about the possible connection between >>schizophrenia and the psychic, I could not help asking myself, >>"Is it possible that Eldon does not realize that bringing up >>this presently quiescent subject again--especially in this >>manner--is going to set-off JRC and possibly Alexis and >>possibly some others in a predictable way again?" >That thought crossed my mind. The information in the article, >though, is interesting, and draws our attention away from 'the >gang' nonsense. It would be tempting to use the same rhetoric >and harsh words that I read daily, but that would only further >enrage people, and not be productive nor helpful. So then, in order to draw attention away from the "gang nonsense" (that you started in the first place), you decide to introduce a discussion that ties schizophrenia to psychism - no one bites - so you then launch another little shot in a post to Liesel - then in this post sum up everyone's opinion except your own, state that you just sit above us all and smile at the "nonesense" - and then have the balls to try to place yourself on some higher plane, not being "harsh" because you wouldn't want to "enrage" people. (Look teacher! Look at what they're doing! No, I'm not involved at *all*, in fact, I've been delibrately trying not to enrage them ... at great personal sacrifice!). >I think that the final result of *everyone's* postings is that >we'll all tire of things we realize inflame each other with >anger, and instead learn to find words that inflame each other >with the spirit. That requires some personal experience of the >futility of nasty, condemning, condescending, vehement words. >With enough experience, we'll change our ways, one by one, and >become more productive people in the world. Or perhaps you'll just learn to stop starting things. Which would actually remove fully half the "nasty, condemning, condescending, vehement words" spoken on this list. Look back over the last number of months. Look at the various threads that descended into rancor. Trace them to the originating post. Curious how *many* times that post is signed "Eldon". I remember once when one of those "little saints" was in a class of mine. He was taken sick for two weeks, and curiously enough, a surprising amount of the "disruptiveness" of our class also disappeared for two weeks. So far as I go ... I'll continue to use the tools of the Tao in response ... I'll respond in a way that gives you exactly what you wish ... and even more ... hell, I even construct personas complete with emotional charges specifically to facilitate the life in your world! - you want to be the innocently suffering noble one? Cool! Live the fantasy! [You can commence smiling tolerantly down upon me now ... and after this post, you should be able to feel yourself closing in on Shambala itself!]. In your *service*, -JRC From alexei@slip.net Thu May 9 06:46:07 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 23:46:07 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509064607.006ce690@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic At 07:21 PM 5/8/96 -0400, you wrote: Still, it's not the first time in my life someone >has said I was crazy. >Happy White Lotus Day. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: The problem that we who are functioning paranormally have in dealing with the head blind, is exactly the same problem I would have trying to describe or define my abstract impressionist art to Stevie Wonder. To those who can't "see,Feel,know,sense", what other avenue of escape is there other than to maintain that those who do see, don"t "really" see but are simply hallucinating. This problem is, of course, hardly limited to interface within the theosophical society, it relates to interface within the so-called "Parapsychology community" as well, for all they're interested in is statistics. Of course it's for good reason as it will only be statistical significations that eventually make the academic and scientific communities look at this subject seriously. I have always felt that those people within the theosophical community who seize on Blavatsky's warnings against "medium ship" as warnings against all psych ism, are basically using this as a shield to cover the fact that, basically, they just don't believe in anything they can't touch. Everything in life is dangerous, just crossing the street is dangerous. Obviously undisciplined psychic activity is also dangerous, but most people capable of psychic activity are capable of self-discipline, and if they're not they soon learn to be. If they don't learn to be self-disciplined they get to try it some other way, but without a body. I am however, wondering why any member of a society and movement founded by one of the most spectacular psychics known to man, would want to equate psych ism with psychosis. Seems just a bit self-defeating to me. alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu May 9 06:47:15 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 23:47:15 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509064715.006a81e4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic At 03:23 PM 5/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >On Wed, 8 May 1996 RIhle@aol.com wrote: >> >> Thus, in reading your post about the possible connection between >> schizophrenia and the psychic, I could not help asking myself, "Is it >> possible that Eldon does not realize that bringing up this presently >> quiescent subject again--especially in this manner--is going to set-off JRC >> and possibly Alexis and possibly some others in a predictable way again?" > >Nothin' coming from this quarter. The "Theosophical analysis" of >schizophrenia and the psychic" appeared to be more of "How schizophrenia >and the psychic correspond in Eldon's personal worldview" - but the thing >was so silly that it discredited itself. > -JRC > >love - alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu May 9 06:51:49 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 23:51:49 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509065149.00696618@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Gangus defunctus At 12:32 AM 5/9/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Well, let's see, there's The Grand Lodge of Theosophical Heresiarchs, First >Church of Theosophy Reformed, The Demons of Theos-Hell, ...I dunno. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >All things considered: how about "The Blavatsky Bunch". alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu May 9 06:55:16 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 23:55:16 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509065516.006a0a00@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic At 12:08 AM 5/9/96 -0400, you wrote: > >I think that the final result of *everyone's* postings is that we'll all tire >of things we realize inflame each other with anger, and instead learn to >find words that inflame each other with the spirit. That requires some personal >experience of the futility of nasty, condemning, condescending, vehement words. >With enough experience, we'll change our ways, one by one, and become more >productive people in the world. > >-- Eldon > >Dare one hope that will include you Eldon? alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu May 9 06:57:04 1996 Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 23:57:04 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509065704.006bb954@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: White Lotus Day At 09:59 PM 5/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960508192017.006a9b74@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>I believe she's still with us in spirit, sticking her >>"oar" in when she thinks it's needed >> >>alexis d.. > >You bet! > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >It is ungentlemanly to bet on a sure thing! alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu May 9 07:05:14 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 00:05:14 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509070514.006d1f80@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic At 09:07 PM 5/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >RI: >>Thus, in reading your post about the possible connection between >>schizophrenia and the psychic, I could not help asking myself, "Is it >>possible that Eldon does not realize that bringing up this presently >>quiescent subject again--especially in this manner--is going to set-off JRC >>and possibly Alexis and possibly some others in a predictable way again?" > > Oh yeah, Eldon realizes it. But he does it anyway. It has >something to do with integrity, I think. I am doubtless one of the >"some others" you are referring to. Eldon's a Prince. By periodically >bringing up this topic and giving us further insights into the traditional >TS view on the horrors of psychism, he allows us to vent our spleen. >Its very cathartic all around. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Jerry: Hate to get all ettiquetty, but when you use "Prince" in the figurative sense you should use quotation marks "Thus" otherwise people like me get insulted. Eldon may be a "Prince" in the sense you used it, but he is NOT a Prince. alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu May 9 07:10:00 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 00:10:00 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509071000.006ab160@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Dead persons At 09:54 PM 5/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960508060747.00694f14@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>Now as to the one who died, well, as >>Theosophists we can miss them, we can love them, but after all everyone dies >>and to a truly believing theosophist, so what? It's the people with the loss >>that require compassion, for the "dead" person is hardly lost. > >Right on! > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Thank you. Being a shaman is good for something. The one thing one learns is that no one ever dies. alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu May 9 07:13:23 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 00:13:23 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509071323.006a5300@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "Theosophy is who Theosophy does." At 08:43 PM 5/8/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Chuck wrote: >>Alex, >>There is a saying, perportedly from HPB, the "Theosophy is who >>Theosophy does." My feeling is that one who, in the words of >>Voltaire, "defends the poor and helps the oppressed," is far >>closer to the spirit of theosophy than one who can quote the SD >>right and left and knows several of the Mahatmas area codes. I >>was not kidding when I said it would be interesting if >>theosophy ever really acquired a heart. > >JHE > Chuck, she really did write this in the ~Key to Theosophy.~ >It is one of her most often quoted remarks. But you will have to >look in the original edition to find it. Joy Mills edited it out >of her edition. > > >JHE >------------------------------------------ > |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | > |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | > |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | > |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | > ------------------------------------------ > > >JHE: By the time that crowd is done with theosophy, will there be anything of HPB left in it? Is there very much of her left in it now? alexis From Richtay@aol.com Thu May 9 07:35:38 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 03:35:38 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960509033535_394407183@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL Virginia writes, > My position [VB] is that some of the more obvious results of this > counter movement to "keep the secrets secret" are the events and > works of people such as AB, CWL, and AAB. What a better way to > bury what has been revealed than to lead the leaders into a > confusion and mish-mash of ideas. And in the mean time what do we > know of the ancient Vedic philososphy that HPB kept toting to > everyone? Almost nothing over more than a century later. Where > are up to date and *extensive* translations into any english or any > other European language by anyone who has an inkling of occult > knowledge? Where are these works so people in the "west" can judge > for themselves? Any theosophists in India on this list care to > help me out here? This strikes me as right on, in every point it makes. Is there nothing to the fact that Annie Besant was first led to break her ES vows by the "guru" Chakravarti? And then, not surprisingly, Annie Besant turned against Mr. Judge and the ES was split between the two of them? The outer split in the TS as a whole took place only months later, as charges were brought against Mr. Judge by Olcott and AB, the two people in the world who most supported him only a few years previously. It was a terrible schism, and probably did more than anything to ruin Theosophy in the eyes of the public. The Catholics have their Jesuits, but Indian groups have means far more subtle and effective, I suspect ... And while it seems that the West has made enormous strides in understanding (exoteric) Buddhism, almost NO progress has been made in Vedic studies. The most recent translations by Wendy Doniger just give you the text, with very little guidance, certainly nothing occult. What a bummer. From Richtay@aol.com Thu May 9 07:35:44 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 03:35:44 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960509033539_394407205@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Chuck, You write, > Rich, > I'm trying very hard not to let myself get set off. The problem with the > line of reasoning here is that it assumes that psychic work will induce > psychotic states when what the research in question is showing is that > certain psychotic states mimic or induce psychic functioning. > Now we have known that for a very long time. Etc. etc. etc. What the heck are you talking about? I didn't write any of the above ! I'm not even reading that thread, deleting it on sight, I confess. From alexei@slip.net Thu May 9 07:52:17 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 00:52:17 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509075217.006e8558@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (Virginia B.) At 08:47 PM 5/8/96 -0400, you wrote: > >JHE > You might find Victor Endersby's ~Hall of Magic Mirrors~ >interesting in respect to the possibility of a "Brahman plot" to >take over the Theosophical Society and to thwart its mission. >Victor gave a "private talk" on this subject to some invited >guests back in 1984. I remember at the time thinking to myself >"come on Victor--not another conspiracy theory--let's let this >one drop---even if they are true, they are always unprovable--- >etc." Well, the course of the TS from the time of the Judge case >to the present is enough to make anyone paranoid about Brahman >conspiracies. Besant did adopt Hinduism and with the exception >of John Coats' short stay, the TS has been controlled by the same >family ever since. I don't know if it is true, and it probably >can never be proven, but the circumstantial evidence is in >abundance. alexis we must always remember that a great deal of the Indian (not only Brahmin) antagonism came out of a single source. Resentment of Europeans once again taking the reins where it should be Indian. This is equally true in Pondicherry where the Indians are terribly resentful of Europeans running Auroville. The big plot was not due to that kind of antagonism however, the real "plot" was a Palace Coup to put that particular family in a position of great power (as they saw it), influence, and profit. Given the milieu that is India today, they do have great power and influence and wealth. As to "secrets" well, it is my opinions that no secrets of any real value have been given out to the West. We in the west have our own mysteries and they are far more valid for westerners. Nothing was "released" by the T.S. that carries any power with it at all. > >VB >>My position [VB] is that some of the more obvious results of >>this counter movement to "keep the secrets secret" are the >>events and works of people such as AB, CWL, and AAB. What a >>better way to bury what has been revealed than to lead the >>leaders into a confusion and mish-mash of ideas. And in the >>mean time what do we know of the ancient Vedic philososphy that >>HPB kept toting to everyone? Almost nothing over more than a >>century later. Where are up to date and *extensive* >>translations into any english or any other European language by >>anyone who has an inkling of occult knowledge? Where are these >>works so people in the "west" can judge for themselves? Any >>theosophists in India on this list care to help me out here? Alexis: There are none at all, at least as best I know. There are translations from the Sanskrit by Max Mueller, but he was no occultist. Everything else is T.S. "copycats". > >JHE > Yes, the submersion of deeper teachings brings attention to >them. But the confusion of those teachings by changing the >terminology and then putting it into another context works very >well. I think most people in the TS (and probably on this board) >honestly believe that the teachings of HPB, TSR, APS, AB, CWL >etc. are really consistent. I remember a woman in Long Beach >(California) who came to visit me. I asked her what her group >studies. She named books from all of the above authors, and she >said that they compare them to each other. I asked her what they >do when the find a contradiction. She said; "we talk about it >until the contraction goes away." Alexis: Now that is a feat of intellectual acrobatics! > >>>JHE >>>HPB wanted Subba Row and Olcott to stand united against the >>>Coulomb accusations. Both refused to do so for different >>>reasons. .....Olcott argued that the accusations would >>>disappear on their own if the issue was ignored....History >>>shows Olcott to have been clearly and tragically wrong in >>>thinking that the accusations would go away. They re-appeared >>>as evidence in the SPR investigation....On the other hand, >>>HSO's and TSR's threats that finally tied HPB's hands into >>>inaction, clearly resulted in the follow up investigation of >the SPR... Alexis: Nothing in HPB's life was more painful that what he perceived as Olcott's desertion of him. HPB/Blavatsky desperately wanted to clear this thing up in a Court of Law, they clearly could have, but they both felt that the refusal of Olcott and the BOD to permit them to do so was a desertion and a "slap in the face". > > >VB >>I disagree about H.S. Olcott. The Coulomb accusations did >>formulate publicly into the SPR report against HPB. They didn't >>go away in the lifetime of HPB or HSO but what has history >>proven up to the present date? > >JHE > Unless I'm missing something, I think we are agreeing very >well. Those accusations are still with us. alexis: They certainly are! They resurface in articles all the time, most recently in Smithsonian Magazine. > >VB >>What group (whether it be one or many organizations) has >>flourished the more - theosophy or SPR? Alexis: Actually neither can be said to have "flourished" but presently the T.S> is far more moribund. > >JHE > I don't know quite what you mean by "flourished." I don't >think the TS has flourished, but rather is dying. Certainly the >SPR has a better reputation among the public than the TS. The >SPR is regarded as a scientific organization that studies >phenomena. The TS is regarded as a funny little cult that mainly >attracts little old ladies in tennis shoes. > >VB >>Whose version of the issues in the SPR report on HPB has been >>vindicated by history? > >JHE > SPR's so far. Vernon Harrison's report not withstanding. Alexis: Vernon Harrison's report has made an "inroad" as it were, and done some good, as has the SPR's repudiation of the Hodgson Report. But that report is a thing that will never be allowed to die by those that want to discredit the theosophical movement and those behind it. > >VB >>What I can't understand is why HPB and HSO both put any emphasis >>at all on the SPR at the time. They had hundreds and hundreds >>of different people and organizations tearing them apart and >>trying to mutilate them during their days. Why focus on the >>SPR? By paying so much attention to this report they gave it >>life. Alexis: I don't really think they had any choice in the matter, especially HPB. Another think is that HPB felt that there was nothing "wrong" or "Phony" or "fraudulent" for the SPR to find. She/he hardly knew the extent of the plot against her/him. > >JHE > I don't know about "hundreds and hundreds" but HPB and the >TS did have enemies. HPB spent a lot of time arguing with them >in ~The Theosophist~ and through the press. The difference >between those people and organizations and the SPR was simply >that HPB was restrained from answering the Coulombs and the SPR. >Rather, they put her on a boat and shipped her out of Adyar. Alexis: And believe me she/he has never forgiven any of them! The result of that anger was the ES! > >VB >>HSO was on the right tract and history has proved him right in >>the *long* run. Only HPB and HSO had to die first before the >>SPR report could die also. > >JHE > But it has not died. It is resurrected in every unfriendly >biography and article about Blavatsky that has even been written. >Even the recent ~Smithsonian~ article resurrected it. Alexis: Jerry is right Virginia, and I hadn't noticed his mention of the Smithsonian. But there's also "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon" which is monstrously slanderous. >VB >>I [VB] once again have my own theory as to the unreasonable >>power of the Coulomb accusations. In Volume 1 of HSO's diaries >>read the nature of the relations HPB had with her female cooks >>and housekeepers. The way I see it, something had to balance >>out. Alexis: HPB was using the Blavatsky vehicle. Blavatsky was a fiery tempered Russian aristocrat and had, as a child been soundly punished by her Grandmother for her attitude toward servants. It was a lesson that only partially "took" she had a really hot temper and took it out occasionally on those she should not have taken it out on. But I think HSO exaggerates more than a little. > >JHE > Jean Overton Fuller published a similar view in >did not give her domestic help enough respect, and that Emma >Coulomb sought revenge against HPB for the way she was treated. >Well, it could be a factor. But the evidence one way or the >other really isn't there. The other, more accepted argument has >the documentary support: HPB made Emma Coulomb return the >donations she was collecting from TS members for her own proposed >Organization. Coulomb, in anger swore revenge against HPB and >sold (probably forged) incriminating letters to the ~Christian >College Magazine.~ > >>>JHE >>>I don't question the possibility of an Adept influencing an >>>idea in the mind of another person. I do however, question as >>>to when an idea is inspired by an Adept and when it is not. I >>>believe that historical inquiry is often helpful is answering >>>this question. >>>[snip] >>>As I stated above, my assumption is that HPB's exposition of >>>the doctrines are most faithful to her teachers. That does not >>>make her infallible, but it does make her doctrines the primary >>>ones--next to the Mahatma Letters themselves...... Alexis: But the Mahatma Letters themselves are terribly mutually contradictory. I think the "Mahatmas" wrote some few of them and only the Gods know who wrote the rest. Why can't HPB >>>be the primary authority for what she wrote too? Though Plato >>>is supposed to have been a re-expression of ancient vedic >>>philosophy, that does not mean that we have license to >>>"correct" Plato's writings every time it appears to contradict >>>something in Vedic Philosophy. Plato is Plato. Blavatsky is >>>Blavatsky. Subba Row is Subba Row. Vedic Philosophy is Vedic >>>Philosophy.... That might be far more true had Pythagoras been the illustration rather than Plato. Pythagoras is the primarily Vedic-Keltic philosopher. Plato descends from the Line Thales-Anaxamenes-Anaxamander-Anaxagoras. We have no right to "correct" anyone's original philosophy for any reason. > >VB >>Yes! Agree wholeheartedly. >> >>Historical inquiry, comparison of written (or recorded) works, >>and straight intuition - what other way can I judge if Adept so >>and so communicated with someone or not? So far, I can't >>identify anyone who wrote since 1870 who had as direct a >>connection as HPB did. >> >> >>HPB's works are her works. She openly said she drew from many >>sources. But her writings are her own and she presented them >>that way from what I can tell. Authors who mix their sources, >>call it someone's else's and not their own ideas, and then don't >>tell where they got their mixture from cause me more confusion >>than reading them is worth. > >JHE > Yes. Two things will really make me impatient with an >occult or a non fiction work: when there are no citations, and >when there is no index. Occasionally a book without an index >turns out to be worth while, so I usually end up indexing it >myself. But a book without citations....&%@*#$!! :-) Alexis: I hate to tell you this Jerry, but I've got a well over 500 page book coming out and while there are sparse footnotes there are absolutely no citations. It's a statement of my own philosophy and for it I am the only "authority". I won't do an index either, people will just have to read the damn thing to see what I've got to say. Like my art work, it has to be taken as it is. alexis d. > >JHE >------------------------------------------ > |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | > |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | > |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | > |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | > ------------------------------------------ > > > From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Thu May 9 09:09:48 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 02:09:48 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9605090909.AA27667@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: HPB/CWL (assumptions) JHE (on Sinnett) >> No, I'm not "guessing his motives." In his >>Autobiography, Sinnett made his motives clear enough so that >>"guessing his motives" isn't necessary. He believed that HPB >>often lied and gave false information because she was often >>taken over by "black magicians." Therefore, Sinnett believed >>that he gave a more correct version of the Theosophical >>doctrines than HPB. Kim: >He had in his possession the mahatma letters - the material you >put higher than HPB herself as an authority . His trust in >these, the observations of and comments on HPB within this >material and his reliance upon his own powers of observation can >explain much in this standpoint. The exact same accusations has >been forwarded against TSR in the last couple of days on >Theos-l. All is in the eye of the beholder. JHE But Kim, you are forgetting that Sinnett's information about HPB did not come from the Mahatma Letters. It came through a medium whom Sinnett believed was channeling the Mahatmas. After the publication of Esoteric Buddhism, Sinnett's Theosophical teachings came from his medium, *not* from Mahatma letters. Also, Kim, Sinnett was warned in the Mahatma Letters that they would never communicate with him through a medium. Yet APS found a medium and believe he was communicating with them anyway. What does that suggest to you about Sinnett's "powers of observation?" Who made these "exact same accusations" against TSR? I'm afraid I missed them. JHE >> In my opinion, the study of metaphysics and philosophy is >>inseparable from the historical context in which it was >>presented. An example of the study of doctrine outside of >>historical context can be found in the teachings of >>fundamentalist Christianity. Kim > I have not yet found the time for answering your pleas for a >scholarly approach, your ideas of methodology etc. Obviously >historical context means a lot to you and it is certainly a >possible >approach with modern writers. As soon as we move before 1450 it >is far more questionable if this approach can be of any help. [snip] JHE Yes, history before 1450 has its own problems. Fortunately, for our purposes, we only have to go back 100 years or so, and the documents are ample. JHE (on HPB) >> In the sense that she was trying to give to the public a >>correct understanding of the Theosophical doctrines, she was >>competing. My bias is that HPB's exposition of the doctrines >>is the most faithful to her teachers. I'm not saying that she >>was infallible, but I am strongly suggesting that I believe HPB >>to have been the closest to her teachers. Kim Yes the first sentence here is certainly biased. JHE Then you are suggesting that HPB was not trying to give to the public a correct understanding of the Theosophical Doctrines? Kim It is very clear from p. 607 of CW that her real system "on strict esoteric lines" is very close to TSR (except in the terminology in a few of the principles), that previous writings of hers also is labeled semi-exoteric by herself and as a result that a whole range of accusations against TSR by devout theosophists can be disregarded. JHE Assuming that HPB's system is "very close" to TSR (which is a matter of interpretation), what "accusations" against TSR can in your view then be disregarded? Kim The neutral analyzer (with your high scholarly standards) would have to ask: Did TSR in reality see the explanations as semi-exoteric rather than "selfishly not wanting to see HPB divulge esoteric truths" (a common opinion among theosophists)? Why would HPB to her own private students make the comments on p.607? Certainly not for reasons regarding the public, the future of theosophy, etc. JHE My "high scholarly standards" lead me to follow methodology. Therefore I would ask: what did TSR *say* about HPB's system? What did TSR *say* about HPB divulging "esoteric truths"? After seeing what TSR said, and how he acted upon what he said, then I have to come to the conclusion that TSR was indeed inimical towards HPB and opposed her. The term "selfish" is not mine. I don't know who you are quoting. Regarding p. 607, I find no mention of TSR in my copy. But whatever comments you have in mind on p 607, they were all made with the intention that they eventually be published. JHE >>I'm also making an opinion based upon historical observation, >>that I believe HPB to have been the most intellectually honest >>of the bunch. Kim >Well I like to think that "intellectual honesty" is a common >trait among chelas and lay-chelas (only to their day of failure >of course) - based on history *and* observation. JHE It appears, form my observations, that their days of "failure" came quite early :-) JHE > My understanding was that Subba Row wanted nothing to do >with the SD mss because it made certain teachings public that he >believed should be kept secret. The issue of the Masters being >made public was another issue of TSR that was not connected with >the SD. Kim: >Letter of Feb 24, 1888 (quoted in Zirkoff ed. of SD p [47]): > >"Now Tookaram writes me a letter. In it he says that S. R. told >him that he was ready to help me and correct my S.D *provided* I >took out from it every reference to the Masters!" JHE Kim, you only quoted part of this letter to Olcott. If you had quoted the whole thing, a very different light would have fallen on it. To continue where you left off: "Now, what's this? Does he mean to say that I should deny the Masters, or that I do not understand Them and garble the facts They give me, or that he, S.R., knows Master's doctrines better than I do? For it can mean all this. Please take your first opportunity to telling the whole of Adyar as follows: (1) It is I, who brought in, the first, the existence of the Masters to the world and the TS. I did it because They sent me to do the work and make a fresh experiment in this XIX century and I have done it, the best I knew how. It may not dovetail with S.R.'s ideas, it answers truth and fact.....And one of the two--I either know them personally as I have ever maintained; or- -I have invented them and Their doctrines..." Further, we have this quote from another letter in the same source, that further illustrates my earlier mention of the inimical relationship TSR had towards HPB: "....Subba Row has even refused through C. Oakley to read or have anything to do [with] my Secret Doctrine. I have spent L30 to have it typed, on purpose to send to him, and now when it is all ready, he refuses to look into it. Of course it will be a new pretext for him to pitch into and criticise when it does come out. Therefore I will defer its publication..." (letter to Subiah Chetty, Sept. 10, 1887) Further, as long as you are citing de Zirkoff material, you might also quote what he says of TSR in this same text: "The attitude of T. Subba Row was becoming very unfavorable. He was rather moody at times, and his Brahmatical upbringing was influencing him to a considerable extent. He was against the disclosure of any higher teachings formerly exoteric; his distrust for Occidentals was acute, and he never fully accepted the fact that occult teachings could be given out so freely by a "woman." These must have been peculiarities of his personal makeup, as he was in reality a high chela of Master M., HPB's own Teacher, and was unquestionably an Initiate of one or another degree. The collaboration of Subba Row in the production of ~The Secret Doctrine~ was becoming with every day more doubtful." JHE >> My experience with the SD is that her tracings are very >>historical in nature. Using history as a tool for the tracing >>of ideas is perfectly consistent with HPB's methods in the SD >>in my opinion. Kim: >Yes but "using history as a tool for the tracing of ideas" is >what I see myself as doing. If I wants investigate the meaning >of a term like "paramartha" used in the SD, I consult the works >of Shankara, Asanga and Nagarjuna in that order since they are >all regarded as master & initiates and all treats of the subject >in detail. Rather than bothering with any contemporary writers - >unless the subject arises in a direct dialogue. > Of course in certain areas like the chronologizing of letters >your historical approach comes in as highly useful. I cannot see >the SD as similar in approach. Not a single historical context >is provided in depth, ideas are simple picked out of their >context and presented on their own face value - regardless of >the author. JHE You might begin with the Introduction in the ~SD~, which is a chronological overview treating in depth the appearance and disappearance of the Ancient Wisdom through various civilizations. However, she uses your etymological approach sometimes too. Both are useful and both have their place. JHE >>As I stated above, my assumption is that HPB's exposition of >>the doctrines are most faithful to her teachers. That does not >>make her infallible, but it does make her doctrines the primary >>ones--next to the Mahatma Letters themselves. Kim >My assumption is that these teachers used HPB to write teachings >to which I ascribe high authority. JHE OK. Plenty of evidence for that. Kim >My second assumption is that at least part of the Mahatma >Letters were written by the same teachers. JHE OK. But I would say most all of them were written by the same teachers. Kim >My third assumption is that HPB on her own, so to speak, was a >chela of the same degree of initiation as TSR and that their >writings belong to the same degree of "authority". To roughly >the same level I would assign - because of translation problems >- the Buddha, Shankara and then a line of teachers Tsong-ka-pa, >Patanjali, Krishna, Asanga and others. With my level of trust >mostly depending on my mastery of the language in which their >works was written. JHE I'm afraid that you rate both HPB and TSR far higher than I do. I would never rate either one of them with the Buddha. As for HPB being of the same degree of initiation as TSR, I know of no evidence on way or the other, and his relatively short time of exposure to Theosophy raises questions for me. We do know, however, that it was HPB's job to promulgate the teachings to the world. What was TSR's "job?" Did he have one? Where is it described? JHE >>Therefore, if Subba Row's ideas are closer to some extant >>Hindu work, that only proves that his ideas are closer to some >>extant Hindu work Kim >Are you really refering to the upanishads as some "some hindu >work". I prefer "priceless esoteric treatises". "That his ideas >are closer to some priceless esoteric treatises". JHE :-) Whatever you wish to call them, my point is the same. If Subba Rows ideas are closer to a "priceless esoteric treatise," that proves that his ideas are closer to some "priceless esoteric treatise." JHE >> To express it in another way; if we were discussing >>Platonism, would we not use Plato's writings as the primary >>authority for what he wrote? Kim >I would certainly bring up Pythagoras, the neo-platonists and >probably some eastern works as well - in an attempt to >understand his way of thinking rather than getting involved in >an broadside-exchange of quotes of lesser and higher authority. JHE Bring up who you like if it pleases you, but is not Plato the primary authority for what Plato wrote? JHE: > Why can't HPB be the primary authority for what she wrote too? Kim Who says she cannot? JHE If you need TSR to interpret HPB, then TSR become the authority for what HPB wrote. TSR is then coloring HPB. Instead, let HPB be her own authority. Let Subba Row be his. Kim Do I read you right as saying: A) Theosophy is the true (and only true) expression of the ancient Wisdom-Religion, which is the esoteric "truth" JHE No. Where did you read this into what I have been writing? Kim B) HPB is the most "intellectually honest" expounder and highest authority on this. JHE Compared to Olcott, Sinnett and TSR, in my opinion, yes. Kim C) From this follows (my assumption) that HPB is the highest authority on esoteric subjects. JHE Again, compared to Olcott, Sinnett and TSR, in my opinion, yes. Kim >If there is some measure of truth in presenting this as your >view it seems like a very rigid system devoid of much attempt of >synthesis of religion. philosophy and science. I believe in the >latter as a method of investigatiom rather than the sub-title of >a Bible-like work. JHE My method is to understand a work on its own merits--not through a syncretism with other works. Once I feel that I have a grasp on what a writer is saying, then I will compare that idea to another writer. I never assume that any two people ever say quite the same thing. I treat every writer as unique in outlook and expression. There is a big difference between synthesis and syncretiism. While Theosophy is a synthesis, it is not a syncretism. I will synthesize where appropriate, but I avoid syncretising. JHE: >>If Kim Poulsen wants to combine elements in Plato, Blavatsky, >>Subba Row, Vedic Philosophy etc. into a new, more universal >>system, then I will call it the Kim Poulsen system (for lack of >>a better name), Kim >Somehow I would like "old, more universal system" and >"commentary on theosophical thought and esoteric philosophy" >better. Maybe I lack ambition! JHE :-) JHE: >So far, identifications of each other's assumptions has been one >of the main outcomes of our discussion. I think this kind of >exploration is time well spent. Kim >I hope so, since they are certainly time-consuming and Alan >hates long posts! :-) JHE Poor Alan :-)) JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Fri May 10 04:27:52 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 21:27:52 -0700 From: Bee Brown Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Message-Id: <3192C5C8.674D@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <960509005943_76400.1474_HHL49-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jerry Schueler wrote: > > "Schizophrenia is what happens when you confound the planes." > Jerry S. > > Eldon: > >When someone sees into the astral light, and what they see is a > >reflection of the content of their own psyche, we have an > >hallucination. But is it "real"? Yes, but it is subjective to the > >individual seeing it, and it is not physical in nature nor > >objective in the sense that it exists in its own right and can > >remain unaltered by how we might like it to be. > I submit that ALL that anyone can ever see is a "reflection > of their own psyche." The resulting "hallucination" is called maya. > All of our sensory data is "subjective to the individual seeing it." Just > because another person agrees with our perception, doesn't make > that perception any more (or less) real. Eldon, you sound very much > like a materialist here. > > >I would expect that the sort of brain change that is represented > >in schizophrenia is, as said, a breakdown in the normal brain > >formation, leading to an abnormal experience of life. > The problem is Kundalini, a spontaneous opening of > one or more chakras when the person is totally unprepared. The > result is a confusion between what is occuring on the physical > plane vs what is occurring on the astral plane. Such persons > hear voices and see things on the astral, but think it is on the > physical (most have no knowledge at all of higher planes). > Since scientists and doctors also know nothing of higher planes, > they believe it to be the result of brain damage. > > Jerry S. > Member, TIThat is just what my daughter says in her lucid times. She has talked about the Kundalini causing her problem. We used to talk about her voices and what they said and how she perceived them and I would say that most of them came from the lower astral. She had one that was different and seemed to be trying to help her but it was often drowned out by the rest.It seemed to her to be coming from further away somehow. It is a constant barrage of negative comments 24 hours a day so not wonder it gets to them over a period of time. I have been left with the impression that in many of these cases, the veil between the physical and the astral during waking hours, has become too permiable and may in fact have 'holes' in it, allowing such contact that they are not prepared for. If our culture accepted that such a thing could happen then it would not be so scary and I think it is the fear that makes them unable to cope with it though there seems to be a manic reaction by the brain to all this and this is what the medication treats. Schizophrenia seems to be ruining the lives of a lot of very bright people. Such a shame. Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Fri May 10 04:42:51 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 21:42:51 -0700 From: Bee Brown Subject: Re: schizophrenia Message-Id: <3192C94B.7A5@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <199605090037.UAA03383@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit liesel f. deutsch wrote: > > Donna, > > > It seems that > >had her illness been treated correctly at the start, which was in the 60's, > >perhaps it would not have progressed the way it did. > > You have to take into consideration that in the 60ies they didn't know very > much about how to treat mental illnesses. I think that was about the time > Milltown, the 1st tranqulizer, was invented. That was sort of the starting > point of the medical/psychiatric profession finding out how to treat certain > mental illnesses. > What may have happened to your mother-i-l is that she improved as knowledge > re what to do with her improved. ie the people who treated her weren't > necessarily incompetent. > > Liesel I have heard of women who have gone right off due to menopause and some have ended up in mental institutions. I myself thought I was going nuts a few times and I still remember one night a few years ago that I meditated all night because I thought I would fly to bits of I didn't somehow hold it all together. It was a scary experience. I have just come back to my normal self after 12 years of coping with all sorts of weird things. It has been my knowledge of alternative healing and herbal remedies that have kept me off the heavy medical remedies that the doctors want to dish out. My present doctor is a scream because he sees me so seldom and when he does he is at pains to prescribe as natural as possible and gives me lenghty discourses on the components of the stuff he wants me to take, to assure me that he is trying to get it as natural as he can. I suspect he thinks I am a bit strange but he humours me. Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Fri May 10 04:49:01 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 21:49:01 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <3192CABD.5A84@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: evolution References: <199605090057.UAA14503@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit liesel f. deutsch wrote: > > >>Evolution lies in growing *powers of mind*, not powers of sense > >>perception. > > I've really been taught that mind & emotions go together. In this sense, I > wonder what ESP is, which is supposed to be the next perception we're going > to develop. > You, for sure, have to be able to discern clearly with your mind what it is > yoou're seeing, but then, intuition is supposed to have a part in it too. > How do you suppose that figures? > > Liesel The way it seems to me is of expanded mental perception. The mental picture changes into a mural and the view gets more expansive and incorporates the whole mural and the many things painted on it. Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Thu May 9 15:58:15 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 96 08:58:15 PDT From: Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Message-Id: <9605091604.AA20725@orchid.tc.pw.com> Subject: Re: schizophrenia This is mostly to Bee and Liesel: I really have to question that medical competency thing, Liesel ... any successes that Leslie and I had with her mother was largely due to the fact the lady had two tigers postured in front of her at all times. A celtic-looking red-haired one, me, and an amazonian six foot tall one that has Goddess energy coming out of her everywhere, Leslie. Particularly in the end when she was sick with the cancer and in the hospital, we had to scrape and claw our way to getting competent medical help. In fact, the first time she started having trouble because the cancer got into her brain, they tried to do radiation on her head. In order to do that they had to give her massive doses of steroids to combat any swelling. We asked a million questions about those steroids because we were worried about the way they would interract with her anti-psyche meds, haldol and lithium, etc. We got nothing but lip service and over a weekend with that medicine IN THE HOSPITAL she degraded from a fully together woman with some motor problems caused by tumor to a completely animalistic stage -- because a nurse gave one more dose of that lethal medication against doctor's orders -- didn't look at the notes. Apparently, the steroids DO INDEED futz with the way your body metabolizes chemicals -- and that was the main focus of her anti-psyche meds. It was unbelievable. We got her back with us mentally (so she could die later on) by having knock down drag out fights with groups of so-called medical professionals in conference room where in we insisted they DO IT OUR WAY -- meetings that were called AT OUR REQUEST because pinning down a doctor on the move during rounds is impossible. First, we had to get their attention. Well, the positive part of this story is that after Leslie and I threated to sue the hospital and worked closely with their patient relations department (i.e., the department that smoothes things over when somebody f%&*$'s up royally), Gloria was given the benefit of twenty-four hour nursing care at the hospital's expense during the time she was failing. It was a blessing because she hated to be alone, and while we were at the hospital every chance we could get, being there twenty four hours a day to make sure no snotty nurse screwed up (which we managed to catch on more than one occasion) would have depleted our energy completely. I know I sound very worked up about this ... but getting back to what I said about psychiatric doctors in the 60's --- well, I don't see any marked change now, unfortunately. I'm afraid I've come out of this experience with a two-ton chip on my shoulder. What does this have to do with theosophy? Well, probably nothing ... but submitted for your perusal anyhow. ______________________________________________ liesel f. deutsch wrote: > > Donna, > > > It seems that > >had her illness been treated correctly at the start, which was in the 60's, > >perhaps it would not have progressed the way it did. > > You have to take into consideration that in the 60ies they didn't know very > much about how to treat mental illnesses. I think that was about the time > Milltown, the 1st tranqulizer, was invented. That was sort of the starting > point of the medical/psychiatric profession finding out how to treat certain > mental illnesses. > What may have happened to your mother-i-l is that she improved as knowledge > re what to do with her improved. ie the people who treated her weren't > necessarily incompetent. > > Liesel I have heard of women who have gone right off due to menopause and some have ended up in mental institutions. I myself thought I was going nuts a few times and I still remember one night a few years ago that I meditated all night because I thought I would fly to bits of I didn't somehow hold it all together. It was a scary experience. I have just come back to my normal self after 12 years of coping with all sorts of weird things. It has been my knowledge of alternative healing and herbal remedies that have kept me off the heavy medical remedies that the doctors want to dish out. My present doctor is a scream because he sees me so seldom and when he does he is at pains to prescribe as natural as possible and gives me lenghty discourses on the components of the stuff he wants me to take, to assure me that he is trying to get it as natural as he can. I suspect he thinks I am a bit strange but he humours me. Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu May 9 17:00:13 1996 Date: 09 May 96 13:00:13 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Venting the Spleen Message-Id: <960509170013_76400.1474_HHL59-1@CompuServe.COM> RI: >Eldon allowed us an opportunity *not* to vent our spleens, didn't he? This opportunity is always ours. And I didn't. My spleen has already been vented on this subject, many times over. I understand exactly where Eldon is coming from--I simply can't agree with him. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu May 9 17:00:17 1996 Date: 09 May 96 13:00:17 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Message-Id: <960509170017_76400.1474_HHL59-3@CompuServe.COM> Bee: > It is a constant barrage of negative >comments 24 hours a day so not wonder it gets to them over a period of time. >I have been left with the impression that in many of these cases, the veil >between the physical and the astral during waking hours, has become too >permiable and may in fact have 'holes' in it, allowing such contact that they >are not prepared for... Schizophrenia seems to be >ruining the lives of a lot of very bright people. Such a shame. The answers are not easy. In Magic, the proper response would be to conduct a strong banishing ritual (Banishing Rituals psychologically sever the psychomagnetic links between the physical and higher planes). But most people are not magicians. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu May 9 17:00:14 1996 Date: 09 May 96 13:00:14 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Message-Id: <960509170014_76400.1474_HHL59-2@CompuServe.COM> >Jerry: Hate to get all ettiquetty, but when you use "Prince" in the >figurative sense you should use quotation marks "Thus" otherwise people like >me get insulted. Eldon may be a "Prince" in the sense you used it, but he is >NOT a Prince. > >alexis Sorry, Alexis. Quite right. I keep forgetting we have royalty aboard. I will try to watch this in the future. Jerry S. Member, TI From ramadoss@eden.com Fri May 10 19:24:16 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 12:24:16 -0700 From: MKR Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Subject: Re: TS/Arundale/Sri Ram/Radha Burnier X-Beyondmail-Priority: 1 Message-Id: Conversation-Id: Hi In various postings on theos-xxxx over last several months, it has been mentioned that Sri Ram's family has "controlled" TS and all the problems laid at their door. It is far from truth based on what I am aware of. For those who may not know the full family connections, I am providing a brief description. 1. The first member of the family who got into TS is Francesca Arundale. She is the one who brought up her nephew, George Arundale since he was an infant. She was of independent financial means and everyone who had known of George, know that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. 2. George Arundale, as a young man out of college, came to India to work for TS and also work in other activities in which Annie Besant was involved. So when he came to India, he was financially very self sufficient and so no TS funds were spent on him to support him. He came to India because he believed in the cause of Theosophy. 3. George Arundale married Rukmini Arundale. Rukmini is the daughter of Nilakanta Sastry who was a Brahmin and was a member of TS. While Rukmini's father was supportive, the marriage took place under great opposition from the orthodox Brahmins of South India. (Brahmins have always spearheaded every social and political change that took place for the better in India). 4. George and Rukmini did not have any children. 5. N. Sri Ram is the brother of Rukmini. After he graduated from college, he went to work for Annie Besant as her private secretary. She must have found him to be a very able and capable person. His command of English language was appreciated even by C. Jinarajadasa. When CJ was President of TS, he routinely consulted with Sri Ram before he put out any important written documents. It was a labor of sacrifice that Sri Ram took and was not looking for a job which paid lucrative salary. 6. George Arundale was elected as President of TS after Annie Besant passed away. 7. C. Jinarajadasa, succeeded George Arundale as President of TS. 8. When CJ did not seek reelection as President, N. Sri Ram ran and elected as President. 9. After Sri Ram passed away, John Coats was elected as President. 10. Radha Burnier is the daughter of Sri Ram. She does not have any children. 11. After John Coats passed away, both Radha Burnier and Rukmini Arundale ran for the office of President and Radha Burnier was elected as the President. 12. I lived in India for nearly four decades (only 200 miles from Adyar) and have met numerous members of TS in various cities. I even lived in Madras City (Adyar is a suburb of Madras City) for four years. During all this time, I have never heard even a *single* complaint about any of the above mentioned leaders even though some of their administrative decisions may have been unpopular with some members. If there had been anything going on which was out of line or questionable, it would have come to light. Also many of the members who live at Adyar and see what is going on at Adyar day in and day out, are all financially independent members and many of them have held some of the highest offices in private and public sector and pay rent for their accommodation and not receive any *stipend* for their work at TS Headquarters. They would not put up or support anyone or any activity which is questionable. 13. Many times the Presidents of TS are blamed for actions coming out of the President's office. There is a General Council, which in most cases goes along with the President. But they do not always rubber stamp everything the President presents. I know of a case when Annie Besant was the undisputed leader of TS, the General Council voted down one of her proposals. As none of the National Presidents (Secretaries) share any of the going ons in the General Council with their national membership, wrong conclusions are drawn by members due to lack of information. 14. The Sri Ram family has done invaluable services to TS and other related causes. 15. Rukmini single handed brought back the Indian Dance to its modern recognition and popularity. Today the school she started, Kalashetra is the premier National Institution devoted to Dance, Music and Arts and some years ago it was designated as a National University. 16. Rukmini was very active in prevention of cruelty to Animals (Brotherhood applied to all living beings.) Everyone in India knows about her contribution to this cause. She was appointed to the Upper Chamber of the Indian Congress and server as a legislator for a couple of terms. Later when she was even offered to be appointed as the President of India, she declined. 17. Sri Ram worked for the TS for decades and decades and is one of the lowest keyed persons I have seen. I did not even knew much about him until after he was elected as the President of TS. So I think we all should not ignore his sacrifices and contributions. 18. Radha Burnier, who is a protege and one of the first Dance students of Rukmini, again worked full time for decades as the National Secretary (President) of Indian Section and has extensive experience in dealing with the lodges and their problems in India. Again she is of independent means and does not depend on TS for her living. So I think we all should not ignore her sacrifices and contributions. 19. After J Krishnamurti started speaking of his ideas of Truth and solving human problems, the decline in the membership of TS started and TS has never recovered from it. To place the blame on Sri Ram family or anyone else for the lack of increase in membership of TS is not fair. 20. Even assuming that leadership at Adyar not taking correct steps, let us see what has happened at National Level. For example with all the well known leaders at the helm at Wheaton, the membership of TSA has not gone up in spite of their best efforts. So leadership may not be the only reason for all the ills. 21. After J Krishnamurti started speaking about his ideas of truth and solving human problems, there has *never* been *any* leader of his stature and charisma. So may be it is that his message is more needed for the present day. 22. The International and National leaders can do only so much. The activities and increase in membership of TS has to come about from the Lodge level, which means *you* and *me*. So we may have to look at our own local activities and see what we can do to popularize Theosophy. It does not need any anointment from any leaders at National and International level. In conclusion, I think it is not fair to place any blame on Sri Ram family for any of the problems of TS. On the other hand, they have provided invaluable service to TS and Theosophy and we should be grateful. ...Doss From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu May 9 17:58:09 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 10:58:09 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199605091758.KAA23179@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: HPB on TSR: Directed especially to Kim and Jerry HE Unfortunately, the version of HPB's esoteric instructions (I, II, and III) as given in HPB's COLLECTED WRITINGS, Vol. 12 is NOT as HPB originally wrote them in 1889. The COLLECTED WRITINGS version even has material missing. I will give one example of missing material. This is what HPB wrote in the 1889 edition of E.S. Instruction No. 1: "...Thus they speak of five Koshas (sheaths, or principles), and call Atma the sixth yet no 'principle.' This is the secret of Subba Row's criticism of the division in *Esoteric Buddhism.* He knew well our difficulty, and had accepted our exoteric enumeration at one time, but took advantage of my pledge of secrecy and the impossiblity I was in to defend myself publicly before the profane world. (*Vide Secret Doctrine*, vol. I, p. 157, for the Vedantic exoteric enumeration.) But let the student now learn the true esoteric enumeration. It was not given to A.P. Sinnett, who would never pledge himself, and was known to contemplate from the first giving out his information to the public. Therefore the division of the 'principles' is given in *Esoteric Buddhism* exoterically." Compare the above quote with the abridged version in Vol. 12, p. 526. I thought some of you might like to see what HPB wrote in 1889 about TSR, etc. Daniel P.S. Notice that in the C.W. version, TSR is described as "the late Subba Row...". This indicates( in and of itself) that this is not what HPB originally wrote in 1889. [TSR died in 1890.] Kim, there are also letters of HPB that indicate her*later* opinion of TSR. In one dated July 12, 1888, she writes: "Mrs. C.O. [Isabel Cooper-Oakley] said...several times that her 'Alf' [Alfred Cooper-Oakley] is constantly receiving through S.R. [Subba Row] letters from the Master, *my* Master!!... Now *I* know that my Master...has *never* since I left Adyar *writen one single line* to anyone at Adyar, or Madras, or India, except a few words once to H.S.O. I have Master's assurance to this effect....surely something *must be rotten * 'in the State of Denmark.' This is *private and confidential,* and meant for you alone....." There is another HPB letter that deals with this topic. DHC From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu May 9 18:23:58 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 11:23:58 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199605091823.LAA05355@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Mahatma Letters: Questions to Alexis Alexis, you write: >But the Mahatma Letters themselves are terribly mutually contradictory. I >think the "Mahatmas" wrote some few of them and only the Gods know who wrote >the rest. Here I go again with my questions! : ) Could you please tell us which "few" Mahatma Letters the "Mahatmas" wrote? Also what are some examples of the "tertibly mutally contradictory" Mahatma Letters? Please share with the group. Thanking you in advance, Daniel From alexei@slip.net Thu May 9 18:44:45 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 11:44:45 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509184445.006a1f48@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic At 06:12 AM 5/9/96 -0400, you wrote: the veil >between the physical and the astral during waking hours, has become too >permiable and may in fact have 'holes' in it, allowing such contact that they >are not prepared for. If our culture accepted that such a thing could happen >then it would not be so scary and I think it is the fear that makes them >unable to cope with it though there seems to be a manic reaction by the brain >to all this and this is what the medication treats. Schizophrenia seems to be >ruining the lives of a lot of very bright people. Such a shame. > > > > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L > > > >Bee: I think the statement you made above (which I have "highlighted") is a very brilliant insight into much of the reality of the problem here. It's patently clear that, as of right now,science and medicine really only have the barest glimmering of understanding as to the nature of Schizophrenia and its causes. It may, as it manifests in our times, simply be(no matter what the contributory factors) the first manifestations of what the Theosophical Philosophy symbolizes as "The Sixth Root Race" or the next evolutionary step forward for humankind. One of the primary features of that "next step forward" is psychic sensitivity. Well, in that case, you've hit the nail squarely on the head! One of the missions of the theosophical movement was to prepare 19th and early 20th century humanity for this "great leap forward", and to ready people, especially young people, for the new awareness of the greater reality outside of human reality that they would experience. Theosophy failed in that part of it's mission so when young people, totally unprepared, are confronted with aspects of the greater reality on a sporadic basis, they, as the saying goes "freak out". Of course it's usually the most intelligent, most creative young people this happens to. I've always been diffident about addressing this subject but I am relatively confident that one of those Maori Shamans (Tahuna?) might be able to help her. Needless to say she'd have to cooperate, but my intuition is that she can. A shaman can show, and explain to her what it is that is intruding into her life, and teach her that, no matter what, she is the one in control, always. I hope I haven't intruded: alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu May 9 18:48:28 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 11:48:28 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509184828.006a89fc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: evolution At 06:14 AM 5/9/96 -0400, you wrote: >The way it seems to me is of expanded mental perception. The mental picture >changes into a mural and the view gets more expansive and incorporates the >whole mural and the many things painted on it. > > > > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L > > >Bee: That's an excellent description of a difficult process. A computer related description might be that "one becomes conscious of, and part of, virutal reality". alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu May 9 19:11:05 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 12:11:05 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509191105.0068d150@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic At 01:20 PM 5/9/96 -0400, you wrote: >>Jerry: Hate to get all ettiquetty, but when you use "Prince" in the >>figurative sense you should use quotation marks "Thus" otherwise people like >>me get insulted. Eldon may be a "Prince" in the sense you used it, but he is >>NOT a Prince. >> >>alexis > > Sorry, Alexis. Quite right. I keep forgetting we have royalty >aboard. I will try to watch this in the future. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Jerry: It's perfectly all right. For the last two hundred years people have been forgetting about us. They shouldn't, not for political reasons, that I hope is all over, but there are some really interesting occult reasons not to forget about us....it's called the Sang Real. alexis From Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Thu May 9 19:29:57 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 96 12:29:57 PDT From: Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Message-Id: <9605091940.AA02423@orchid.tc.pw.com> Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Below Alexis gives words of concern regarding Bee's daughter. The words are heart felt and dear; however, I feel compelled to caution anyone when approaching schizophrenia from this angle. How does one determine if indeed a specific patient is suffering from (1) a biological problem, or (2) a psychic problem? I would think that treating them incorrectly would be disastrous, particularly if what is needed first and foremost is a solid physical, earth-bound ground to build upon. The shaman/healer/teacher/leader who can do her duty correctly and without the dynamics of control dramas is a rare find ... I wouldn't trust anyone else if it were my daughter in question. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 06:12 AM 5/9/96 -0400, you wrote: the veil >between the physical and the astral during waking hours, has become too >permiable and may in fact have 'holes' in it, allowing such contact that they >are not prepared for. If our culture accepted that such a thing could happen >then it would not be so scary and I think it is the fear that makes them >unable to cope with it though there seems to be a manic reaction by the brain >to all this and this is what the medication treats. Schizophrenia seems to be >ruining the lives of a lot of very bright people. Such a shame. > > > > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L > > > >Bee: I think the statement you made above (which I have "highlighted") is a very brilliant insight into much of the reality of the problem here. It's patently clear that, as of right now,science and medicine really only have the barest glimmering of understanding as to the nature of Schizophrenia and its causes. It may, as it manifests in our times, simply be(no matter what the contributory factors) the first manifestations of what the Theosophical Philosophy symbolizes as "The Sixth Root Race" or the next evolutionary step forward for humankind. One of the primary features of that "next step forward" is psychic sensitivity. Well, in that case, you've hit the nail squarely on the head! One of the missions of the theosophical movement was to prepare 19th and early 20th century humanity for this "great leap forward", and to ready people, especially young people, for the new awareness of the greater reality outside of human reality that they would experience. Theosophy failed in that part of it's mission so when young people, totally unprepared, are confronted with aspects of the greater reality on a sporadic basis, they, as the saying goes "freak out". Of course it's usually the most intelligent, most creative young people this happens to. I've always been diffident about addressing this subject but I am relatively confident that one of those Maori Shamans (Tahuna?) might be able to help her. Needless to say she'd have to cooperate, but my intuition is that she can. A shaman can show, and explain to her what it is that is intruding into her life, and teach her that, no matter what, she is the one in control, always. I hope I haven't intruded: alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu May 9 19:51:18 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 12:51:18 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960509195118.006b9224@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TS/Arundale/Sri Ram/Radha Burnier At 01:38 PM 5/9/96 -0400, you wrote: Doss: In regard to what you have posted below I have one question: Are you a Brahmin? I also have one comment: Aside from the obvious problems that always seem to accrue to nepotism, i want to make it clear that I at least have no problems with the fact that this nepotism is largely but not entirely Indian, what I do have a problem with is not the family, but it's inextricability from the E.S. It is not the Arundale-Sastry Family that is the problem and that has, as I see it, harmed the theosophical movement, it is the esoteric section that has done the harm, and how does one separate the two? alexis >Hi > >In various postings on theos-xxxx over last several months, it has been >mentioned that Sri Ram's family has "controlled" TS and all the problems laid >at their door. It is far from truth based on what I am aware of. For those who >may not know the full family connections, I am providing a brief description. > >1. The first member of the family who got into TS is Francesca Arundale. She is >the one who brought up her nephew, George Arundale since he was an infant. She >was of independent financial means and everyone who had known of George, know >that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. > >2. George Arundale, as a young man out of college, came to India to work for TS >and also work in other activities in which Annie Besant was involved. So when >he came to India, he was financially very self sufficient and so no TS funds >were spent on him to support him. He came to India because he believed in the >cause of Theosophy. > >3. George Arundale married Rukmini Arundale. Rukmini is the daughter of >Nilakanta Sastry who was a Brahmin and was a member of TS. While Rukmini's >father was supportive, the marriage took place under great opposition from the >orthodox Brahmins of South India. (Brahmins have always spearheaded every >social and political change that took place for the better in India). > >4. George and Rukmini did not have any children. > >5. N. Sri Ram is the brother of Rukmini. After he graduated from college, he >went to work for Annie Besant as her private secretary. She must have found him >to be a very able and capable person. His command of English language was >appreciated even by C. Jinarajadasa. When CJ was President of TS, he routinely >consulted with Sri Ram before he put out any important written documents. It >was a labor of sacrifice that Sri Ram took and was not looking for a job which >paid lucrative salary. > >6. George Arundale was elected as President of TS after Annie Besant passed >away. > >7. C. Jinarajadasa, succeeded George Arundale as President of TS. > >8. When CJ did not seek reelection as President, N. Sri Ram ran and elected as >President. > >9. After Sri Ram passed away, John Coats was elected as President. > >10. Radha Burnier is the daughter of Sri Ram. She does not have any children. > >11. After John Coats passed away, both Radha Burnier and Rukmini Arundale ran >for the office of President and Radha Burnier was elected as the President. > >12. I lived in India for nearly four decades (only 200 miles from Adyar) and >have met numerous members of TS in various cities. I even lived in Madras City >(Adyar is a suburb of Madras City) for four years. During all this time, I have >never heard even a *single* complaint about any of the above mentioned leaders >even though some of their administrative decisions may have been unpopular with >some members. If there had been anything going on which was out of line or >questionable, it would have come to light. Also many of the members who live at >Adyar and see what is going on at Adyar day in and day out, are all financially >independent members and many of them have held some of the highest offices in >private and public sector and pay rent for their accommodation and not receive >any *stipend* for their work at TS Headquarters. They would not put up or >support anyone or any activity which is questionable. > >13. Many times the Presidents of TS are blamed for actions coming out of the >President's office. There is a General Council, which in most cases goes along >with the President. But they do not always rubber stamp everything the >President presents. I know of a case when Annie Besant was the undisputed >leader of TS, the General Council voted down one of her proposals. As none of >the National Presidents (Secretaries) share any of the going ons in the General >Council with their national membership, wrong conclusions are drawn by members >due to lack of information. > >14. The Sri Ram family has done invaluable services to TS and other related >causes. > >15. Rukmini single handed brought back the Indian Dance to its modern >recognition and popularity. Today the school she started, Kalashetra is the >premier National Institution devoted to Dance, Music and Arts and some years >ago it was designated as a National University. > >16. Rukmini was very active in prevention of cruelty to Animals (Brotherhood >applied to all living beings.) Everyone in India knows about her contribution >to this cause. She was appointed to the Upper Chamber of the Indian Congress >and server as a legislator for a couple of terms. Later when she was even >offered to be appointed as the President of India, she declined. > >17. Sri Ram worked for the TS for decades and decades and is one of the lowest >keyed persons I have seen. I did not even knew much about him until after he >was elected as the President of TS. So I think we all should not ignore his >sacrifices and contributions. > >18. Radha Burnier, who is a protege and one of the first Dance students of >Rukmini, again worked full time for decades as the National Secretary >(President) of Indian Section and has extensive experience in dealing with the >lodges and their problems in India. Again she is of independent means and does >not depend on TS for her living. So I think we all should not ignore her >sacrifices and contributions. > >19. After J Krishnamurti started speaking of his ideas of Truth and solving >human problems, the decline in the membership of TS started and TS has never >recovered from it. To place the blame on Sri Ram family or anyone else for the >lack of increase in membership of TS is not fair. > >20. Even assuming that leadership at Adyar not taking correct steps, let us see >what has happened at National Level. For example with all the well known >leaders at the helm at Wheaton, the membership of TSA has not gone up in spite >of their best efforts. So leadership may not be the only reason for all the >ills. > >21. After J Krishnamurti started speaking about his ideas of truth and solving >human problems, there has *never* been *any* leader of his stature and >charisma. So may be it is that his message is more needed for the present day. > >22. The International and National leaders can do only so much. The activities >and increase in membership of TS has to come about from the Lodge level, which >means *you* and *me*. So we may have to look at our own local activities and >see what we can do to popularize Theosophy. It does not need any anointment >from any leaders at National and International level. > >In conclusion, I think it is not fair to place any blame on Sri Ram family for >any of the problems of TS. On the other hand, they have provided invaluable >service to TS and Theosophy and we should be grateful. > > ...Doss > > > > From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Thu May 9 20:06:06 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 14:06:06 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: TI Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Alan! The newest member of TI: My good friend Terry Wallace ... an attorney (if fact I think he advised Bing when HQ was exercising their "spirituality leadership" in his direction). Terry was made a Theosophist at Adyar by John Coats, is a Life Member of the Wheaton TS, and is President of the RAvalli County Branch. He is not yet online, but may be soon. Regards, -JRC From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Fri May 10 15:20:02 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 08:20:02 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <31935EA2.183C@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic References: <2.2.32.19960509184445.006a1f48@mail.slip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit alexis dolgorukii wrote: > > At 06:12 AM 5/9/96 -0400, you wrote: > > the veil > >between the physical and the astral during waking hours, has become too > >permiable and may in fact have 'holes' in it, allowing such contact that they > >are not prepared for. If our culture accepted that such a thing could happen > >then it would not be so scary and I think it is the fear that makes them > >unable to cope with it though there seems to be a manic reaction by the brain > >to all this and this is what the medication treats. Schizophrenia seems to be > >ruining the lives of a lot of very bright people. Such a shame. > > > > > > > > Bee Brown > > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > > Theos Int & L > > > > > > > >Bee: > > I think the statement you made above (which I have "highlighted") is a very > brilliant insight into much of the reality of the problem here. It's > patently clear that, as of right now,science and medicine really only have > the barest glimmering of understanding as to the nature of Schizophrenia and > its causes. It may, as it manifests in our times, simply be(no matter what > the contributory factors) the first manifestations of what the Theosophical > Philosophy symbolizes as "The Sixth Root Race" or the next evolutionary step > forward for humankind. One of the primary features of that "next step > forward" is psychic sensitivity. Well, in that case, you've hit the nail > squarely on the head! One of the missions of the theosophical movement was > to prepare 19th and early 20th century humanity for this "great leap > forward", and to ready people, especially young people, for the new > awareness of the greater reality outside of human reality that they would > experience. Theosophy failed in that part of it's mission so when young > people, totally unprepared, are confronted with aspects of the greater > reality on a sporadic basis, they, as the saying goes "freak out". Of course > it's usually the most intelligent, most creative young people this happens > to. I've always been diffident about addressing this subject but I am > relatively confident that one of those Maori Shamans (Tahuna?) might be able > to help her. Needless to say she'd have to cooperate, but my intuition is > that she can. A shaman can show, and explain to her what it is that is > intruding into her life, and teach her that, no matter what, she is the one > in control, always. > > I hope I haven't intruded:alexis Not at all. I agree with what you say and I have often wondered if the present outbreak of mental problems are the beginning of the next phase of evolution. I have occassion to speak with a few people in this category through some voluntary work I do and if someone lends themselves to it, I ask questions of them and how they see their problem. They appear to be too frightened to really consider what is wrong and take refuge in their medication which dampen the emotions. I recall my daughter saying that she missed feeling highs and lows in her life and that causes many of them to go off their medication and of course the problem returns after a while. She is too far into 'wrong thinking' now. If her schizo.. was to disappear now she would still be left with the thought pattern that has been set up over this 10 year period and she would have to find a way of rethinking her view of the world. Now that our Lodge is so prominent in town I expect to have visits from some of these people, in fact I have already had a vist from one couple, so maybe I can find out a bit more about it all outside the medical model and see if there may be some indications of the above hypothesis. My daughter is too strong-willed and undisciplined to accept anything that doesn't suit her. The doctors in Auckland hide when they see her coming. There is a very interesting article in the Quest Magazine Autumn 1994 called Schzophrenia and the Soul written by Thomas Poplawski. I took a photocopy of it so that I had reference to it when need be. Regards -- Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu May 9 19:52:06 1996 Date: 09 May 96 15:52:06 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: The Gnostic Abyss Message-Id: <960509195206_76400.1474_HHL45-1@CompuServe.COM> The following is my own paraphrasing of a paragraph from On the Origin of the World (found in the Nag Hammadi Library): "After the nature of the Immortals was completed out of the Boundless One, then a likeness called Sophia flowed out of Pistis. She wished that a work should come into being which is like the First Light, and immediately her wish appeared as a heavenly likeness, possessing an incomprehensible greatness, which is in the middle between the immortals and those who came into being after them, like what is above, which is a Veil which separates men and those belonging to the sphere above. Now the Aeon of Truth has no shadow within it because the Immeasurable light is everywhere within it. Its outside, however, is a shadow. It was called "darkness." Thus the Abyss is derived from the Pistis." (On the Origin of the World) Jerry S. Member, TI From am455@lafn.org Thu May 9 20:50:56 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 13:50:56 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199605092050.AA08683@lafn.org> Subject: Re: HPB on TSR in BCW 12 > >Unfortunately, the version of HPB's esoteric instructions (I, II, and III) as >given in HPB's COLLECTED WRITINGS, Vol. 12 is NOT as HPB originally wrote them >in 1889. The COLLECTED WRITINGS version even has material missing. I do not know why Dan says "unfortunately" and "NOT as HPB originally wrote them". There were changes in the ES material during HPB's lifetime. I would think they would have been approved, or even instigated by her. I believe Boris de Zirkoff used the "final" version, that is, the last one that was sent out during HPB's life. The later ES Inst. #1 (ca. 1890-91?) has the same "missing" passage quoted by Dan. If HPB chose to edit her own later work & delete passages, so be it. [...] >Compare the above quote with the abridged version in Vol. 12, p. 526. "abridged" by HPB or someone of that era, NOT by Boris de Zirkoff. Just clarifying, -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From ramadoss@eden.com Thu May 9 21:05:30 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 16:05:30 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: TI In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII John: If Terry needs any help on getting on line, let me know. I can provide him with info to get going. What all he needs is a PC/XT and a modem; nothing expensive or exotic! ...doss On Thu, 9 May 1996, JRC wrote: > Alan! > The newest member of TI: My good friend Terry Wallace ... an > attorney (if fact I think he advised Bing when HQ was exercising their > "spirituality leadership" in his direction). Terry was made a Theosophist > at Adyar by John Coats, is a Life Member of the Wheaton TS, and is > President of the RAvalli County Branch. He is not yet online, but may be > soon. > Regards, -JRC > From Richtay@aol.com Thu May 9 21:45:34 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 17:45:34 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960509174533_487767392@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (part 2) A question to Jerry S. Jerry S. > With the above problems, I don't see how anyone can make > an intelligent argument of HPBs Model using the figures on p 658 and > the principles of p 607, because the two don't match. In her INNER > TEACHINGS she clearly says "Each principle is on a different plane" > (p 19). So why doesn't she simply place them that way? Instead Figure > C is a mish-mash. Wow. I wish I had the time tonight and were not in the middle of finals. Jerry S -- your step by step analysis amazed me, and indicated to me how/why you have become confused about HPB's model, why you think each principle is on a different solar plane. Can't type it all out now, but perhaps San or JHE will jump in? I find HPB's model TOTALLY consistent and wonderfully illustrative. From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu May 9 22:42:10 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 18:42:10 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960509184209_290785747@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? Alex, I agree, it's definitely the hardware and I know that there are others at Olcott who read the list as well. Oh well, as Harry Truman said, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." Chuck the Atrocious Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu May 9 22:43:07 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 18:43:07 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960509184306_290786519@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Alex, The answer is simple. It scares the bejesus out of them. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu May 9 22:43:09 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 18:43:09 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960509184309_290786556@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Gangus defunctus Alex, AAAAARRRRRGH! Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu May 9 22:43:11 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 18:43:11 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960509184311_290786605@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Rich T, You didn't write the stuff. It was Eldon that started it and I was replying to a post by Rich Ihle. Sorry about the mixup but that is a problem when we have too many people on the list with the same first name. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From poulsen@dk-online.dk Fri May 10 03:12:27 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 01:12:27 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3E0D.F2449B20@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (assumptions) Encoding: 186 TEXT JHE: >But Kim, you are forgetting that Sinnett's information about HPB >did not come from the Mahatma Letters. It came through a medium >whom Sinnett believed was channeling the Mahatmas. After the >publication of Esoteric Buddhism, Sinnett's Theosophical >teachings came from his medium, *not* from Mahatma letters. >Also, Kim, Sinnett was warned in the Mahatma Letters that they >would never communicate with him through a medium. Kim I would put a strong demarcation line between Sinnett, the recepient of the Mahatma letters, the author of EB and the lay-chela of KH and between Sinnett the believer in mediums in fx his London TS lodge days. I see his attempt to restore his spiritual source as a desperate and mistaken but understandable action. Certain things in EB, the major opus of Sinnett the lay-chela I find of a very high quality. JHE >Yet APS found a medium and believe he was communicating with them >anyway. What does that suggest to you about Sinnett's "powers of >observation?" Kim In my opinion not much in this reasoning can be used for the time when he wrote EB. .............. JHE >Who made these "exact same accusations" against TSR? I'm afraid >I missed them. Kim Never mind. I have a strong dislike for this subject. JHE >Then you are suggesting that HPB was not trying to give to the >public a correct understanding of the Theosophical Doctrines? Kim Of course not. But when you mention several authors whose material you perceive as differing systems and insert the word correct next to HPB, then you not only are making a positive evaluation of HPB but giving the readers of this an strong notion of your possible contrary opinion of the others. These can only be "only partly correct - therefore partly incorrect" or simply "incorrect". If my local library has 100 000 volumes and 10 are outstanding esoteric works is it really necessary then to pick on 9 out of 10 and proclaim the incorrect in order to make the 10th unique? Kim >It is very clear from p. 607 of CW that her real system "on >strict esoteric lines" is very close to TSR (except in the >terminology in a few of the principles), that previous writings >of hers also is labeled semi-exoteric by herself and as a result >that a whole range of accusations against TSR by devout >theosophists can be disregarded. JHE >Assuming that HPB's system is "very close" to TSR (which is a >matter of interpretation), what "accusations" against TSR can in >your view then be disregarded? Kim Assuming nothing at all the accusations of left-hand influence, misinformation, distortion and the like can be disregarded as foolish slander and ill-informed ideas. As to the "matter of interpretion" we can get back to that later. JHE >.................... The term "selfish" is not mine. I >don't know who you are quoting. Regarding p. 607, I find no >mention of TSR in my copy. But whatever comments you have in >mind on p 607, they were all made with the intention that they >eventually be published. Kim No reason to say more (and I did not quote you, Jerry). The remarks on CW XII p. 607 are perfectly clear. No need for me to enter into any speculations. Kim: >Letter of Feb 24, 1888 (quoted in Zirkoff ed. of SD p [47]): > >"Now Tookaram writes me a letter. In it he says that S. R. told >him that he was ready to help me and correct my S.D *provided* I >took out from it every reference to the Masters!" JHE >Kim, you only quoted part of this letter to Olcott. If you had >quoted the whole thing, a very different light would have fallen >on it. To continue where you left off: (snip) "Does he mean to say that I should deny the Masters" Kim - The first possible interpretation given by HPB. Not a very different light in my opinion. In her obviously excited state she makes 3 suggestions as to the meaning of TSR. In another more reflective mood she regretted ever mentioning masters. In her sentence the word "deny" gives me associations to a proclamation of faith. She possibly made a serious mistake and possibly TSR has been blamed ever since for his attempt to avert it. This is a possible interpretation. JHE You might.also quote what he says of TSR in this same text: Kim Ah yes: " He was against the disclosure of any higher teachings formerly esoteric" What a strange judgement upon a man that gave out what he did. Another thing is that he thought the englishmen in India of his day unsuitable for esoteric teachings. So do I! JHE >You might begin with the Introduction in the ~SD~, which is a >chronological overview treating in depth the appearance and >disappearance of the Ancient Wisdom through various >civilizations. However, she uses your etymological approach >sometimes too. Both are useful and both have their place. Kim Of course both have their place. But try give something like historical context for indian philosophy using the commonly accepted chronology. Kim >My third assumption is that HPB on her own, so to speak, was a >chela of the same degree of initiation as TSR and that their >writings belong to the same degree of "authority". To roughly >the same level I would assign - because of translation problems >- the Buddha, Shankara and then a line of teachers Tsong-ka-pa, >Patanjali, Krishna, Asanga and others. With my level of trust >mostly depending on my mastery of the language in which their >works was written. JHE >I'm afraid that you rate both HPB and TSR far higher than I do. >I would never rate either one of them with the Buddha. As for >HPB being of the same degree of initiation as TSR, I know of no >evidence on way or the other, Kim I do not rate them with the Buddha. But I think perhaps 75 percent of the meaning in translations of sanskrit and pali distorted. As to the degree of initiation we were talking about assumptions. JHE: >and his relatively short time of exposure to Theosophy raises questions for >me. Kim Then you must have a whole heap of questions arising from the lives of historical adepts. How about Shankara - suddenly a perfect adept at 17. JHE >We do know, however, that it was HPB's job to promulgate the teachings >to the world. What was TSR's "job?" Did he have one? Where is it >described? Kim What was the Buddha?s job, what a strange line of reasoning. What is *our* job? Are you a man with a mission Jerry? :-) JHE >If you need TSR to interpret HPB, then TSR become the authority >for what HPB wrote. TSR is then coloring HPB. Instead, let HPB >be her own authority. Let Subba Row be his. Kim The concept "The esoteric meaning" is well-known in the SD as opposed to "the opinion of X". This is the idea of a common truth which runs like a red thread in the work. JHE >I never assume that any two people ever say quite the same thing. I treat >every writer as unique in outlook and expression. Kim So I have noticed. Permit me to believe in the concepts "esoteric meaning" and "common truth". And permit me to corroborate the use of prakriti for the seventh universal with as many possible writers as possible. Corroboration, "esoteric meaning", a common doctrine. In friendship, Kim From eldon@theosophy.com Fri May 10 06:27:09 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 23:27:09 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960510062709.006e90a8@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Schizophrenia (reply to Donna) Donna: >Schizophrenia is a very interesting disease, but very frightening, >as well. I doubt that its symptoms are identical in any one case. >My "mother in law" was schizophrenic and maintaining her illness >was part of the daily routine that existed when she lived with us >for the last 9 years prior to her death by metastatic lung cancer. Sorry to hear about Gloria. But it says something good about you and your sense of compassion that you put her up and make a stable, loving home for her during the last nine years of her life. When I hear about someone having problems coping with life, it continually reminds me of the precious gift we have of existing in this world. It's not a hell-hole like some would depict it, a dark, awful place that we should get out of as soon as possible. Rather, we're afforded a special opportunity to attain exceptional insight and lucidity, to work towards our enlightenment, and to be of benefit to others. All those opportunities are lost to us in the subjective after-death states, like kamaloka and devachan, times of subjective self-reflection. >It took some time before the illness manifested itself as "a voice", >audio hallucinations. I've read that this is typical of the disease. It's a matter of conjecture if these voices are actual entities that are talking to the person, or internal, subjective experiences of the person. My thinking is that they are internal experiences, subjective in nature, and are basically the contents of the person's own psyche, contaminated by the surrounding psychic atmosphere, by the contents of the astral light. Elementals arise, newly-created thoughtforms, that animate these puppets in someone's mind, in much the same way that we populate the actors in our dreams, or give life to the characters that populate our devachanic dreamworld, in the after-death. >It seems that had her illness been treated correctly at the >start, which was in the 60's, perhaps it would not have progressed >the way it did. It's possible, but we can't go back to the past and change how things have been done. We can think "if only" but need at some point to let things go and move forward. Now days, there are medications that can help restore the brain chemistry, allowing one to return to a "normal" state. Living in a state where the brain is malfunctioning, in a way, is like going through life on a natural drug trip. It's not generally desirable, although it can have some shock value in getting people to overcome their materialism and start questioning the meaning of life, important first steps towards a spiritual awakening. >She was subjected to all sorts of barbaric medical procedures, >including electro-shock therapy, and took every anti-psychotic >medication in the book. Perhaps I have an overly optimistic view of the medications ... The brain is like a lens, that allows us to focus our consciousness onto this world, where we live and try to express ourselves and evolve. When the brain malfunctions, it's possible that we're only partly focused onto the physical, and our perceptions are mixed up with things in the surrounding astral light. >An aside was dealing with the medication's side effects. Back >about 6 years ago, we took her to a small town doctor in Milford, Connecticut, who diagnosed her with Grave's Disease. Turns >out the malfunction of her thyroid was directly related to the >audio hallucinations. People that are strongly pro-psychic would be inclined to always talk about these things as "inner powers", and be offended at the term "hallucinations". But I find the term apt because it describes the perceptions as based upon the contents of one's own psyche, which is exactly the nature of the typical after-death states. The invisible worlds or states-of-being about our physical earth, Globe D, are subjective in nature and lacking in the same lucidity as can be obtained when one is fully embodied on this (or any) plane. (This is, of course, from the standpoint of the human kingdom; the Dhyani-Chohans and Elementals primarily exist therein, as they transit our globe.) This is the model we can read about in "The Mahatma Letters" and in Theosophy as originally presented. The Spiritualist idea of a Summerland (something like an astral plane) that dead and sleeping people might inhabit, doing the same type of things they do while waking, was dismissed therein. We're told that at the moment of death, the personality goes out like the flame of a candle ceases, when blown out. Is consciousness gone? No, we're still consciousness. Do we forget who and what we were? No, we're completely absorbed in the content of ourselves. What we lose is that special *lucidity* that we have, as fully seven-principled beings, participating in the cooperative process of existence in an objective world, in a sphere of causes. >She had a hard time when her husband died and had to be >hospitalized, but when we took her out, she was still having >small problems with the voice. My Mother had an averse reaction to some medication, and developed some paranoid symptoms, strange ideas, etc., and it started to affect her behavior in a negative way. She was taken off the medication, and in a few weeks the symptoms went away. Sanity, or the ability to distinguish what is "real" from the imaginary, is a gift we take for granted. It's easy to forget how important it is, and how much of an opportunity that we have in life! >So, this story has a happy ending. Gloria lived to be 69 >years old, and the last 9 years of her life were spent stable, >productive, and healthy. Happy endings are always the best! They cannot always be expected, and we learn as much from the tragic, but I'm glad for you that life was kind. >This, the product of strict routine, good food, regular >and uninterrupted medicine, and lots of heavy duty >conversations where she was pushed to take responsibility >for her behavior and her life whenever it was possible -- >helped prevent an acute episode What you say here is a lesson for us "normal" people. How much of the same techniques that are used to cure the mentally ill can also apply to treading the Path, can apply to moving towards greater lucidity and inner awakenings! >of an illness that in her case was primarily biological, >not emotional -- directly related to the chemicals in her >brain. It's all to easy to dismiss mental problems as purely psychic or psychological in nature, when they may relate to brain chemistry or malfunctions of the physical body. Certainly the problem is karmic in nature, but may not be the responsibility of the current personality, which has to pay for the sins of a previous lifetime. Thanks for sharing the personal experience. You might consider, based on your experience with Grace, offering a few comments on the main point that I'm making? (That the techniques and approaches used in curing the mentally ill can also prove useful for us in approaching the Path.) -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Fri May 10 06:27:13 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 23:27:13 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960510062713.006efa6c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Comparing Auras Jerry S: [writing to Alexis] >> I'd have loved to compare Blavatsky's, Olcott's or >> Judge's Auras with those of the "second generation >> leadership. > Me too. But from their writings, I already suspect > what we would find. It's not really possible. Perhaps when the leadership is still alive, someone could take handwriting samples (for graphology), get an ink print of their palms (for palmistry), their birthdata (for astrological charts), some fingernail clippings (for psychometry), etc. There are a lot of secondary sources for information about people. The colors in their auras is only one such source. They are like watching someone's gestures or body language, *but not like* seeing into their minds and hearts, like with true empathy. I'd take exception to the idea that only Blavatsky was connected to the Masters and their work, and later leaders in the theosophical movement were not. This trivializes the work, making it like the Christian idea that miracles happened in the time of Jesus, but cannot happen today. There was no "special time" when the work is carried on, in Blavatsky's era. Even in her time, we can read in "The Mahatma Letters" of other work going on in the world, unconnected with HPB and the T.S. While I fully recognize the wide diversity of views on theos-l, and have even seen at times a complete dismissal of the theosophical doctrines, I'll have to respond that from my standpoint, de Purucker is a bona fide Teacher in the same regard as Blavatsky was. I consider this the truth, and feel that I must come to his defense, at times, when everyone that followed HPB is casually dismissed, painted with the same brush as secondary and insignificant. In the above exchange, the humor is apparent, but there can be more than one level of meaning to a message, and in this case there appears to be some element of mocking and belittling many significant contributors to Theosophy. -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Fri May 10 06:27:15 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 23:27:15 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960510062715.006a9e6c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) Chuck: >What I am most concerned with is the human tendency to >impose things, ideas, actions, etc. on others whether they >are ready for them or not. I know. Sometimes it's hard to know how much to talk about, and how much to hold back. It's even harder with theos-l, having people with so many different backgrounds, one could say one thing and go over the heads of most people, and say something else that's so plain and obvious that everyone see's it and wonders "so what!" There are subtle differences in how we express ourselves, and sometimes we may come across as imposing ourselves, other times as asserting a view that is important to us, and yet other times making a matter-of-fact take-it-or-leave-it statement that is not imposing upon other people. (Richard Ihle is good at this third kind of writing.) >I know at times I seem like an arrogant, self assured SOB >who does not believe that he can be wrong, but I have made >enough mistakes in my life that I am hesitant about assuming >that any position I take is automatically the right one. Here it may depend upon how you determine your convictions. If they were ego-centric, saying "this is my idea and therefore it's right," then such hesitation is a good practice. If they have different degrees of conviction, based upon personal reflection and experience, then it would be find to speak in stronger language about the things you are more certain of, and more softly about the things you are still doubtful and hesitate about. (At this point, I can foresee some readers of this message latching on the terms "still doubtful and hesitate about" and step in to say: "But a degree of doubt is a good thing, and keeps one's thinking from getting stagnant." I agree with that, but am talking about something different here.) The important thing here, I think, is to be *genuine* to what you believe in and care for. That means not pretending to know it all, nor being unnecessarily cynical and doubtful about things you very well know to be true were you to look within and consult your own heart. >And the thought of my fellow theosophists acting as if they >are totally certain because they have a particular >interpretation of the writings makes me very nervous. True. It can give people an uneasy feeling that something's not quite right. But it's really the total certainty part, the rigid, dogmatic certainty that someone is right, that raises this suspicion. That certainty could be in ideas and how people describbe things, but it also could be in someone's interpretations of their personal experiences, and of their status and importance in the world. One person could assert the idea "the moon is made of green cheese!" forcefully, with total conviction, and we could disagree. Another could tell us of their "astral visit to the pole star, where they'd received instructions in the divine mysteries!" Again, we could disagree. There are, then, two problems, and not just the one that we started with. First is a form of inflexible conviction. Second is false, but sincerely-held beliefs, beliefs that are wrong regardless of how flexibly they are held. Both are cause for our concern, in both ourselves and others that we deal with. >What I argue for is patience and the willingness to examine >ideas and beliefs without becoming married to them. That is a good intellectual approach. But that also keeps the ideas at arms length, and keeps them from becoming incorporated in our lives. At some point, we need to move forward from simply being pundits, and become practioners of the spiritual. Ideas and opinions about love, for instance, can be examined at arms length, with dispassion, but it's quite different to make love a living part of our lives. As we make it so, our ideas about it may change, and even seem somewhat fixed to the people still dealing with the concept of love as an intellectual game, but that appearance is due to *their lack of living experience* and not to anything wrong that we may be doing. The same is true of any great virtue, and the great Mystery Teachings, which we're incredibly fortunate to be exposed to, given our status of being outside the temple doors. >And while I have an actual tremendous respect for the SD, >I cannot believe that it is the final word on the ways >things work. It is not the final word. But I think that despite all its limitations, it's fairly accurate and a valuable source of study. I see it as basically true, and accurate to the degree that the Mysteries have been revealed in it. I expect that further revelations of the Mysteries, were they to be made, would be consistent with in, in harmony with what it said, and would only serve to deepen one's understanding of what it talks about. (This is entirely different than I'd expect some people to reply. Some would say that not being the final word, the SD will be disproven in part or totality by later discoveries or future revelations of the Mysteries. This view, I think, is mistaken, and arises from failing to see the tremendous depths of wisdom found in that book.) >In a very real sense, I see Theosophy as a transcending the >written teachings, using them as a starting point but the >real process is something that occurs in the individual >Theosophist and is far more mysterious. I agree again. This is something that I've said in dozens of ways, using different words, over the past year. The study is the *starting point*. And the important thing is that inner awakening and the inner processes that are started by the study. >It is, in a very real sense, something that cannot be >expressed in words, merely experienced and that experience is the true goal of Theosophy. The goal is to *awaken people*. But at the same time, this does not discount the idea that there is a definite body of knowledge about life -- both outer and unseen -- the cumulative wisdom of humanity, that is carried by the Mahatmas, knowledge that we can come to study, to the degree that we are ready, open, and worthy of that study. >The study of the writings has a place. We would be >immeasureably the poorer without them, but there is >something more and I hope that we do not get so caught >up in the writings that we miss it, just as it is >important to not be so concerned about playing the >notes that one misses the music. Again, I agree. But only the most skilled musicians play without their scores. Beginners need the written music to play by. And an intellectual study is important at every step of the way, even for the Mahatmas and beyond. It's not something that we "grow through" and then leave behind. >The TS, in its various manifestations, spends almost >all its time working on the head. It should begin working >on the heart as well. It needs heart-centered work, that's true, but I'm doubtful that there is really that much use of the intellect. Books are read, but the degree of serious study, thought, and reflection that the typical member applies leaves much to be desired! -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Fri May 10 06:27:15 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 23:27:15 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960510062715.006a9e6c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) Chuck: >What I am most concerned with is the human tendency to >impose things, ideas, actions, etc. on others whether they >are ready for them or not. I know. Sometimes it's hard to know how much to talk about, and how much to hold back. It's even harder with theos-l, having people with so many different backgrounds, one could say one thing and go over the heads of most people, and say something else that's so plain and obvious that everyone see's it and wonders "so what!" There are subtle differences in how we express ourselves, and sometimes we may come across as imposing ourselves, other times as asserting a view that is important to us, and yet other times making a matter-of-fact take-it-or-leave-it statement that is not imposing upon other people. (Richard Ihle is good at this third kind of writing.) >I know at times I seem like an arrogant, self assured SOB >who does not believe that he can be wrong, but I have made >enough mistakes in my life that I am hesitant about assuming >that any position I take is automatically the right one. Here it may depend upon how you determine your convictions. If they were ego-centric, saying "this is my idea and therefore it's right," then such hesitation is a good practice. If they have different degrees of conviction, based upon personal reflection and experience, then it would be find to speak in stronger language about the things you are more certain of, and more softly about the things you are still doubtful and hesitate about. (At this point, I can foresee some readers of this message latching on the terms "still doubtful and hesitate about" and step in to say: "But a degree of doubt is a good thing, and keeps one's thinking from getting stagnant." I agree with that, but am talking about something different here.) The important thing here, I think, is to be *genuine* to what you believe in and care for. That means not pretending to know it all, nor being unnecessarily cynical and doubtful about things you very well know to be true were you to look within and consult your own heart. >And the thought of my fellow theosophists acting as if they >are totally certain because they have a particular >interpretation of the writings makes me very nervous. True. It can give people an uneasy feeling that something's not quite right. But it's really the total certainty part, the rigid, dogmatic certainty that someone is right, that raises this suspicion. That certainty could be in ideas and how people describbe things, but it also could be in someone's interpretations of their personal experiences, and of their status and importance in the world. One person could assert the idea "the moon is made of green cheese!" forcefully, with total conviction, and we could disagree. Another could tell us of their "astral visit to the pole star, where they'd received instructions in the divine mysteries!" Again, we could disagree. There are, then, two problems, and not just the one that we started with. First is a form of inflexible conviction. Second is false, but sincerely-held beliefs, beliefs that are wrong regardless of how flexibly they are held. Both are cause for our concern, in both ourselves and others that we deal with. >What I argue for is patience and the willingness to examine >ideas and beliefs without becoming married to them. That is a good intellectual approach. But that also keeps the ideas at arms length, and keeps them from becoming incorporated in our lives. At some point, we need to move forward from simply being pundits, and become practioners of the spiritual. Ideas and opinions about love, for instance, can be examined at arms length, with dispassion, but it's quite different to make love a living part of our lives. As we make it so, our ideas about it may change, and even seem somewhat fixed to the people still dealing with the concept of love as an intellectual game, but that appearance is due to *their lack of living experience* and not to anything wrong that we may be doing. The same is true of any great virtue, and the great Mystery Teachings, which we're incredibly fortunate to be exposed to, given our status of being outside the temple doors. >And while I have an actual tremendous respect for the SD, >I cannot believe that it is the final word on the ways >things work. It is not the final word. But I think that despite all its limitations, it's fairly accurate and a valuable source of study. I see it as basically true, and accurate to the degree that the Mysteries have been revealed in it. I expect that further revelations of the Mysteries, were they to be made, would be consistent with in, in harmony with what it said, and would only serve to deepen one's understanding of what it talks about. (This is entirely different than I'd expect some people to reply. Some would say that not being the final word, the SD will be disproven in part or totality by later discoveries or future revelations of the Mysteries. This view, I think, is mistaken, and arises from failing to see the tremendous depths of wisdom found in that book.) >In a very real sense, I see Theosophy as a transcending the >written teachings, using them as a starting point but the >real process is something that occurs in the individual >Theosophist and is far more mysterious. I agree again. This is something that I've said in dozens of ways, using different words, over the past year. The study is the *starting point*. And the important thing is that inner awakening and the inner processes that are started by the study. >It is, in a very real sense, something that cannot be >expressed in words, merely experienced and that experience is the true goal of Theosophy. The goal is to *awaken people*. But at the same time, this does not discount the idea that there is a definite body of knowledge about life -- both outer and unseen -- the cumulative wisdom of humanity, that is carried by the Mahatmas, knowledge that we can come to study, to the degree that we are ready, open, and worthy of that study. >The study of the writings has a place. We would be >immeasureably the poorer without them, but there is >something more and I hope that we do not get so caught >up in the writings that we miss it, just as it is >important to not be so concerned about playing the >notes that one misses the music. Again, I agree. But only the most skilled musicians play without their scores. Beginners need the written music to play by. And an intellectual study is important at every step of the way, even for the Mahatmas and beyond. It's not something that we "grow through" and then leave behind. >The TS, in its various manifestations, spends almost >all its time working on the head. It should begin working >on the heart as well. It needs heart-centered work, that's true, but I'm doubtful that there is really that much use of the intellect. Books are read, but the degree of serious study, thought, and reflection that the typical member applies leaves much to be desired! -- Eldon From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu May 9 23:04:50 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 19:04:50 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605100009.UAA25321@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Adyar leadership Doss, Thank you for that history of the leaders at Adyar. It made intersting reading, even though I don't recall anyone saying anything negative about Sri Ram & his family, with the exception of Radha, & I think the final judgement on her is still out. You say > The International and National leaders can do only so much. The activities >and increase in membership of TS has to come about from the Lodge level, which >means *you* and *me*. So we may have to look at our own local activities I think You're right up to a point. It does depend on the units because that's where the contact is with new people, unless they join as M.A.L.'s, & then the contact is with national, so it's national's responsiblity ... except that now the higher ups can dictate what the units must study; except that when a unit doesn't toe the "party line" it gets excommunicated; except that, in the case of the enthusiastic, & knowledge hungry Russians, membership is being greatly discouraged & hampered; except that Adyar is against becoming part of the Internet; except that we can't get Adyar's permission to replace the now offensive-to-many word "Brotherhood" with something more acceptable to prospective new members. If these stones are put into the way of the units, & manage to create a prohibitive atmosphere instead of a relaxed & dynamic one, the units can hardly be expected to do very well with new members. And from what people write on this list, if someone really joins, they drop out again very quickly. Now since this is happening all over, you can't tell me that the units are to blame. Liesel From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu May 9 15:30:12 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 11:30:12 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960509113006_110014495@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: "Theosophy is who Theosophy does." Jerry, Why does that not surprise me? Chuck the Atrocious Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu May 9 15:31:06 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 11:31:06 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960509113105_110015089@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: There is no real "Gang" Alan, If you knew my family you would infinitely prefer being part of a gang. So now what do we argue about? Chuck the Atrocious Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu May 9 15:30:55 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 11:30:55 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960509113055_110014966@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Jerry, Besides, every once in a while it's nice to have someone remind us that we really are crazy. :-) Chuck the Atrocious Heretic Troublemaker From eldon@theosophy.com Fri May 10 07:43:06 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 00:43:06 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960510074306.006a6430@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: You Warned Me Richard Ihle: As you suggested might happen, many of the pro-psychic crowd were infuriated at my postings. Perhaps it is related to this statement of Alexis that was written to Bee today: >One of the primary features of that "next step >forward" is psychic sensitivity. Well, in that case, you've hit the nail >squarely on the head! One of the missions of the theosophical movement was >to prepare 19th and early 20th century humanity for this "great leap >forward", and to ready people, especially young people, for the new >awareness of the greater reality outside of human reality that they would >experience. Since they define adepts as someone with "inner powers", and those powers equated as the sort of psychical abilities that they have or are seeking, I suppose they want the rest of us seeking higher powers of mind and lucidity to abandon our foolish ways and follow in their footsteps? Although I read, on almost a daily basis, comments such as these, there seems to be a harsh reaction to any suggestion that all this might not be real. JRC is quick to tell me my motives -- whether I agree or not -- and indicate his willingness to engage in a fight. There's a lot that cannot be discussed on theos-l, and it is precisely this sort of reaction that makes most people lurk. Apparently the views that I'm writing about, like subjective states and spheres of effects, etc. is new to him. It comes from my study and thought based upon the source writings, and I should be able to discuss them without facing this! While I may be in the minority in writing about the subject the way that I do, I suspect that it's because many avoid this list, or are gun shy, and choose to lurk. I have seen on-going discussion of psychic powers being the next great step in evolution and the sign of adeptship. I read this, and wonder, when is someone going to say something and set the record straight? It's quite unbalanced. But see what happens. If something is said either in support of spiritual or intellectual awakening, or of other faculties of consciousness being the next step forward, they'll quickly get in hot water! In countering these ideas, instead of hearing the positive aspects of the psychical, I've found various counterattacks being made, directed at other subjects. JRC, for instance, has been trying out a number of approaches. One was something like the books were out-of-date and one needed a living channel to guide one. A second was that he was a better Theosophist than the students of the literature because he accepted the earlier primary objective of Universal Brotherhood. A third now is that he is the valiant defender of free speech on theos-l, willing to do battle with Eldon's devilish provocations! There's not much that can be said in response to that! Perhaps it won't be possible for all the different variants and offshoots of Theosophy to exist under a single tent? -- Eldon From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri May 10 00:42:59 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 20:42:59 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605100147.VAA20537@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Eldon, Re: quote Dear Eldon, Sorry I can't help you. Not only don't I remember where I got it from, I don't even remember having said it. But thanks, for the great memory. Liesel >A: How can you know it is true if you aren't me and haven't experienced it? >B: How can you know I'm not right if you're not me? > >The quote said it much better, and I was unable to locate it in the archives. >Perhaps if you remember where you got it, you might repost it? From ramadoss@eden.com Fri May 10 01:47:55 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 20:47:55 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Schizophrenia (reply to Donna) In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960510062709.006e90a8@mail.deltanet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 9 May 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > Donna: > > >Schizophrenia is a very interesting disease, but very frightening, > >as well. I doubt that its symptoms are identical in any one case. > >My "mother in law" was schizophrenic and maintaining her illness > >was part of the daily routine that existed when she lived with us > >for the last 9 years prior to her death by metastatic lung cancer. > > Sorry to hear about Gloria. But it says something good about you > and your sense of compassion that you put her up and make a > stable, loving home for her during the last nine years of her life. >>>>> clip .....> Donna: I too join in the sentiments expressed by Eldon. In this moderndays when everyone generally thinks and acts only that is good for them personally, I admire anyone who has a heart and are willing to sacrifice for their immediate family. ..doss From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Fri May 10 04:10:29 1996 Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 21:10:29 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <3192C1B5.34ED@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: MM (FWD) Chickens and Millennium Matters References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Dear Spirit Folks, > > In the event you thought there were no humor possibilities nor > educational benefits for spiritual well being at work in reworking the > eternal "Why did the chicken cross the road?" query, check this item which > polymath Richard S. Russell" (RSRMadison@AOL.COM) discovered and shared on > the Secular Humanist Discussion Group. He is not the author, however. I > think it was pulled from the internet. > > WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD? A Survey of the Philosophical History > > Plato -- For the greater good. > > Karl Marx -- It was a historical inevitability. > > Machiavelli -- So that its subjects will view it with admiration, as a > chicken which has the daring and courage to boldly cross the road, but also > with fear, for who among them has the strength to contend with such a paragon > of avian virtue? In such a manner is the princely chicken's dominion > maintained. > > Hippocrates -- Because of an excess of light pink gooey stuff in its > pancreas. > > Jacques Derrida -- Any number of contending discourses may be discovered > within the act of the chicken crossing the road, and each interpretation is > equally valid, as the authorial intent can never be discerned, because > structuralism is dead. > > Noam Chomsky -- The chicken didn't exactly cross the road. As of 1994, > something like 99.8% of all US chickens reaching maturity that year had spent > 82% of their lives in confinement. The living conditions in most chicken > coops break every international law ever written, and some, particularly the > ones for chickens bound for slaughter, border on inhumane. My point is, they > had no chance to cross the road (unless you count the ride to the > supermarket). Even if one or two have crossed roads for whatever reason, most > never get a chance. Of course, this is not what we are told. Instead, we see > chickens happily dancing around on Sesame Street and Foster Farms commercials > where chickens are not only crossing roads, but driving trucks. > (Incidentally, Foster Farms is owned by the same people who own the Foster > Freeze chain, a subsidiary of the dairy industry.) Anyway, ... [Chomsky > continues for 32 pages. For the full text of his answer, contact Onanian > Press.] > > Thomas de Torquemada -- Give me 10 minutes with the chicken and I'll find > out. > > Timothy Leary -- Because that's the only kind of trip the Establishment would > let it take. > > Douglas Adams -- 42. > > Nietzsche -- Because if you gaze too long across the road, the road gazes > also across you. > > Oliver North -- National Security was at stake. > > B. F. Skinner -- Because the external influences which had pervaded its > sensorium from birth had caused it to develop in such a fashion that it would > tend to cross roads, even while believing these actions to be of its own free > will. > > Richard Nixon -- Edgar will find out! Or, uh, we could put, uh, Liddy on it. > Liddy. I worry about Liddy sometimes. Remember when we assigned him to figure > out which 1 of those [expletive deleted] passenger pigeons had been leaking > campaign secrets? > > Carl Jung -- The confluence of events in the cultural gestalt necessitated > that individual chickens cross roads at this historical juncture, and > therefore synchronicitously brought such occurrences into being. > > Jean-Paul Sartre -- In order to act in good faith and be true to itself, the > chicken found it necessary to cross the road. > > Ludwig Wittgenstein -- The possibility of crossing was encoded into the > objects chicken and road, and circumstances came into being which caused the > actualization of this potential occurrence. > > Albert Einstein -- Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road crossed > the chicken depends upon your frame of reference. > > Aristotle -- To actualize its potential. > > Buddha -- If you ask this question, you deny your own chicken-nature. > > Howard Cosell -- It may very well have been one of the most astonishing > events to grace the annals of history. An historic, unprecedented avian biped > with the temerity to attempt such an herculean achievement formerly relegated > to Homo sapiens pedestrians is truly a remarkable occurence. > > Salvador Dali -- The Fish. > > Darwin -- It was the logical next step after coming down from the trees. > > Emily Dickinson -- Because it could not stop for death. > > Epicurus -- For fun. > > Ralph Waldo Emerson -- It didn't cross the road; it transcended it. > > Johann Friedrich von Goethe -- The eternal hen-principle made it do it. > > Ernest Hemingway -- To die. In the rain. > > Werner Heisenberg -- We are not sure which side of the road the chicken was > on, but it was moving very fast. > > David Hume -- Out of custom and habit. > > Saddam Hussein -- This was an unprovoked act of rebellion and we were quite > justified in dropping 50 tons of nerve gas on it. > > Jack Nicholson -- 'Cause it (censored) wanted to. That's the (censored) > reason. > > Pyrrho the Skeptic -- What road? > > Ronald Reagan -- I forget. > > John Sununu -- The Air Force was only too happy to provide the > transportation, so quite understandably the chicken availed himself of the > opportunity. > > The Sphinx -- You tell me. > > Adolf Hitler -- If it was a white, Aryan chicken, it was because it was its > destiny to seek lebensraum in the historical vaterland. If it was 1 of those > Rhode Island Communists, it was a cowardly act of betrayal of der volk, for > which it will be made to pay. > > Henry David Thoreau -- To live deliberately ... and suck all the marrow out > of life. > > Mark Twain -- The news of its crossing has been greatly exaggerated. > > Catherine Mackinnon -- Because, in this patriarchial state, for the last 4 > centuries, men have applied their principles of justice in determining how > chickens should be cared for, their language has demeaned the identity of the > chicken, their technonogy and trucks have decided how and where chickens will > be distributed, their science has become the basis for what chickens eat, > their sense of humor has provided the framework for this joke, their art and > film have given us our perception of chicken life, their lust for flesh has > has made the chicken the most consumed animal in the US, and their legal > system has left the chicken with no other recourse. > > Ludwig van Beethoven -- Eh? > > Stephen Jay Gould -- It is possible that there is a sociobiological > explanation for it, but we have been deluged in recent years with > sociobiological stories despite the fact that we have little direct evidence > about the genetics of behavior, and we do not know how to obtain it for the > specific behaviors that figure most prominently in sociobiological > speculation. > > Josef Stalin -- I don't care. Catch it. I need its eggs to make my omelet. > > Malcolm X -- It was coming home to roost. > > Don Glass -- To show the possum it could be done. > > Don King -- Fosure not because Mike had no sexual assault on his mind. Our > bro done learned his lesson from the last time. Besides, Allah don't hold > with no chicken-[bleep]in'. > > Bill Clinton -- It is one of the challenging problems of our time, isn't it? > And, altho we have known of this problem for many years, nobody has ever > taken it seriously enuf to really feel the chicken's pain. Clearly we need to > move forward on this issue in a measured, humane way, bearing in mind that > the federal government can't be all things to all creatures, but that, in the > final analysis, it is the Constitution of this great land of ours which > guarantees freedom of action, within prudent limits, for all of us. God bless > you, and thanks for asking. > > Bob Dole -- How should I know? Get that microphone out of my face! > > Jerry Garcia -- And what a long, strange trip it's been, man! > > ----------- (add your own and pass along) > > Donald B. Ardell -- Because wellness is too important to be presented or > lived grimly, as chickens had a tendency to do on the side it was already > on. > > Bill Hettler -- Why to attend the National Wellness Conference in > Stevens Point in July, of course. > > Spirit at Work Subscribers -- To learn how to redirect hurricanes and, if > not satisfied with extant realities, create some new ones. > > Millennium Matters Subscribers--Because the new "I AM AMERICA" map > coincided with Gordon Michael Scallions map and numerous other predictions. > It was concluded that "the other side of the road" was a safe place. > > Susan Renuka Dubin--for the greater experience, and besides, the Chi Chi > Rodriquez Chichilean Race Reunion was being held there. > > _________________________________ > > .....add yours and pass it on! > Peace, > Renuka -- Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From ramadoss@eden.com Fri May 10 19:24:16 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 12:24:16 -0700 From: MKR Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Subject: Re: TS/Arundale/Sri Ram/Radha Burnier X-Beyondmail-Priority: 1 Message-Id: Conversation-Id: Hi In various postings on theos-xxxx over last several months, it has been mentioned that Sri Ram's family has "controlled" TS and all the problems laid at their door. It is far from truth based on what I am aware of. For those who may not know the full family connections, I am providing a brief description. 1. The first member of the family who got into TS is Francesca Arundale. She is the one who brought up her nephew, George Arundale since he was an infant. She was of independent financial means and everyone who had known of George, know that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. 2. George Arundale, as a young man out of college, came to India to work for TS and also work in other activities in which Annie Besant was involved. So when he came to India, he was financially very self sufficient and so no TS funds were spent on him to support him. He came to India because he believed in the cause of Theosophy. 3. George Arundale married Rukmini Arundale. Rukmini is the daughter of Nilakanta Sastry who was a Brahmin and was a member of TS. While Rukmini's father was supportive, the marriage took place under great opposition from the orthodox Brahmins of South India. (Brahmins have always spearheaded every social and political change that took place for the better in India). 4. George and Rukmini did not have any children. 5. N. Sri Ram is the brother of Rukmini. After he graduated from college, he went to work for Annie Besant as her private secretary. She must have found him to be a very able and capable person. His command of English language was appreciated even by C. Jinarajadasa. When CJ was President of TS, he routinely consulted with Sri Ram before he put out any important written documents. It was a labor of sacrifice that Sri Ram took and was not looking for a job which paid lucrative salary. 6. George Arundale was elected as President of TS after Annie Besant passed away. 7. C. Jinarajadasa, succeeded George Arundale as President of TS. 8. When CJ did not seek reelection as President, N. Sri Ram ran and elected as President. 9. After Sri Ram passed away, John Coats was elected as President. 10. Radha Burnier is the daughter of Sri Ram. She does not have any children. 11. After John Coats passed away, both Radha Burnier and Rukmini Arundale ran for the office of President and Radha Burnier was elected as the President. 12. I lived in India for nearly four decades (only 200 miles from Adyar) and have met numerous members of TS in various cities. I even lived in Madras City (Adyar is a suburb of Madras City) for four years. During all this time, I have never heard even a *single* complaint about any of the above mentioned leaders even though some of their administrative decisions may have been unpopular with some members. If there had been anything going on which was out of line or questionable, it would have come to light. Also many of the members who live at Adyar and see what is going on at Adyar day in and day out, are all financially independent members and many of them have held some of the highest offices in private and public sector and pay rent for their accommodation and not receive any *stipend* for their work at TS Headquarters. They would not put up or support anyone or any activity which is questionable. 13. Many times the Presidents of TS are blamed for actions coming out of the President's office. There is a General Council, which in most cases goes along with the President. But they do not always rubber stamp everything the President presents. I know of a case when Annie Besant was the undisputed leader of TS, the General Council voted down one of her proposals. As none of the National Presidents (Secretaries) share any of the going ons in the General Council with their national membership, wrong conclusions are drawn by members due to lack of information. 14. The Sri Ram family has done invaluable services to TS and other related causes. 15. Rukmini single handed brought back the Indian Dance to its modern recognition and popularity. Today the school she started, Kalashetra is the premier National Institution devoted to Dance, Music and Arts and some years ago it was designated as a National University. 16. Rukmini was very active in prevention of cruelty to Animals (Brotherhood applied to all living beings.) Everyone in India knows about her contribution to this cause. She was appointed to the Upper Chamber of the Indian Congress and server as a legislator for a couple of terms. Later when she was even offered to be appointed as the President of India, she declined. 17. Sri Ram worked for the TS for decades and decades and is one of the lowest keyed persons I have seen. I did not even knew much about him until after he was elected as the President of TS. So I think we all should not ignore his sacrifices and contributions. 18. Radha Burnier, who is a protege and one of the first Dance students of Rukmini, again worked full time for decades as the National Secretary (President) of Indian Section and has extensive experience in dealing with the lodges and their problems in India. Again she is of independent means and does not depend on TS for her living. So I think we all should not ignore her sacrifices and contributions. 19. After J Krishnamurti started speaking of his ideas of Truth and solving human problems, the decline in the membership of TS started and TS has never recovered from it. To place the blame on Sri Ram family or anyone else for the lack of increase in membership of TS is not fair. 20. Even assuming that leadership at Adyar not taking correct steps, let us see what has happened at National Level. For example with all the well known leaders at the helm at Wheaton, the membership of TSA has not gone up in spite of their best efforts. So leadership may not be the only reason for all the ills. 21. After J Krishnamurti started speaking about his ideas of truth and solving human problems, there has *never* been *any* leader of his stature and charisma. So may be it is that his message is more needed for the present day. 22. The International and National leaders can do only so much. The activities and increase in membership of TS has to come about from the Lodge level, which means *you* and *me*. So we may have to look at our own local activities and see what we can do to popularize Theosophy. It does not need any anointment from any leaders at National and International level. In conclusion, I think it is not fair to place any blame on Sri Ram family for any of the problems of TS. On the other hand, they have provided invaluable service to TS and Theosophy and we should be grateful. ...Doss From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Fri May 10 04:24:25 1996 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 22:24:25 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: You Warned Me In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960510074306.006a6430@mail.deltanet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >Richard Ihle: Richard - guess what! You've been elected to be used as the one through which Eldon takes his shots at me this time! A curious rhetorical device no doubt, but since I `spect you'll get quite a chuckle about it, I'll play the game. >As you suggested might happen, many of the pro-psychic crowd >were infuriated at my postings. Perhaps it is related to this >statement of Alexis that was written to Bee today: You were quite correct, Richard, in telling the principle spokesman for the "anti-psychic" crowd that if he wanted to throw rocks at people, wanted to restate the same tired argument that has always lead to nastiness, that people would probably respond to him as they usually responded (I myself positively delight in giving the predictable, expected response the predictable position of others!) The curious thing is that he responded according to the pattern I described ... "Look daddy - look how mean they're being to poor virtuous me, when I did nothing but try to start a learned examination of these issues!" >>One of the primary features of that "next step >>forward" is psychic sensitivity. Well, in that case, you've hit >>the nail squarely on the head! One of the missions of the >>theosophical movement was to prepare 19th and early 20th >>century humanity for this "great leap forward", and to ready >>people, especially young people, for the new awareness of the >>greater reality outside of human reality that they would >>experience. >Since they define adepts as someone with "inner powers", and >those powers equated as the sort of psychical abilities that >they have or are seeking, I suppose they want the rest of us >seeking higher powers of mind and lucidity to abandon our >foolish ways and follow in their footsteps? Several of us certainly had the unmitigated gall to point out that not only the Adepts, but their various chelas each, to the person, both developed and used a variety of inner abilities, "psychic" and otherwise - an uncomfortable fact for those that have wanted to re-write "traditional" Theosophy to completely exclude all such activity, and even the entire Third Object. But no one ever *defined* an "Adept" simply as one who possessed such things. And look carefully at Eldon's projection here ... for it is indeed a big point (especially since he ends his post by saying that apparently because of our reactions Theosophy *can't* become am "umbrella big enough for different points of view"): He says *we* want everyone else to "abandon" their search for "higher powers of mind" and "follow" in our footsteps. However, can you think of a single instance when any of "us" (he certainly likes to categorize people) ever tried to tell anyone else to *not* seek to develop "higher powers of mind"? A single instance where any of us *promoted* the development "psychic" abilities? A single time when we asked someone to "follow" our "paths"? No - in fact I don't think any of us believe anyone ought to *if they don't have the prompting coming from within*. Alexis has never once *promulgated* Shamanism, never once said anyone *else* should follow the path he's chosen (though he has pointed out that HPB used similar powers). I have never *once* said anyone ought to try to develop any "psychic abilities" (though I did point out that the Adepts and their Chelas all *did*). Eldon, however, *has* seen fit to continually warn about such things, continually has framed them as an either/or situation - to follow the "real" path, one must resist and supress any "psychic" abilities, even if they begin rising quite naturally (as the Adepts said they would). It is, in fact, Eldon that has virtually *preached* that we should "abandon" our "foolish" development of "psychic" abilities, and *follow in his footsteps* (`course, he doesn't see it as little more than his personal reading of the "path" - he claims it to be "the" path ... of which he is just a humble exponent). >Although I read, on almost a daily basis, comments such as >these, there seems to be a harsh reaction to any suggestion that >all this might not be real. JRC is quick to tell me my motives - >- whether I agree or not -- and indicate his willingness to >engage in a fight. There's a lot that cannot be discussed on >theos-l, and it is precisely this sort of reaction that makes >most people lurk. Actually, the "motive" charge is a good one. There may be no one on the list who tells others their "motives" more often than Eldon. In fact his usual response to arguments is not to respond directly to what anyone says, but to restate (usually with substantial distortion) what was said, speculate as to the motives of the writer, and then answer the restatement and the motives. I've actually never got the feeling that he's *heard* a single thing I've said. And the "reaction" is to an *action*. I'll certainly engage in a fight *when someone delibrately starts it* - and Eldon seems unable to resist starting it. Curious that he now believes that "most people" agree with him ... in fact, "most" lists on the Internet have about a tenth of the members that are active, and nine tenths that are silent - this list actually has a slightly *larger* number than most that actively participate (this one- tenth/nine-tenths ration is remarkably consistant ... across the scientific, mathematical, environmental and philosophical lists I'm on). There are probably various reasons for that ratio - but one of the most curious phenomena that also seems to cross the list landscape is people *using* the large quantity of "lurkers" as an arguing point - the thing about lurkers is that they *lurk* - anyone can claim that they are lurking for any reason, and the vast majority will neither confirm or deny it. I, myself, don't happen to believe that most on this list are lurking because a few people will not behave as Eldon wishes them to, but simply because this is an Internet list, and the majority of its members will simply lurk regardless of what the discussion is. This paragraph of Eldon's contains the classic avoidance - in which he is guiltless, and I'm the nasty one. However, his choice of examples rather argues against this, no? For example, say I very innocently said something like ... "let's examine the dangers of the development of the higher functions of the mind, and the delusions and self-righteousness that such things are prone to lead to ... let's look at this article about the Unabomber, in light of the Theosophical teachings about the terrible illusions the development of the "slayer of the real" can lead to". Would starting a discussion with such an assertion be likely to lead to a "neutral" discussion? Do you think Eldon would interpret it as anything other than a cheap shot at his perspective? >Apparently the views that I'm writing about, like subjective >states and spheres of effects, etc. is new to him. It comes from >my study and thought based upon the source writings, and I >should be able to discuss them without facing this! Gimme a break. I've read all the books Eldon has. And in addition, have read a good deal of neurophysiology and neurochemistry - in scientific journals, not newspapers. I've studied the "astral light" not just by reading the writings of others and, yes, *thinking* about them, but by years of experiments, and long and substantial discourse with a good number of people. And, having been born with a few such things and taken time and considerable effort and discipline to develop them into *tools of service*, should be able to be on a *Theosophical list* without having to face *continual* cheap shots, condescending comments, and now the lovely assertion that a severe mental illness is related to clairvoyant vision. If Eldon does not want to *face* it, he shouldn't *start* it. >While I may be in the minority in writing about the subject the >way that I do, I suspect that it's because many avoid this >list, or are gun shy, and choose to lurk. Look at the attempt to become the poor minority voice holding up the single light in the wilderness. Eldon's view is hardly minority, and is in fact if anything the *dominant* perspective in current Theosophy. In fact there are some places where its virtually institutionally *imposed*. This list is one of those places where it has been unable to dominate. And again that cheap political trick - he is in the minority because people avoid the list, or "lurk" ... fact we have absolutely no way of knowing *what* position the lurkers hold, or even *if* they hold a position on this particular subject. >I have seen on-going discussion of psychic powers being the next >great step in evolution and the sign of adeptship. I read this, >and wonder, when is someone going to say something and set the >record straight? Look at marvelous attitude here! Anyone holding any position other than Eldon's is implied to be flawed, as he needs to "set the record straight". And again the avoidance. The vast majority of those "on-going discussions" are not really discussions, but comments in one or two posts - and almost all of them (*including* the quote by Alexis Eldon used at the beginning of his post) were not assertions made out of the blue, but were in *response* to threads *started by Eldon* - usually in which he claimed such things were "lower", dangerous, delusional, and a *past* step in human evolution (and in this current instance, actually related to schizophrenia). >It's quite unbalanced. But see what happens. If something is >said either in support of spiritual or intellectual awakening, >or of other faculties of consciousness being the next step >forward, they'll quickly get in hot water! Anytime *one person* claims that *their view* of the "next step forward", their *personal reading* of Theosophical texts, is the "one true" reading, anytime they *begin discussions* with the contention that the "path" they follow is *higher* than the paths of others, they certainly *will* get in hot water. No one on this list has *ever* said a word against "spiritual awakening" - but Eldon seems to have a hard time understanding that his personal opinion about what that word means is not accepted as the "true" meaning by everyone else. >In countering these ideas, instead of hearing the positive >aspects of the psychical, I've found various counterattacks >being made, directed at other subjects. I've never personally argued for the "positive aspects" because, quite at variance with Eldon, I'm *not* trying to get people to experiment with anything, not calling their development a "path" - not trying to say *one* way is "the" way. I don't speak with *collective* pronouns ... never say *WE* should do anything. There *are* places where I talk about clairvoyance, and about its relation to modern medicene and psychology ... with others who are developing such things, as well as doctors and psychologists who are recognizing the *usefulness* of such things - but I do not enter into discussions when from the beginning I'm going to have to overcome completely ridiculous attitudes. And again, this assertion that Eldon is *countering* these ideas. The *fact* is that almost everything Eldon is *countering* is actually a *response* to an original assertion on *his* part. And so far as "other subjects" are concerned, most of the time Eldon starts it he starts by responding to a post (or in this case a newspaper article) that has *nothing* to do with the subject of "psychic abilities". >JRC, for instance, has been trying out a number of approaches. So then, I am here being charged with experimenting with a bunch of different arguments to avoid responding to Eldon's uncompromising "truths". `Course I might say that I've seen nothing on the subject from Eldon other than the trying out of a number of different approaches to trash the "psychic" and make sure everyone knows his path is the "real" one. This latest "approach" being a delightful one ... Psychic vision is related to mental illness. >One was something like the books were out-of-date and one needed >a living channel to guide one. Some of the books *are* out of date ... and in many more areas than the "psychic" - see, for instance, the example from the "Quantum" post, re: HPB's assertion that comets' tails blowing away from the sun refuted the universiality of the law of gravity. And I *NEVER* said anyone needed a living channel as a guide. That is a *bad* distortion of a post in which I was simply playing with the thought that the hierarchal power of churches was in the midst of decentralizing. This is just a downright nasty assertion. >A second was that he was a better Theosophist than the students >of the literature because he accepted the earlier primary >objective of Universal Brotherhood. Once again Eldon not only re-states and distorts what I said, but forgets the context that prompted my statements. After, in one of *his posts* hearing myself portrayed, yet again, as one who completely rejects the literature, completely rejects "traditional" Theosophy, having, once again, the foundations of my Theosophy *questioned*, and alledged to be lacking, ... yes, again, *IN RESPONSE* ... I felt it finally time to make a strong case for *my foundations* - which *I* contend to be every bit as *valid*, containing every bit as much of a claim to be called *TRADITIONAL* Theosophy as the perspective that people have been calling by that name. I never said I was a *better* Theosophist, I *did*, however, hold that the founders *DID say that the principle of "Universal Brotherhood" held a *priviledged position*, was not just "another doctrine", but was both an idea they held *superior* to others, and that regardless of what *else* people did, be it reading and study, meditation, or following some "occult" system of training, it was to be *in addtion to*, not *instead of* the work of Universal Brotherhood. Perhaps the fact that I contend it is to be the *central idea*, and it is *not* considered to be so in much of what is *now* called "traditional" Theosophy, Eldon takes this to mean that I've said I'm a "better" Theosophist. In fact, all I did, *IN RESPONSE TO HIS CATEGORIZATION OF MY PERSPECTIVE*, articulate my own, and back it up with "source" literature. And yet this first actual articulation of my foundations is dismissed by Eldon as nothing but an "approach" I'm "trying" in an effort to avoid his arguments ... as though I adopted it just to argue with him, and would throw it out if it didn't work. >A third now is that he is the valiant defender of free speech on >theos-l, willing to do battle with Eldon's devilish >provocations! Yes! How else can one respond to Eldon's "approach" that he is some poor, innocent, beat upon saint, willing to descend into "hell" to bring light to those still caight in their "illusions", and willing to suffer nobly completely undeserved attacks. >There's not much that can be said in response to that! Perhaps >it won't be possible for all the different variants and >offshoots of Theosophy to exist under a single tent? Er, what? Simply because Eldon can't take shots at others without getting shots back suddenly all the varients of Theosophy can't exist under the same tent? If Eldon 1) Stopped taking cheap shots at the "psychic"; 2) Articulated his own path as his own path, and not "the" path ... one "higher" than that of others; and 3) *Genuinely* behaved as though his notion of the "big tent" was something he wanted, then I `spect rather a lot of divisiveness would disappear. Again, if he wants it to stop, he should cease to *start* it. Regards, -JRC From ramadoss@eden.com Fri May 10 05:34:36 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 00:34:36 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: You Warned Me In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 10 May 1996, JRC wrote: >>>> clip >>>>>> > I *did*, however, hold that the founders *DID say that the > principle of "Universal Brotherhood" held a *priviledged > position*, was not just "another doctrine", but was both an idea > they held *superior* to others, and that regardless of what > *else* people did, be it reading and study, meditation, or > following some "occult" system of training, it was to be *in > addtion to*, not *instead of* the work of Universal Brotherhood. While I do not want to get into the various issues discussed here, I should unequivocally agree with the above statement. There are two primary reasons. Most leaders in Theosophy, past and present, is in agreement that the Great Master's Letter is the Charter for the TS. Did He not say that in very clear terms what They want it to be. Did They not say that Their knowledge, past, present and future is not enought to compensate for the person who works for the ideal of Universal Brotherhood. They do mean what They say. Second, if anything we do, following any path, meditating, developing any psychic powers is not in direct furthering of this ideal, to all the achievements are just another selfish endeavour however subtle the selfishness may be. For years and years, I have attended numerous lectures starting with Life After Death - a favorite topic, man and his bodies, plane of nature etc etc and it took a long time to make a connection between all of these and how I can help my fellow living beings. It gave me greatest joy which I am able to use every opportunity that presents to me to help any one - man or the beast. It may be time to re-focus the priorities of Theosophy. If this is done and is put into practice and we touch on all of the people and other entities we come into contact, we will be, IMHO, spreading Theosophy. Again, IMHO, if this is done, in due course of time all the present problems that the Lodges face may disappear. In this connection, I would like to refer to a complaint by APS that he did not see much progress in the London Lodge. The reply to this in the ML is the comment that when the members pursue selfish ends, that act by itself begets results it deserves. Action and reaction in practice. I think that the importance of Universal Brotherhood is a very good topic on which we can all comment on and I hope as a result we can better understand the issues and come up with ideas we can implement which have a very direct bearing or basis on Universal Brotherhood. ...doss From Richtay@aol.com Fri May 10 07:10:58 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 03:10:58 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960510031058_488115035@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: You Warned Me JRC responds to Eldon through Richard Ihle, > The curious thing is that he responded > according to the pattern I described ... "Look daddy - look how > mean they're being to poor virtuous me, when I did nothing but > try to start a learned examination of these issues!"> And look carefully at Eldon's projection here ... > (he certainly likes to categorize people)> Look at the attempt to become the poor minority voice > holding up the single light in the wilderness. > And again that cheap political trick > Look at marvelous attitude here! Oh boy. I want to chime in with something Dan Caldwell and Kim and Doss and others have been saying for weeks now -- haven't we all been treated to enough personal attacks now? (That goes for BOTH sides of this repetitive debate.) Why is it so hard to stick to the SUBJECT and leave off discussing PEOPLE and their RHETORICAL TACTICS? I deleted EVERY post on psychism this round, only to fall into it once again with the new heading "You Warned Me." Actually, that heading DIDN'T warn me that it was beginning another tiresome round of ad hominem comments. Frankly I am tired of deleting fully one half to two thirds of the posts at Theos-L on sight after paying for downloading them. Alexis and I finally called it quits. Thank God. How about the rest? From alexei@slip.net Fri May 10 07:24:57 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 00:24:57 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960510072457.00697cb4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Mahatma Letters: Questions to Alexis At 02:26 PM 5/9/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis, you write: > >>But the Mahatma Letters themselves are terribly mutually contradictory. I >>think the "Mahatmas" wrote some few of them and only the Gods know who wrote >>the rest. Well, for instance, there's the letter you posted on the list regarding religion (letter 10, first three editions) That I think was written by an adept because it contains what conforms to what I think of as an adeptic point-of-view, and yet there have been other recent quotations wherein the "Masters" would appear to approve of religion and seem to desire the T.S. to become a religion (no I can't remember the citations) but they were posted by several people. These then are clearly contradictions. In the past week or two I have read, on this list, a large number of citations and quotations from the "Masters" which directly contradict one another, and some which, it seems to me, contradict both common sense and common decency. I have complete editions of everything the "Masters" are supposed to have written but I will NOT "look them up" for you because the preceding paragraph gives my developed opinion based on complete reading of the documents and continuous reading on this list. It is my developed opinion that most of the "Mahatma" Letters are more likely to be fraudulent than not, and that to anyone with any discrimination at all the few which are genuine (i.e. HPB written) stand out like a sore thumb. That's my opinion, that's what's important to me, that's what I'm sharing on this board, and that's all you're going to get. It's not a doctoral dissertation you know but a place to share opinions. > >Here I go again with my questions! : ) Daniel: The thing that bothers me about your "questions" is that I really wish I could ascertain the motivation behind them. You plague me, and many other people, (Kim, J.H-E, Jrc etc.) with them, as far as I can see, they are useless, and, as I see it of import to no one but yourself. Almost everyone on this board is an "old timer" and they all know what they all mean, you may call yourself THE BLAVATSKY FOUNDATION but that does not mean you're the "monitor" for this list. You're just Daniel Caldwell; and I, for one, see absolutely no reason at all to waste time and energy pouring over my books to garner "chapter and verse" for you to no profit to me. I have to say I also am just now really beginning to question the motivation behind your little inquisitions. Do you try to make others look foolish, or ignorant, or malicious? I really hope you don't mean to do this but you do. AS I told you in a private posting which you didn't see fit to answer, I think styling yourself as THE BLAVATSKY FOUNDATION is pretentious, and I have to say your badgering of others on this board is too. As I said much earlier on, people who cannot state their own views without backing them with authority (citations), to me seem to be those who do not feel secure in their own ideas, opinions, and understanding. > >Could you please tell us which "few" Mahatma Letters the "Mahatmas" wrote? To be truthful Daniel, I would probably come closest to the mark if I said none of them. > >Also what are some examples of the "tertibly mutally contradictory" Mahatma >Letters? Considering my opinion, expressed above, to answer this would be redundant. > >Please share with the group. I just did. > >Thanking you in advance, > >Daniel > > Your very welcome I'm sure. alexis> > > From alexei@slip.net Fri May 10 07:40:33 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 00:40:33 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960510074033.0069b8ec@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic At 03:40 PM 5/9/96 -0400, you wrote: >Below Alexis gives words of concern regarding Bee's daughter. The words are >heart felt and dear; however, I feel compelled to caution anyone when >approaching schizophrenia from this angle. How does one determine if indeed a >specific patient is suffering from (1) a biological problem, or (2) a psychic >problem? I would think that treating them incorrectly would be disastrous, >particularly if what is needed first and foremost is a solid physical, >earth-bound ground to build upon. > >The shaman/healer/teacher/leader who can do her duty correctly and without the >dynamics of control dramas is a rare find ... I wouldn't trust anyone else if >it were my daughter in question. > Donna: Many thanks for the kind words. But I have a couple of comments. the first being that, in my experience, it's far easier to treat AIDS than it is to treat a personality based psychiatric problem, but as I understand it schizophrenia is a problem whose primary component is chemical in balances, and that makes it a physical problem.Now, in Shaman ism (as I know, and practice it) the treatment is always the same no matter what the problem. The Shaman provides a vehicle for spirit (usually what we call The Grandfather-Grandmother Spirit of the patient) to focus the cosmic harmonic through the patient. That's all there is to it. Any shaman who suggests that a patient stop their usual medical treatment with mainstream medicines is culpable. As a Shaman, I usually don't want to know what's wrong with the patient lest my knowledge in any way colour my participation. The spirits know what's wrong with a patient, it doesn't matter at all if I do. Secondly: I have absolutely no idea of what you mean by "control drama", I can conceive of nothing I do that in anyway could be defined as either control or drama. I touch, and I chant, and when the spirits are finished I stop. It even works over really long distances. This is what I do, and this is what I was hoping she could find among the native Shamans in New Zealand. A Shaman doesn't do what they do because it's their "duty" they do it because it's their life. alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri May 10 07:44:11 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 00:44:11 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960510074411.006b2220@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic At 04:25 PM 5/9/96 -0400, you wrote: >Not at all. I agree with what you say and I have often wondered if the >present outbreak of mental problems are the beginning of the next phase of >evolution. I have occassion to speak with a few people in this category >through some voluntary work I do and if someone lends themselves to it, I ask >questions of them and how they see their problem. They appear to be too >frightened to really consider what is wrong and take refuge in their >medication which dampen the emotions. I recall my daughter saying that she >missed feeling highs and lows in her life and that causes many of them to go >off their medication and of course the problem returns after a while. She is >too far into 'wrong thinking' now. If her schizo.. was to disappear now she >would still be left with the thought pattern that has been set up over this >10 year period and she would have to find a way of rethinking her view of the >world. Now that our Lodge is so prominent in town I expect to have visits >from some of these people, in fact I have already had a vist from one couple, >so maybe I can find out a bit more about it all outside the medical model and >see if there may be some indications of the above hypothesis. My daughter is >too strong-willed and undisciplined to accept anything that doesn't suit her. >The doctors in Auckland hide when they see her coming. >There is a very interesting article in the Quest Magazine Autumn 1994 called >Schzophrenia and the Soul written by Thomas Poplawski. I took a photocopy of >it so that I had reference to it when need be. >Regards > > >-- > > > > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L > > >Bee: Thank you for sharing that is very interesting. You are doing a good thing. As to your daughter, I hope it works out because she sounds like a wonderful lady. From alexei@slip.net Fri May 10 07:48:59 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 00:48:59 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960510074859.006a0810@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Who's the real "Gang"? At 06:45 PM 5/9/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I agree, it's definitely the hardware and I know that there are others at >Olcott who read the list as well. >Oh well, as Harry Truman said, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the >kitchen." > >Chuck the Atrocious >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Topull an "alan" yep! alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri May 10 07:50:13 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 00:50:13 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960510075013.006a8070@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic At 06:47 PM 5/9/96 -0400, you wrote: >Rich T, >You didn't write the stuff. It was Eldon that started it and I was replying >to a post by Rich Ihle. Sorry about the mixup but that is a problem when we >have too many people on the list with the same first name. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Would one call it.."an embarrasment of riches"? alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri May 10 07:50:50 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 00:50:50 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960510075050.006a2bb0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Gangus defunctus At 06:46 PM 5/9/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >AAAAARRRRRGH! > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Gesundheit! alexis From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Fri May 10 08:00:19 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 01:00:19 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9605100800.AA23392@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL A question to Jerry S. >Jerry S. >> With the above problems, I don't see how anyone can make >> an intelligent argument of HPBs Model using the figures on p >>658 and the principles of p 607, because the two don't match. >>In her INNER TEACHINGS she clearly says "Each principle is on a >>different plane" (p 19). So why doesn't she simply place them >>that way? Instead Figure C is a mish-mash. Rich Taylor >Wow. I wish I had the time tonight and were not in the middle >of finals. Jerry S -- your step by step analysis amazed me, and >indicated to me how/why you have become confused about HPB's >model, why you think each principle is on a different solar >plane. Can't type it all out now, but perhaps San or JHE will >jump in? I find HPB's model TOTALLY consistent and wonderfully >illustrative. JHE Sorry Rich. I tried earlier, but Jerry S says that he couldn't follow what I was talking about. I don't know what the problem is, but it appears to be something other than a semantics or even a terminology problem because he was unable to follow me when we tried to communicate regarding ethics a couple of years ago. Until I can find the cause of the communication gap and a solution for it, "jumping in" would be a waste of time. Even under good communication conditions like with Kim and I, these kind of discussions are very slow anyway. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Fri May 10 08:02:33 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 01:02:33 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9605100802.AA07163@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: HPB/CWL (assumptions) JHE: >>But Kim, you are forgetting that Sinnett's information about >>HPB did not come from the Mahatma Letters. It came through a >>medium whom Sinnett believed was channeling the Mahatmas. >>After the publication of Esoteric Buddhism, Sinnett's >>Theosophical teachings came from his medium, *not* from Mahatma >>letters. Also, Kim, Sinnett was warned in the Mahatma Letters >>that they would never communicate with him through a medium. Kim >I would put a strong demarcation line between Sinnett, the >recepient of the Mahatma letters, the author of EB and the >lay-chela of KH and between Sinnett the believer in mediums in >fx his London TS lodge days. I see his attempt to restore his >spiritual source as a desperate and mistaken but understandable >action. Certain things in EB, the major opus of Sinnett the >lay-chela I find of a very high quality. JHE But Kim, they are the same person. The attitudes that led to Sinnett seeking out a medium are the same attitudes that led to his break with the Mahatmas in the first place. Sinnett was a problematical person long before the break in correspondence. This is plain even in the Mahatma letters. As for EB having some high quality material in it--yes I agree. How could it not be, considering from where APS copied the material. JHE >>Yet APS found a medium and believe he was communicating with >>them anyway. What does that suggest to you about Sinnett's >>"powers of observation?" Kim >In my opinion not much in this reasoning can be used for the >time when he wrote EB. JHE APS was APS before and after the publication of EB. The attitudes that led to the break with the Masters were the same that led to his break with HPB. Those same attitudes were there in 1880, 1883, 1885 and 1888. JHE >>Who made these "exact same accusations" against TSR? I'm >>afraid I missed them. Kim >Never mind. I have a strong dislike for this subject. JHE Interesting. Why? JHE >>Then you are suggesting that HPB was not trying to give to the >>public a correct understanding of the Theosophical Doctrines? Kim >Of course not. But when you mention several authors whose >material you perceive as differing systems and insert the word >correct next to HPB, then you not only are making a positive >evaluation of HPB but giving the readers of this an strong >notion of your possible contrary opinion of the others. These >can only be "only partly correct - therefore partly incorrect" >or simply "incorrect". JHE I already stated out front that my bias is that HPB's expositions of the doctrines are the most faithful to her teacher's. Remember, it was HPB's mission to disseminate the teachings. Do you recall that letter you partially quoted me? When I finished the quote, we found that HPB affirmed her position with her teachers and her mission. Kim >If my local library has 100 000 volumes and 10 are outstanding >esoteric works is it really necessary then to pick on 9 out of >10 and proclaim the incorrect in order to make the 10th unique? JHE I tried to make plain earlier that I would "proclaim" all 100,000 volumes "unique." Remember: "Plato is Plato, HPB is HPB, TSR is TSR, APS is APS " etc. JHE >>Assuming that HPB's system is "very close" to TSR (which is a >>matter of interpretation), what "accusations" against TSR can >>in your view then be disregarded? Kim >Assuming nothing at all the accusations of left-hand influence, >misinformation, distortion and the like can be disregarded as >foolish slander and ill-informed ideas. > As to the "matter of interpretation" we can get back to that >later. JHE Your answer doesn't appear to be responsive to my original question. You originally wrote: "It is very clear from p. 607 of CW that her real system "on strict esoteric lines" is very close to TSR (except in the terminology in a few of the principles), that previous writings of her also is labeled semi-exoteric by herself and as a result that a whole range of accusations against TSR by devout theosophists can be disregarded." Now, granting for the sake of argument that the systems are close, I'm asking how does that fact lead you to conclude that "a whole range of accusations against TSR by devout theosophists can be disregarded."? Which accusations are these? Who made the accusations? How are these accusations connected to p. 607? Are you suggesting by your phrase "accusations of left hand influence" that someone stated that TSR was under the influence of "black magicians?" Who made this statement? Where? I missed it. JHE >>Kim, you only quoted part of this letter to Olcott. If you had >>quoted the whole thing, a very different light would have >>fallen on it. To continue where you left off: >>(snip) >>"Does he mean to say that I should deny the Masters" Kim >- The first possible interpretation given by HPB. >Not a very different light in my opinion. In her obviously >excited state she makes 3 suggestions as to the meaning of TSR. >In another more reflective mood she regretted ever mentioning >masters. In her sentence the word "deny" gives me associations >to a proclamation of faith. She possibly made a serious mistake >and possibly TSR has been blamed ever since for his attempt to >avert it. This is a possible interpretation. JHE I'm looking at the letter as a whole. Yes, she is suggesting ways to interpret TSR's condition, but she also makes a decisive request to Olcott to deliver a message to Adyar: "(1) It is I, who brought in, the first, the existence of the Masters to the world and the TS. I did it because They sent me to do the work and make a fresh experiment in this XIX century and I have done it, that best I knew how. It may not dovetail with S.R.'s ideas, it answers truth and fact.....And one of the two--I either know them personally as I have ever maintained; or- -I have invented then and Their doctrines..." So here, she is giving an answer that is equally valid for any or all of the possible interpretations of TSR's statement: that it was HPB who was sent to do the work--not TSR. Whether or not TSR agrees with HPB's methods, it was still her job and her responsibility to do it. Why would TSR think he had the right to interfere with someone else's job? Seems to me that how HPB carried out her mission is an issue between her and her boss--not her and TSR. Kim >Ah yes: >" He was against the disclosure of any higher teachings formerly >esoteric" What a strange judgement upon a man that gave out what >he did. Another thing is that he thought the englishmen in India >of his day unsuitable for esoteric teachings. So do I! JHE See Dan Caldwell's post concerning HPB's statement to her ES members. JHE >>You might begin with the Introduction in the ~SD~, which is a >>chronological overview treating in depth the appearance and >>disappearance of the Ancient Wisdom through various >>civilizations. However, she uses your etymological approach >>sometimes too. Both are useful and both have their place. Kim >Of course both have their place. But try give something like >historical context for indian philosophy using the commonly >accepted chronology. JHE I wouldn't attempt it. Fortunately Indian Philosophy is outside the context of the discussion, so there will be no need to do so either. Kim >>>My third assumption is that HPB on her own, so to speak, was a >>>chela of the same degree of initiation as TSR and that their >>>writings belong to the same degree of "authority". To roughly >>>the same level I would assign - because of translation >>>problems- the Buddha, Shankara and then a line of teachers >>>Tsong-ka-pa, Patanjali, Krishna, Asanga and others. With my >>>level of trust mostly depending on my mastery of the language >>>in which their works was written. JHE >>I'm afraid that you rate both HPB and TSR far higher than I do. >>I would never rate either one of them with the Buddha. As for >>HPB being of the same degree of initiation as TSR, I know of no >>evidence on way or the other, Kim >I do not rate them with the Buddha. But I think perhaps 75 >percent of the meaning in translations of sanskrit and pali >distorted. As to the degree of initiation we were talking about >assumptions. JHE Sure--assumption. You are welcome to it. Considering the documents, It is just much too big of an assumption for me to make. But, I understand your assumption is based upon a comparison of the writings. If I could ignore the historical documents, I might be able to make a similar assumption too. JHE: >and his relatively short time of exposure to Theosophy raises >questions for me. Kim >Then you must have a whole heap of questions arising from the >lives of historical adepts. How about Shankara - suddenly a >perfect adept at 17. JHE Nope. Different cases. To begin with, I see TSR as a chela, not an adept. JHE >We do know, however, that it was HPB's job to promulgate the >teachings to the world. What was TSR's "job?" Did he have one? >Where is it described? Kim >What was the Buddha?s job, what a strange line of reasoning. >What is *our* job? Are you a man with a mission Jerry? :-) JHE The Buddha's job was to be the Buddha at the midpoint of our cycle. Our job is, among other things, to conduct this dialogue with due care. My "mission" at the moment is to get through school. JHE >>If you need TSR to interpret HPB, then TSR become the authority >>for what HPB wrote. TSR is then coloring HPB. Instead, let >>HPB be her own authority. Let Subba Row be his. Kim >The concept "The esoteric meaning" is well-known in the SD as >opposed to "the opinion of X". This is the idea of a common >truth which runs like a red thread in the work. JHE I lost you here. Or you lost me. I said nothing about "opinion." I'm talking about the appropriation of a text. JHE >>I never assume that any two people ever say quite the same >>thing. I treat every writer as unique in outlook and >>expression. Kim >So I have noticed. Permit me to believe in the concepts >"esoteric meaning" >and "common truth". And permit me to corroborate the use of >prakriti for the seventh universal with as many possible writers >as possible. Corroboration, "esoteric meaning", a common >doctrine. JHE I gladly "permit" you to believe in the concept of "esoteric meaning" and "common truth." I also share these beliefs. But for me, corroboration does not necessarily affirm or deny them. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Fri May 10 08:44:56 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 08:41:56 -0300 From: Subject: Unveiled Isis Message-Id: Hello everyone. My name is Antonio Abrantes, and I am not member of any Theosophical society. I am roman catholic. I am brazilian and my english is not so good, so sorry if I commit some mistakes!. Recently I read a HPB's book called Unveiled Isis, and I would like to discuss some points here, OK? At Vol III chapter IV, Note 74 (In portuguese edition, Unveiled Isis was published in four volumes: Vol I and II Science, Vol III and IV Theology), HPB talk about Homily Clementines III,XX,XXI where Peter refutes the Adam's fall (suggesting an adulteration of Genesis!) and the doctrine of expiation of sins (that is: Jesus died to forgiveness our sins) an furthermore states the doctrine of transmigration of souls as teached by jewish Qabala. You can find the Homily ascribed to Clement in http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers in file called ECF07.TXT. Here I reproduce chapter III: CHAP. III.--THE DUTY OF CONFESSING CHRIST. Since, then, He has displayed so great mercy towards us, and especially in this respect, that we who are living should not offer sacrifices to gods that are dead, or pay them worship, but should attain through Him to the knowledge of the true Father,(1) whereby shall we show that we do indeed know Him,(2) but by not denying Him through whom this knowledge has been attained? For He Himself declares,(3) "Whosoever shall confess Me before men, him will I confess before My Father."(4) This, then, is our reward if we shall confess Him by whom we have been saved. But in what way shall we confess Him? By doing what He says, and not transgressing His commandments, and by honouring Him not with our lips only, but with all our heart and all our mind.(5) For He says(6) in Isaiah, "This people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me."(7) So, as you can see, THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT ADAM'S FALL !!! I can send the wholly text to everyone interested. There is NOTHING about trasnmigration of souls! Is there an error in such reference at HPB's book? Abrantes From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri May 10 15:20:19 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 11:20:19 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960510112018_395527251@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) Eldon, One of the problems I have with the institutional TS is that it seems to be so head oriented that it forgets that there has to be a practical meaning to all this. For example, convention and summer school are coming up and we are probably going to be seminared to death but when it comes to making Theosophy a living thing, something is going to get seriously lost in the translation. It's that way every year. It is almost as if the idea of action terrifies everyone. Now I can see lots of ways where it should. It the TS ever got involved in politics it would blow itself apart. Poor Dorothy Abbenhouse made a stab at that sort of thing when she was president and was lucky to avoid being tarred and feathered. It was not until Gerda and I made peace with her after the Bing debacle that we learned the hostility that her actions had generated. But there are ways of approaching the subject without dogmatism or divisiveness. All it takes is a willingness to accept the fact that people's view of things differs, yet that seemingly simple approach is apparently beyond the official society. There is room for both head and heart. We surely cannot exist without either for very long. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From ramadoss@eden.com Fri May 10 17:36:17 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 12:36:17 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) In-Reply-To: <960510112018_395527251@emout12.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Chuck: I enjoyed reading your msg. When HSO and HPB came to Madras, in addition to all the TS and Theosophy work, HSO started a school for untouchables and HPB started a Sanskrit School in Madras. Everyone knows the work HSO did in Ceylon. Annie Besant got involved personally in Politics and in addition in building a network of schools and colleges funded and supported by local Hindus. Such involvement in projects which directly benefit the common "man" went a long way towards making a lot of people join TS and benefit from what it offers to improve the conditions everywhere. After AB, there was very little public activity in which the TS leaders got involved, except perhaps in the Animal Rights and Cultural Activities where Rukmini Arundale was personally involved for a long time. History can be an eye opener for a perceptive observer and writers are perceptive ones. ....doss On Fri, 10 May 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > Eldon, > One of the problems I have with the institutional TS is that it seems to be > so head oriented that it forgets that there has to be a practical meaning to > all this. For example, convention and summer school are coming up and we are > probably going to be seminared to death but when it comes to making Theosophy > a living thing, something is going to get seriously lost in the translation. > It's that way every year. > It is almost as if the idea of action terrifies everyone. Now I can see lots > of ways where it should. It the TS ever got involved in politics it would > blow itself apart. Poor Dorothy Abbenhouse made a stab at that sort of thing > when she was president and was lucky to avoid being tarred and feathered. It > was not until Gerda and I made peace with her after the Bing debacle that we > learned the hostility that her actions had generated. > But there are ways of approaching the subject without dogmatism or > divisiveness. All it takes is a willingness to accept the fact that people's > view of things differs, yet that seemingly simple approach is apparently > beyond the official society. > There is room for both head and heart. We surely cannot exist without either > for very long. > > Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA > Heretic > Troublemaker > From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri May 10 18:40:52 1996 Date: 10 May 96 14:40:52 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Comparing Auras Message-Id: <960510184051_76400.1474_HHL76-2@CompuServe.COM> Eldon: > There are a lot of secondary sources for information >about people. The colors in their auras is only one >such source. This is exactly what I was saying, Eldon. I can "read" their auras just by reading their writings that they left behind. What a person writes tells us as much about them as looking at their auras. For example, the three volumes of Echoes of the Orient tells me more about Judge than someone's biography ever could. >I'd take exception to the idea that only Blavatsky was >connected to the Masters and their work, and later >leaders in the theosophical movement were not. I never said such a thing. I never mentioned Masters. Whether someone "was connected" to Masters or not says nothing about their aura. APS was so connected, but I can't see his aura was at all like HPBs. >While I fully recognize the wide diversity of views >on theos-l, and have even seen at times a complete >dismissal of the theosophical doctrines, I'll have >to respond that from my standpoint, de Purucker is >a bona fide Teacher in the same regard as Blavatsky >was. I consider this the truth, and feel that I must >come to his defense, at times, when everyone that >followed HPB is casually dismissed, painted with the >same brush as secondary and insignificant. There are exceptions, and G de P was clearly one of them IMO. But I don't put him on the same plane as Blavatsky. Why not add Judge and Tingley as well? Personally, I would have to include James Long to your list of "bona fide Teacher" in as much as he was my own Teacher. His aura was beautiful. But Alexis, Chuck, and I see a difference between Teacher and Adept. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri May 10 18:40:59 1996 Date: 10 May 96 14:40:59 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Psychism & Mental Illness Message-Id: <960510184059_76400.1474_HHL76-5@CompuServe.COM> >There's not much that can be said in response to that! Perhaps >it won't be possible for all the different variants and offshoots >of Theosophy to exist under a single tent? > >-- Eldon Well, lets all hope that it will remain possible. Correct me if I am wrong, and I will try to restate our respective positions, which differ certainly, but do both come under the same theosophical umbrella: You are saying that mental illnesses such as schizophrenia are *caused* by psychism. Is this not correct? I, on the other hand, am saying almost the reverse: that schizophrenia is directly related to one's ignorance of psychism, and that a thorough knowledge of psychism and how it works would prevent schizophrenia, and possibly cure it (I agree with Alexis that chemical imbalances are easier to cure than personality disorders). The schizophrenics that we see today have not been practicing psychism, at least not consciously. But Kundalini can spring forth within us, whether we are prepared for Her or not. My position is that, rather than avoiding or ignoring Her, we should get to know Her, because knowledge of Her can prevent such things as schizophrenia from occurring in the first place. If the above two outlooks are correct, then we both share the idea that there is a connection between psychism and schizophrenia. The difference between our views is in what this connection is. Maybe its time to talk about this, without getting emotional? Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri May 10 18:40:46 1996 Date: 10 May 96 14:40:46 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (part 2) A question to Jerry S. Message-Id: <960510184046_76400.1474_HHL76-1@CompuServe.COM> Rich: > I find HPB's model TOTALLY consistent and wonderfully >illustrative. Illustrative of what? An intellectual exercise? Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri May 10 18:40:55 1996 Date: 10 May 96 14:40:55 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Breath Message-Id: <960510184055_76400.1474_HHL76-4@CompuServe.COM> RI: >Anyway, it is possible to understand how Self may be able to "make a >connection" with Spirit (Atma-Buddhi) because of the "verisimilitude of their >ultra-rarefied Natures"; however, it is problematic to conceive of how Spirit >can have any association with a physical body at all unless something else on >the "Prakriti side of things" operated as its "threshold of interpentration." > Perhaps HPB's *Breath* (poss. *prana* or "*Fohat*") provides this. Perhaps >not. Richard, I believe that it does. The prana allows the spirit to infiltrate the body. Ramana Maharshi (I think it was. I am not at my library) was seen by visitors to "glow" with light streaming from his stomach area. It is well known in yoga that you can either shift Self to spirit (Raja Yoga), or bring spirit down to the body (one of the major practices of Kundalini Yoga). AB talks about this, and warns that headaches can result if done too fast. She is certainly right about that. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri May 10 18:41:08 1996 Date: 10 May 96 14:41:08 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL Message-Id: <960510184107_76400.1474_HHL76-6@CompuServe.COM> Rich: >But I want to ask a psychological question now, and I am truly interested in >your answer. If the differences between HPB and many of her later followers >were purely semantic, and this could be fairly well demonstrated, why do you >think there is such opposition to these later systems from "purists" (aka >"fundamentalists") like me? I am not saying that the differences are purely semantic. We agree that thre are differences. But I do think that most of them are pure semantics, and most of the others are small (I have already called them nit-picks, and they are). Now, remember, I am talking here only about the universe model of planes, principles, bodies, and elements (tattvas). There are lots of other differences, for which I can see your opposition. But lets just look at the universe model, for now. HPBs model is almost totally theoretical, and it forms the structural framework or spinal cord for her theories of Rounds and Root Races. She briefly compares it to the Tree of Life, but never never advocates what is called pathworking. CWLs model, on the other hand, practically calls out for pathworking. It encourages it. His own pathworking helped define it, under HPBs broad-brush umbrella (and thus the differences). It is a matter of perspective, but the words chosen in the CWL/AB model are the result of pathworking, and make pathworking a whole lot easier than HPB's model. Just one example: when we pathwork, we are clearly in a body of some kind, but there are no "principles" to be found anywhere. If you (or anyone) believes that everything HPB wrote is gospel, then I would say that you are a fundamentalist. If you (or anyone) think that HPB's works and the MLs are the only true Theosophical literature worth studying, then I would call you a purist. Now Rich, I don't know if you are either of these things. But I do know that ULT and Pasadena have a strong prejudice against magic, and pathworking is magic. This, I think, is the real reason ULT and Pasadena denounce the CWL/AB model. > If I actually thought that Leadbetter >was teaching the same basic substance that HPB was teaching, with just >slightly difference words, a minor change here or there, a few personal >touches, why do you think I would not welcome CWL with open arms? I think that even if I could convince you that his model follows HPBs rather closely, you would still not welcome him with opening arms. ULT and Pasadena oppose CWL because of other things than his universe model. His Christianizing of Theosophy, his sexual behaviors, his Mars descriptions, and so on. I can't even disagree with them. But I don't think his universe model was all that out of line. >There are a few points that I do not agree with Purucker about, but you will >NEVER catch me badmouthing him... Agreed. But G de P never described Mars, and he kept his sex life under control. He was, however, a racist, as it is defined today (he would not have been called a racist in his day, but times and definitions change). I agree with almost everything he says, but as you say, there are a few points... Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri May 10 18:40:53 1996 Date: 10 May 96 14:40:53 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Message-Id: <960510184052_76400.1474_HHL76-3@CompuServe.COM> >Jerry, >Besides, every once in a while it's nice to have someone remind us that we >really are crazy. :-) Chuck, me wife has been doing this for years. Jerry S. Member, TI From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri May 10 18:04:00 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 14:04:00 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605101908.PAA12970@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: egotism & humor Thought you-all would like this handy dandy quote from a book called "The Initiate in the New World" by Cyril Scott. I started to laugh, because I saw myself in it, plus a few of my e-mail friends. "I don't intend to deal with it (egotism) in its acute form .... but something less crude... It is more that taking-of-oneself-and-one's-work-too- seriously attitude which, I think, partly arises from an inssufficient all-round sense of humor. Persons troubled with this complaint seem utterly unable to get away from the subject of their work; they are like a certain type of amateur - or even professionsal- pianist who can't keep from the piano, & must always be strumming even if nobody wants to listen. And mind you - for let's be fair - it is not only artists who are afflicted in this way. I have known writers on mystical subjects, theosophists, occultists, politicians, social workers, (we have a retired one in the building who worked with children, & that kind of children is the beginning & end all of her conversations lfd) scientists - it matters not - who all exhibit this charcteristic; they are not conscious of it, but their acquaintances are, and in consequence soon begin to get bored with them. 'always the same old subject!' these acquaintances think,'if only to God they'd shut up just for once in a while or talk about something else!'...... However elevated the subject, this egotism peeps through between the lines. These writers seem to be obsessed with the word 'sacredness' - the sacredness of what they are writing about and particularly their own mission. .... they... write & talk with bated breath, and metaphorically, if not actually, fold their hands *& look up to heaven with a rapt expression of countenance." hic fuit (the signature of Till Eulenspiegel) Liesel From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri May 10 19:50:54 1996 Date: 10 May 96 15:50:54 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: The Principles Message-Id: <960510195054_76400.1474_HHL48-1@CompuServe.COM> We have been discussing HPB's "principles" lately, and I have been having a lot of trouble trying to understand Eldon, JHE, and Rich on the whole subject. Perhaps these three understand HPB perfectly on this subject. I do not, and I find her a bit confusing at times. I also find Eldon, JHE, and Rich to be more than a bit confusing. Let me show everyone where I am coming from, at least. Like Eldon, JHE, and Rich, I too like and admire G de P. In fact, let me use him now to show how I view the 7 principles. I will use only his Fountain-Source of Occultism for now: GdeP>"Man as well as the universe is composite of distinct GdeP>principles or elements, or tattwas, every one of GdeP>which is itself divided into subprinciples" p 200. G de P equates principles with elements or tattwas (he does not say "and" in the above quote, but "or" which implies equality). I do to. There is one tattwa per plane, albeit each will have its sevenfold division of subplanes. On page 564, he even uses the term "element-principles" combining the two ideas into a single name. GdeP>"When the auric egg is viewed on any one plane of the GdeP>human constitution, we discover that this plane or GdeP>'layer' not only corresponds to, but actually *is* GdeP>one of the unfolded six principles of man" p 427. Like the cosmos, and solar universe, we too have planes or "layers." What does "any one plane of the human constitution" mean, if not the fact that each of our principles/elements is on its own plane? Each of our principles corresponds to a plane, as *is* on that plane. GdeP>"Now the seven principles are the seven kinds of 'stuff' GdeP>of the universe. The higher part of each kind is its GdeP>consciousness side; the lower part of each is the body GdeP>side through which its own consciousness expresses GdeP>itself....Just as the chemical elements form the body of GdeP>the universe, which nevertheless forms the clothing of GdeP>hordes of consciousness-beings, humans among them, so GdeP>in exactly the same way the seven principles of both GdeP>cosmos and man, ultimately reducible to one causal GdeP>principle-spirit, are the sevenfold stuff of which GdeP>the universe is built throughout." (p 443-444) According to the above quote, each of our human principles can be divided into a higher subjective side and a lower objective side. G de P expressly says that this lower objective side is a "body" for consciousness to work through. In a technical sense, it is this lower objective side of each principle that equates to a tattwa. We have six principles, one on each of six planes, with the auric egg acting throughout and on each plane. This, to me, is exactly what CWL/AB say in their model, except that they say it in plain English using smaller words. Now, I am trying to be accomodating here. Everyone has been asking for quotes, and I am trying to provide them. But quoting has some drawbacks. "Out of context" for example. "But when he says that he means this..." for another. I am certain that Eldon, and probably JHE, will interpret G de P differently than I. All I can say is that my interpretation keeps a unanimity to the theosophical teachings while Eldon and JHE's interpretation (whatever they are) are devisive and unnecesarily complex and confusing. JHE, for example, is already on record as saying that the principles are not the tattwas. In fact, this is one of his major criticisms of the CWL model. But he carefully has never said what the principles are. Yet, to me, G de P teaches the same thing, as the above quotes indicate. I can't help thinking that those who dislike CWL are also biased against his model. Jerry S. Member, TI From ramadoss@eden.com Fri May 10 21:34:53 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 16:34:53 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Comparing Auras In-Reply-To: <960510184051_76400.1474_HHL76-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 10 May 1996, Jerry Schueler wrote: > Eldon: > > There are a lot of secondary sources for information > >about people. The colors in their auras is only one > >such source. > This is exactly what I was saying, Eldon. I > can "read" their auras just by reading their writings that > they left behind. What a person writes tells us as much > about them as looking at their auras. For example, the > three volumes of Echoes of the Orient tells me more > about Judge than someone's biography ever could. Can the same thing done with e-mail messages i.e. "read" the auras of the writer of the message? ....doss From Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Fri May 10 21:34:26 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 96 14:34:26 PDT From: Donna_Faber@notes.pw.com Message-Id: <9605102158.AA15013@orchid.tc.pw.com> Subject: Response from Donna to Eldon and Alexis So many thanks to Eldon and Doss for being so sweet. I read your comments to Leslie over the phone, and she was very touched. A little acknowledgement goes a long way. I got a lot out of Eldon's message regarding schizophrenia and the psychic, and I do indeed agree with his and some of the other thoughts regarding the nonconventional healing process pertaining to this specific disease. Yet I recommend extreme caution, and every one should know that my caution exists because I am very subjective in this particular area, and because I hold very little regard for conventional medical professionals. Responding to Eldon, specifically -- there is no question in my mind that what Gloria endured, and that what Leslie and I endured as a result, has very heavy karmic implications. Gloria's life lesson seemed to be a lesson in suffering. She suffered a lot, but with dignity whenever possible. I came out of the experience with too many lessons to count. Eldon stated "It's a matter of conjecture if these voices are actual entities that are talking to the person, or internal, subjective experiences of the person." I believe that these experiences become subjective simply by the way in which they occur. They become subject to the interpretation of the individual, their beliefs, what they can contain as an intellectual. Perhaps that is why some folks with this disease can functional with little to no specific therapeutic routine, and somehow know that their medication needs adjusting when and if they feel a little paranoid. It gets back to each case being specific, maybe even atypical. I whole heartedly agree with Eldon's comments regarding our quest to understand the meaning of life and our life purpose. This is a big subject for me at this time. I'm spending a lot of time in front of lit candles and talismans, etc., deep in meditation on this very thing. And yes, the spiritual side and the practical side of treating schizophrenia correctly has application to everyone, i.e., taking responsibility for your life when you can, applying self-discipline, adhering to healthy routines. All of these things are an important part of approaching enlightenment. A couple of days ago I made a comment to Alexis -- "The shaman/healer/teacher/leader who can do her duty correctly and without the dynamics of control dramas is a rare find". By control drama, I mean the dramas or processes we put ourselves and others through when engaging with the ego. Shamans, healers, teachers, and leaders are all in a position of control .. they gain energy from what they do. It is a lot of responsibility, and the temptation of misusing that power over others is quite alluring in of itself. I agree that a shaman should not suggest a patient stop their usual medical treatment with mainstream medicine. The removal of the ego from every day life leads to our actions becoming dharma or duty in much the same way that doing selflessly for others becomes seva or service. This is what I was referring to. See ya, everybody and have a great weekend! From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri May 10 22:29:04 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 18:29:04 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960510182903_111027297@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: You Warned Me(to JRC) John, Uh, er, on the little matter of any of us promoting people to use their psychic abilities, that's kind of what my books are supposed to do. But then, I'm a heretic and heretics are supposed to do that sort of thing. It gives the orthodox a chance to feel morally superior and the rest of us a chance to ignore their feelings on the matter, so everyone is happy. I have found that the best response to our brethren when they get on this "don't be psychic," thing is to ask how they propose to stop us. It makes them sputter very nicely. This is obviously something Eldon feels very strongly about, like Doss and vegetarianism. Arguing will do no good (though sometimes it helps my blood pressure get up to near normal) and none of us is going to change the other's mind. I'm sure that Eldon is not so foolish as to expect any of us to stop working with psychic stuff because of his or anyone else's postings, but if it makes him feel righteous, we should let him have his fun. Besides,everyone on this list is probably crazy anyway. If they aren't when they join, they will be. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri May 10 22:30:00 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 18:30:00 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960510182959_111027945@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Alex, No, an embarrassment of Chuck. Chuck the Atrocious, MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From ramadoss@eden.com Fri May 10 23:24:14 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 18:24:14 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: You Warned Me(to JRC) In-Reply-To: <960510182903_111027297@emout16.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 10 May 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > John, > Uh, er, on the little matter of any of us promoting people to use their > psychic abilities, that's kind of what my books are supposed to do. > But then, I'm a heretic and heretics are supposed to do that sort of thing. > It gives the orthodox a chance to feel morally superior and the rest of us a > chance to ignore their feelings on the matter, so everyone is happy. Psychic abilities, like any other ability, IMHO, should be treated as nothing "special". For example some can play a violin very naturally. Some body like me can't play a violin no matter how much training I thru. So does it mean that a violin player is in any way superior to any one? Just because an experience or faculty is internal and not seen externally, it does not make it any "superior". I hope, anyone who feels "morally" superior may want to ponder over these ideas if they want to. I am the last person to force anyone with my ideas. > I have found that the best response to our brethren when they get on this > "don't be psychic," thing is to ask how they propose to stop us. It makes > them sputter very nicely. > This is obviously something Eldon feels very strongly about, like Doss and > vegetarianism. Arguing will do no good (though sometimes it helps my blood I need to issue a clarification. However much I may feel strongly about Vegetarianism, some of my best friends and honest non-vegetarians. I would any day associate with a honest vegetarian, even a cannibal, than a dishonest exploiter of anything who is a vegetarian. Have any of you heard of Swami Beyondananada? He is very popular in this part of the country and is a patient of one of the members of TSA. In a video I saw last evening, he asked the audience to who are vegetarians to raise their hand. Several hands went up. He then commented that "you are what you eat". He said he eats humans because his is a humanitarian. You get my thinking on this, I hope. ....doss PS: The Swami has put out some books and audio and video tapes. Recently in a recent week end intense retreat, Swami's video was shown in the evening after a gruelling full day intense program. It was shown as a relaxation. I am a no follower of this Swami or any other person, no do I have any direct or indirect financial or other interest in the Swami's financial interests. I just want to make it very clear that I am not putting a plug for him. -------------------------end------------- From eldon@theosophy.com Sat May 11 06:54:37 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 23:54:37 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960511065437.006c690c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Far More Good After Leaving the T.S. Rich: >I suspect that Krishnamurti did FAR, FAR more good after he >left the TS than he would have been allowed to accomplish >WITHIN it. Hmmm. That's an important point to go "Hmmm" over. But it's not really within versus without, but *doing the good*. If an initial exposure to Theosophy gets us going, then we can empower ourselves to do good things in the world. What we do is individual, self-discovered. One person may write a heavily cited work of scholarship; another may write a 500-page book based upon personal reflections and experiences. A third could learn Tibetan and Sanskrit and search out the original religious texts upon which the Stanzas of Dzyan are based. A fourth could spend a number of years caring for a sick family member. And a fifth could patiently work to setup books in Wordperfect, unseen and unappreciated, for the benefit of others. It's all individual. The important thing is first to have some form of awakening, which theosophical groups can help with, then to be of benefit to the world, which does not require (nor preclude) being active in a theosophical group. Your suspicion is true, I suspect, of any group that we can join and participate in. We could even say, as many unsubscribers may have felt in the past: "I suspect that XYZ did far, far more good after he left theos-l than he would have been allowed to accomplish within it. Humm." -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Sat May 11 06:54:39 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 23:54:39 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960511065439.006cfb40@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (Virginia B.) JHE: [commenting to Virginia B] >>What a better way to bury what has been revealed than to >>lead the leaders into a confusion and mish-mash of ideas. >Yes, the submersion of deeper teachings brings attention to >them. But the confusion of those teachings by changing the >terminology and then putting it into another context works very >well. I think most people in the TS (and probably on this board) >honestly believe that the teachings of HPB, TSR, APS, AB, CWL >etc. are really consistent. I can say that I've found by personal experience that there is a difference. When I first started reading theosophical books as a teenager, it was CWL's and some of AB's that I primarily read. They tell us that they are consistent, and I believed it at the time, although I tried to interpret anything that I'd read from HPB or Judge in light of the Besant/Leadbeater model. I know how the world looks like from that point of view, and can appreciate how someone with that background sees things. I feel fortunate to have met Lina Psaltis and Ken Small at Far Horizons Theosophical Camp one summer, and to have been introduced to Purucker's works. In reading them, I came to appreciate a different theosophical model, one that is basically consistent with Blavatsky's. I also found Purucker to outline and present things in a way that aids a development of the intuition and a flexibility in thinking that is necessary to get far with deeper studies. As I progressed in these new studies, I could see how different the two models were on many points. But I could also see how I was previously unaware that such differences could exist. It would be highly helpful if we could come up with a standardized terminology for theosophical textbooks. This would help clear up some of the language problems. (As I write this I recall recently coming across something Jerry Schueler wrote as a proposed project along these lines, something written for the former Theosophical Network several years ago.) The problem with any attempt to standardize terms and arrange the ideas in some systematic manner is that many could call the effort the *death* of the philosophy, since it would be making a clearcut word-formulation of the theosophical doctrines. Would this be good or bad? Good in the sense that it would help do away with the loss of the ideas through continual changing of terminologies and context. Bad in the sense that someone might actually thing that Theosophy *was only* the words that were written in this effort. >Yes. Two things will really make me impatient with an >occult or a non fiction work: when there are no citations, and >when there is no index. Occasionally a book without an index >turns out to be worth while, so I usually end up indexing it >myself. But a book without citations....&%@*#$!! :-) Sounds like you won't like the book that Alexis mentioned that he's writing, 500 pages without citations or index. (In the future, indexing will become less important. With ebooks, one can eventually let the computer index the book, and one can create and organize personalized bookmarks.) As to writing without citations, it depends on the type of work. Sometimes an academic paper may be written and given a ritual number of citations merely for the purposes of appearing scholarly, although the citations add little to the work. One use of citations is to "prove" something, by showing that it is authoritative. In a legal document, someone may cite case law in order to show that previous court decisions support what one asserts. In a theosophical discussion, someone may cite HPB to "prove" a point that is being argued. Besides their use as an appeal to authority, citations can be used as a reference to further reading on a subject that is only touched on in passing. One may mention the seven rounds, for instance, then cite an excellent chapter describing the rounds. This is for purposes of illustration, of education, rather than purposes of proving and showing one's work to be authoritative. When one is writing about Theosophy using the first approach, attempting to prove whatever one is saying by using quotes from the source literature, one would write a book that was mostly a string of quotations, with some commentary weaving the quotes together. Several theosophical books have been written in this manner, and they are good. One can, though, write about Theosophy using the second approach, writing based upon one's best understanding of the subject, putting in new ideas and personal insights along with what one as learned from others. In this sort of book, there may be references to other writings that may be of interest. There would, though, be far less reliance on citations, since one is writing from one's understanding as a primary source, rather than writing from the writings of others as the primary source. If the second approach is not done right, or if the writer has only a partial grasp of the theosophical doctrines, and throws in other unrelated and contradictory materials, the resultant text will be misleading at best. But the same person could take the first approach and still end up with an equally misleading book. One has to understand the materials, or one only reflects the same internal confusion in a book of quotes and commentary. As the years go on, I may make a try at each kind of book, and hope that some good will come of them. -- Eldon From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri May 10 20:34:06 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 21:34:06 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <5lBeBAA+g6kxEw5v@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: There is no real "Gang" In-Reply-To: <960509113105_110015089@emout14.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960509113105_110015089@emout14.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >If you knew my family you would infinitely prefer being part of a gang. >So now what do we argue about? > >Chuck the Atrocious I'm sure you will think of something :-) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri May 10 20:43:20 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 21:43:20 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: You Warned Me In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960510074306.006a6430@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960510074306.006a6430@mail.deltanet.com>, "Eldon B. Tucker" writes >There's not much that can be said in response to that! Perhaps >it won't be possible for all the different variants and offshoots >of Theosophy to exist under a single tent? > >-- Eldon If there isn't, we might as well pack up and do something else. I guess in a public arena (arena?) like this, we have to try to work that much harder at being part of a co-operating human family. Please, everyone. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 11 00:19:43 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 19:19:43 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: You Warned Me(to JRC) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 10 May 1996, m.k. ramadoss wrote: > > > On Fri, 10 May 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > > > John, > > Uh, er, on the little matter of any of us promoting people to use their > > psychic abilities, that's kind of what my books are supposed to do. > > But then, I'm a heretic and heretics are supposed to do that sort of thing. > > It gives the orthodox a chance to feel morally superior and the rest of us a > > chance to ignore their feelings on the matter, so everyone is happy. > > Psychic abilities, like any other ability, IMHO, should be > treated as nothing "special". For example some can play a violin very > naturally. Some body like me can't play a violin no matter how much > training I thru. So does it mean that a violin player is in any way > superior to any one? Just because an experience or faculty is internal > and not seen externally, it does not make it any "superior". I hope, > anyone who feels "morally" superior may want to ponder over these ideas > if they want to. I am the last person to force anyone with my ideas. > > > > I have found that the best response to our brethren when they get on this > > "don't be psychic," thing is to ask how they propose to stop us. It makes > > them sputter very nicely. > > This is obviously something Eldon feels very strongly about, like Doss and > > vegetarianism. Arguing will do no good (though sometimes it helps my blood > > I need to issue a clarification. However much I may feel strongly > about Vegetarianism, some of my best friends and honest non-vegetarians. This should read: some of my best friends are honest non-vegetarians. > I would any day associate with a honest vegetarian, even a cannibal, than > a dishonest exploiter of anything who is a vegetarian. This should read: I would any day associate with a honest NON vegetarian.... > > Have any of you heard of Swami Beyondananada? He is very popular > in this part of the country and is a patient of one of the members of > TSA. In a video I saw last evening, he asked the audience to who are > vegetarians to raise their hand. Several hands went up. He then commented > that "you are what you eat". He said he eats humans because his is a > humanitarian. You get my thinking on this, I hope. > > ....doss > > PS: The Swami has put out some books and audio and video tapes. Recently > in a recent week end intense retreat, Swami's video was shown in the > evening after a gruelling full day intense program. It was shown as a > relaxation. I am a no follower of this Swami or any other person, no do I > have any direct or indirect financial or other interest in the Swami's > financial interests. I just want to make it very clear that I am not > putting a plug for him. > > -------------------------end------------- > From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 11 00:00:35 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 01:00:35 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <$ymv0RAji9kxEwJu@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: TI In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , JRC writes >Alan! > The newest member of TI: My good friend Terry Wallace ... an >attorney (if fact I think he advised Bing when HQ was exercising their >"spirituality leadership" in his direction). Terry was made a Theosophist >at Adyar by John Coats, is a Life Member of the Wheaton TS, and is >President of the RAvalli County Branch. He is not yet online, but may be >soon. > Regards, -JRC I am delighted to add him to the TI membership list! I will put in the details as stated above, and e-mail a copy of the revise membership list to you so that you can pass a copy on to him. BTW, there is no reason not to pass the TI statement on to anyone, whether on line or not ... Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 11 00:39:07 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 19:39:07 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Far More Good After Leaving the T.S. In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960511065437.006c690c@mail.deltanet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >I suspect that Krishnamurti did FAR, FAR more good after he > >left the TS than he would have been allowed to accomplish > >WITHIN it. Hmmm. > From my readings of JK's lectures, audio and video tapes, I see quite a similarity of the message that HPB gave in the Key to Theosophy and what JK was discussing. Based on my understanding, one of the fundamental themes of JK is that first and foremost we are all human beings and we need to treat every other person as a human being. If this is not Universal Brotherhood in action what else is? Looking at the continued emphasis given by Theosophists world over on the unseen side of the world at the expense of the keeping the primary focus and concern on Universal Brotherhood, I think JK was trying to impress on the Theosophists and everyone else in the world the utmost urgency of the recognition of the Universal Brotherhood and need for each one of us to recognize it and do something about it. So JK has been talking about the fundamental issues and ideals as an ordinary human being. It may surprise many, that a large segment of individuals who attended his meetings, heard his tapes, watched his videos, read his books are all in one way or the other connected to TS and Theosophy. In my own case, when I first attended the International Convention in 1965, every evening was kept open so that the delegates can go across the Adyar River and listen to JK's lecture. In every lecture, one of the persons who was always in the front row was Bro. N. Sri Ram, who was then the International President. Sri Ram, who always maintained that he was a student of wisdom, I believe recognized the importance of JK's message even at that time. I thought this is a very interesting information that I would like to share with you all. ....doss From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri May 10 20:39:23 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 21:39:23 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <91AfVEA7l6kxEwYo@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: You Warned Me In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960510074306.006a6430@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960510074306.006a6430@mail.deltanet.com>, "Eldon B. Tucker" writes >Since they define adepts as someone with "inner powers", and those >powers equated as the sort of psychical abilities that they have or >are seeking, I suppose they want the rest of us seeking higher >powers of mind and lucidity to abandon our foolish ways and follow >in their footsteps? Query: who in the above quote are "they" - ? This reads as if it is intended to be a personal criticism of particular people. Is that what you intend, or are you referring to a citation or similar I may have missed? [This is a serious question - I am not trying to "make a point"]. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From eldon@theosophy.com Sat May 11 08:48:24 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 01:48:24 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960511084824.006df4e0@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Rules of Engagement/Enragement/Enlightenment Theos-L Readers: I don't think that anything productive would come out of replying to JRC, nor continuing the thread of who is the real devil on theos-l, out to manipulate people and control things, etc. As far as I'm concerned, the topic is over. (This is as regards to who is deluded, an awful person, etc.) It would be interesting, though, if we could discuss what would be proper guidelines for posting to this list. We could come up with some more detailed rules than "respect the views of others". I'd help with discussing the guidelines, and would follow whatever we mutually agree to. -- Eldon From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 11 01:17:33 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 21:17:33 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605110222.WAA16069@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Bee, Re: doctors Hi, Bee, I had a doctor for years who thought I was a bit strange too. Since 1982 Harry did most of my healing for me anyway. But I kept in touch with an MD because you never know. Well, my bottom proof was that Harry, who lived in Australia at the time, told me to take a homeopathic heart remedy. That scared me, & I went for a cardiogram, which showed that I had a very slight heart murmur, one that I never need worry about. During the last few years of his life, Harry went on long trips, & I started looking for a local replacement. I didn't find it till just now. My present MD used to teach yoga, before he went to medical school. Marie, Harry's wife, said acupuncture was the next best thing to Harry, so I found a real good one of those (there are 3 in Syracuse). And she has all kinds of connections. She sent me to a different chiropractor. I wen there yesterday. I seem to finally have stumble upon a chiropractor who knows ayurevedic medicine, & has some homeopathic connections, which I couldn't find before for love or for money. All these new people, speak our language, but it took a very long time to find them. Liesel From eldon@theosophy.com Sat May 11 09:15:16 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 02:15:16 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960511091516.006dc584@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Psychism & Mental Illness Jerry S: >>There's not much that can be said in response to that! Perhaps >>it won't be possible for all the different variants and offshoots >>of Theosophy to exist under a single tent? >Well, lets all hope that it will remain possible. It may be possible, if we don't end up killing each other off! But sometimes I wonder how much we're learning from the experience, and how much we're just wasting our time. >You are saying that mental illnesses such as schizophrenia >are *caused* by psychism. Is this not correct? No. I'm saying that some forms of mental illness like schizophrenia can cause accidental psychism. The mental illness causes the body to malfunction and one's perceptions to include subjective images from the astral light. This topic ties back in with our discussion of the planes and principles, as well as the Path. In one posting, I came to what I consider the significant point with mental illness: the process of curing it can be examined by us for helpful clues to the process of treading the Path. Mental illness with a biological basis would be like a computer that malfunctions. That is different than having a newer computer model that includes infrared sensors, so that cords are not needed to connect the mouse and keyboard to the computer cabinet. In a similar manner, I'd consider some forms of mental illness to be a form of malfunction, which may include the psychical. It would be different than a mutation or genetic advance, a newer model of human. >I, on the other hand, am saying almost the reverse: >that schizophrenia is directly related to one's ignorance of >psychism, and that a thorough knowledge of psychism and >how it works would prevent schizophrenia, and possibly cure >it For schizophrenia that is solely due to psychological matters, and not from a physical basis, I'd consider a psychological cure, including training and self-awareness. I'm not convinced, though, that the same voices that someone may hear, and the same paranoia, and the inappropriate emotions, are examples of budding psychic abilities, but again a form of malfunction of the astral/physical form. This is a different subject than budding psychic abilities, that would arise on their own, not out of mental illness but because the individual has a predisposition to perceive the non-physical. >(I agree with Alexis that chemical imbalances are easier to >cure than personality disorders). And I'd agree too. >The schizophrenics that we see today have not been practicing >psychism, at least not consciously. But Kundalini can spring >forth within us, whether we are prepared for Her or not. Although I do think that psychism can lead to mental illness, and even suicide or death, I don't think that is typical nor something that most people would have to fear. Kundalini, though, is a different matter. When it gets going, all bets are off. >My position is that, rather than >avoiding or ignoring Her, we should get to know Her, because >knowledge of Her can prevent such things as schizophrenia >from occurring in the first place. If we have Kundalini active, we certainly have to deal with it! Like if we were in a car, stalled on a train crossing, watching a train racing towards us at 90 mph! This is a subject that I'd consider carefully before discussing it in public. >If the above two outlooks are correct, then we both >share the idea that there is a connection between psychism and >schizophrenia. I'm not sure how big our differences are. You may be too quick to assume what I think on the matter, assuming that I can't have other interests in the topic of schizophrenia than as another tool in psychism bashing. >Maybe its time to talk about this, without getting emotional? I'm not upset about this issue, but do have to deal with the anger and extreme reactions that I seem to provoke. I'm learning to cope with the anger. I am, of course, married, and have good opportunities to practice patience! There's too much mockery, denunciation, and putting down of people on theos-l, and I don't want to be drawn into it. I appreciate your effort to make peace with me, and to keep open the lines of communication. Although we've never met in person, I feel as if I know you pretty well, from having communicated with you over the past several years on theos-l, and hope that if you're ever out at Pasadena, that you'll call and come by. (Brenda and I live about 32 miles from the library in Altadena.) Best wishes, -- Eldon From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 11 02:10:39 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 22:10:39 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605110315.XAA13987@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: False beliefs >Second is false, but sincerely-held beliefs, beliefs that >are wrong regardless of how flexibly they are held. Both >are cause for our concern, in both ourselves and others >that we deal with. Eldon, I was reading along this post & didn't even know it was yours. I have the same objections as usual. Who is going to judge what beliefs are wrong, & on what grounds? If you're talking about your own judgement, I wonder how you can be so sure that what you judge to be wrong is really all wrong. You're not God. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 11 02:19:29 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 22:19:29 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605110324.XAA19480@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: higher powers >Since they define adepts as someone with "inner powers", and those >powers equated as the sort of psychical abilities that they have or >are seeking, I suppose they want the rest of us seeking higher >powers of mind and lucidity to abandon our foolish ways and follow >in their footsteps? Eldon, you're totally zerschimmmelt, on this view. An adept has all sorts of powers, psychic, mental, astral, buddhic, you name it, (s)he's got it. It seems to be that your own way is through developing the mind. So that's your way. And it'll take you a long ways along the Path, your Path. But to become a complete adept you must also be able to use all the other qualities of a human being's make up. When I went to school, long time ago, we called that a well rounded person. So it's gotta be a well rounded adept, & if (s)he's just developed one or 2 faculties, (s)he's still lopsided, not done yet, & needs to be cooked some more. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 11 02:48:05 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 22:48:05 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605110352.XAA06198@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: the future of the TS, vintage 1927 To round off this evening, here's another good quote from Cyril Scott's "The Initiate in the New World" "If the Society is to remain a great force for good in the world, & I fervently hope it will do so, then for one thing its members must uproot cowardice. There have been cowards who have run away at the moment of danger, and instead of giving a hand at the pumps, have deserted the ship. It doesn't matter whether the danger has appeared in the form of a scandal, having for its basis some kink in the nervous system of one of its members, or whether dissensions have arisen around opinions and pronouncements about the World Teacher. If Brotherhood means anythigng at all, it means standing by one another not only in moments of safety but also in danger. To my mind the future of the TS depends before all else on the moral heroism of its members." From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 11 21:19:45 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 22:19:45 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: News from England Mime-Version: 1.0 The following item has just appeared in *The Theosophical Journal* (UK) May/June issue: "*The Way Ahead* mentioned that 'An interesting example of a modern network is the Internet - users who have access to information stored on a large number of computer systems world-wide'. Adam Warcup's article was read by another member of the Society who approached him and received permission to reproduce it on the Internet. Through the agency of a computer network called Theosophy International, The Way Ahead is now immediately available to about a hundred subscribers to a networked series of three discussion groups. It will also be available from a computer located in North Carolina in the U.S.A. It is likely that other theosophical computer networks in the U.S.A., New Zealand and Australia will also accept this article. The consequence of Adam's work is that his suggestions have been taken up with immediate effect by those best able to make use of the facilities, and that thoughts expressed in our Journal have been made available to a large audience of theosophical students world-wide. Members of Theosophy International are engaged in making core theosophical teachings available in electronic form, and among books being worked on for networked distribution are The Key to Theosophy, Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine (in its entirety). "Dr A. M. Bain, Bristol" Note: An interesting editorial job on an original news item sent to the assistant editor of *The Theosophical Journal* which makes me appear to have written a letter. The item is, in fact, an *interpretation* of the information I sent in. List readers will quickly spot the misunderstandings in the item - still, we (and TI!) got some free publicity. A pity the Bristol Lodge kicked me off their committee for doing something the National Society seems happy to publicize ... A second most interesting item also appeared, which I will post separately. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 11 21:21:58 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 22:21:58 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: UK Reading Lodge - it CAN be done! Mime-Version: 1.0 "In the January/February [UK] TheosophicalJournal, Adam Warcup (The Way Ahead) and Ruby Tovet (From Pisces to Aquarius) discussed the question of 'networking' versus 'hierarchy'. The Reading Lodge has already met these two matters. Since October 1991 we have not had a president, and we became independent of a federation in June 1992. We simply have a secretary who disseminates information and members take it in turn to chair meetings. We exchange programmes with other nearby lodges and attend their meetings whenever possible. For administrative purposes it is necessary to have a hierarchy in The Theosophical Society - people who have the time to devote to administration. This should include a General Secretary, Treasurer, Executive Committee, etc - and National Councillors, too, because it is not logistically feasible for every member of the Society to attend a huge meeting. For educational purposes, networking is practical. Hence our contact with nearby lodges. At the commencement of each meeting of Reading Lodge, we light a candle, have an invocation, a short reading, music, then two minutes silence. This puts us into a frame of mind conducive to listening or studying. We end with a second invocation , and extinguish the candle. These practices have been habitual for a few years, and we find them helpful. Miriam Brown, Reading." Posted *verbatim* by Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 11 23:25:22 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 18:25:22 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: News from England In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 11 May 1996, Alan wrote: > > The following item has just appeared in *The Theosophical Journal* (UK) > May/June issue: > > "*The Way Ahead* mentioned that 'An interesting example of a modern > network is the Internet - users who have access to information stored on > a large number of computer systems world-wide'. Adam Warcup's article >>>>>>>>>> clip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am glad to see the above published in the TTJ. In this respect UK is ahead of TSA. I have not yet seen any comprehensive article introducing Internet E-mail and its application to the members of TSA. I hope we see something soon in AT. ...doss From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 11 22:35:37 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 18:35:37 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605112340.TAA16676@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: News from England Re: The write up of internet activity in the UK's Theosophical Journal, and the description of the Reading Lodge ... applause, applause. At least we have some people on our side! Liesel, member ti ............................................................................. > >The following item has just appeared in *The Theosophical Journal* (UK) >May/June issue: > >"*The Way Ahead* mentioned that 'An interesting example of a modern >network is the Internet - users who have access to information stored on >a large number of computer systems world-wide'. Adam Warcup's article >was read by another member of the Society who approached him and >received permission to reproduce it on the Internet. Through the agency >of a computer network called Theosophy International, The Way Ahead is >now immediately available to about a hundred subscribers to a networked >series of three discussion groups. It will also be available from a >computer located in North Carolina in the U.S.A. It is likely that other >theosophical computer networks in the U.S.A., New Zealand and Australia >will also accept this article. The consequence of Adam's work is that >his suggestions have been taken up with immediate effect by those best >able to make use of the facilities, and that thoughts expressed in our >Journal have been made available to a large audience of theosophical >students world-wide. Members of Theosophy International are engaged in >making core theosophical teachings available in electronic form, and >among books being worked on for networked distribution are The Key to >Theosophy, Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine (in its entirety). > >"Dr A. M. Bain, Bristol" > >Note: An interesting editorial job on an original news item sent to the >assistant editor of *The Theosophical Journal* which makes me appear to >have written a letter. The item is, in fact, an *interpretation* of the >information I sent in. List readers will quickly spot the >misunderstandings in the item - still, we (and TI!) got some free >publicity. A pity the Bristol Lodge kicked me off their committee for >doing something the National Society seems happy to publicize ... > >A second most interesting item also appeared, which I will post >separately. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 11 04:11:12 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 23:11:12 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Rules of Engagement/Enragement/Enlightenment In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960511084824.006df4e0@mail.deltanet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 10 May 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > Theos-L Readers: >>>>>>>>clip<<<<<<<< ' > It would be interesting, though, if we could discuss what would > be proper guidelines for posting to this list. We could come up > with some more detailed rules than "respect the views of others". > I'd help with discussing the guidelines, and would follow whatever > we mutually agree to. > > -- Eldon > > Eldon: Your objective is good. I have been around the discussion "lists" long before Internet was available to the public. To achieve the objective, based on my experience, it is going to require very detailed narrow guidelines and also a "moderator/censor" whose job is to warn anyone transgressing the guidelines and after two or three warnings the poster should be removed from the list. Without these two, IMHO, it would not work. IMHO, it is very impractical come up with *any* guidelines. Any time you start with guidelines, it is slowly going to gravitate towards a censored list. I do not think *any one* here would like any kind of censoring. IMHO, all that can be done is to "play by the ear". If everyone makes an effort to make this list educative, informational, helpful, then we can make it succeed. This is my 2 cents worth. ....doss From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 11 04:21:16 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 23:21:16 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: the future of the TS, vintage 1927 In-Reply-To: <199605110352.XAA06198@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Liesel: Your post is very timely. To have moral heroism, one needs to think for oneself (no second hand thinking) and be fearless about all consequences including "spiritual". It is fear of one thing or the other that makes people not act based purely on what they think is the right thing to do. It is also fear (moral and/or spiritual or post life) that is used by organizations control and direct the behaviour of its followers or members. Now is the time to speak up and act to the best of our understanding and our judgement and not the understanding and not the judgement of someone else who may be considered however highly evolved spiritually or on any other basis. The lack of fear and clear thinking will make each one of us understand the problem and our intelligence will make us act in the right manner and heroically. ....doss On Fri, 10 May 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > To round off this evening, here's another good quote from Cyril Scott's "The > Initiate in the New World" > > "If the Society is to remain a great force for good in the world, & I > fervently hope it will do so, then for one thing its members must uproot > cowardice. There have been cowards who have run away at the moment of > danger, and instead of giving a hand at the pumps, have deserted the ship. > It doesn't matter whether the danger has appeared in the form of a scandal, > having for its basis some kink in the nervous system of one of its members, > or whether dissensions have arisen around opinions and pronouncements about > the World Teacher. If Brotherhood means anythigng at all, it means standing > by one another not only in moments of safety but also in danger. To my mind > the future of the TS depends before all else on the moral heroism of its > members." > > From eldon@theosophy.com Sat May 11 11:29:33 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 04:29:33 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960511112933.00691d5c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Rules of Engagement/Enragement/Enlightenment Doss: >> It would be interesting, though, if we could discuss what would >> be proper guidelines for posting to this list. We could come up >> with some more detailed rules than "respect the views of others". >> I'd help with discussing the guidelines, and would follow whatever >> we mutually agree to. >Your objective is good. I have been around the discussion "lists" long >before Internet was available to the public. To achieve the objective, based >on my experience, it is going to require very detailed narrow guidelines >and also a "moderator/censor" whose job is to warn anyone transgressing >the guidelines and after two or three warnings the poster should be >removed from the list. Without these two, IMHO, it would not work. You're probably right. But the process of talking about what would be proper and what might be inappropriate might help clarify things, even if the discussion doesn't result in any guidelines. >IMHO, it is very impractical come up with *any* guidelines. Any time you >start with guidelines, it is slowly going to gravitate towards a >censored list. I do not think *any one* here would like any kind of >censoring. IMHO, all that can be done is to "play by the ear". >If everyone makes an effort to make this list educative, informational, >helpful, then we can make it succeed. Again, you're probably right. This list is a free-for-all that has a certain charm because of that fact. Those that join the list and persist here do so because of liking it for what it is. It's not, though, the only way to do things, and I can see a number of different approaches being experimented with elsewhere in the future. -- Eldon From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 11 05:44:21 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 01:44:21 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960511014420_488763579@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) Doss, That is all very true. Of course, in the American Section we have such a divergence of views that for the society to become actively involved in politics would probably split it, but that doesn't preclude other things to make the world a little better for us having been in it. Chuck From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 11 05:45:01 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 01:45:01 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960511014501_488763851@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic Jery, And a succession of girlfriends has done the same for me. :-) Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker "Oh the lunatics have taken over the asylum, The lunatics have taken over the asylum." From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 11 05:45:13 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 01:45:13 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960511014509_488763920@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Comparing Auras Doss, it might be possible to read the aura of the writer of an e-mail message, but by the time it has filtered through the different servers there might not be much left. In any event it might be an interesting experiment. Chuck From Richtay@aol.com Sat May 11 05:48:05 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 01:48:05 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960511014803_111264405@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: higher powers I hate to walk in on this minefield, but this comment is not something insulting aimed at anyone in particular. Liesel wrote, > Eldon, you're totally zerschimmmelt, on this view. An adept has all sorts of > powers, psychic, mental, astral, buddhic, you name it, (s)he's got it. It > seems to be that your own way is through developing the mind. So that's your > way. I think Eldon may be saying something different. The point he may be making is that Adepts may have all kinds of hidden powers, but many of them arise naturally while pursuing Raja Yoga. The real training which one might focus on is developing the powers of discrimination and insight and compassion, and then finding that unusual psychic abilities arise as well. A matter of emphasis and what exactly is being sought. But I think everyone on the board will admit that psychic (and other) powers NECESSARILY arise when one gets involved in spiritual development. There's no way around it, as Liesel points out, in order to be "well-rounded." For some people these powers appear to arise early, for some late. But HPB and Judge (and Eldon) seem to be emphasizing the idea that these psychic abilities are "icing on the cake" and not the cake itself. Okay, now that I've stuck my neck out, by all means let the personal attacks come in ! From alexei@slip.net Sat May 11 06:06:48 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 23:06:48 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960511060648.0069c074@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Response from Donna to Eldon and Alexis At 05:59 PM 5/10/96 -0400, you wrote: >A couple of days ago I made a comment to Alexis -- "The >shaman/healer/teacher/leader who can do her duty correctly and without the >dynamics of control dramas is a rare find". By control drama, I mean the >dramas or processes we put ourselves and others through when engaging with the >ego. Shamans, healers, teachers, and leaders are all in a position of control >.. they gain energy from what they do. It is a lot of responsibility, and the >temptation of misusing that power over others is quite alluring in of itself. Donna: It's pretty obvious to me that our experiences of and with Shamanism have been through entirely different approaches to Shamanism. I won't even pretend to assume what "schools" of Shamanism you have had your experience with because I only know the one with which I work. I have spent a great deal of time and thought, along with my co-shaman and lover in trying to make sure there is no ego manifestation in what we do. People come to me for healings and to him for "spirit quests", we do what we do for free as we have material sources of income. To every person that comes to us we explain carefully that neither of us does anything at all, we only serve as conduits to the spirits. Then as I said the other night, I place my hands on their shoulders or head, open my mouth and take a deep breath and begin to chant. I am not the controller of the chant, I am just the vocal cords. I have done chants that Cherokee Indian People present have told me they learned as children, on the other hand occasionally I do Hawaiian Chants (about which I know absolutely nothing at all) and quite regularly I do chants of an Arabic flavor. I neither gain nor lose energy in the process I simply "pass it through", though I do believe my own health is maintained by passing the cosmic harmonic through me. I can easily live with this being my Dharma, but to me, unfortunately "Duty" has far too judeo-Christian a "ring" to it. Most native Americans I have met say that what I do reminds them of what their own Shamans do, but I make no claim to knowing what I'm doing. This is equally true of my partner. You have a nice weekend too. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat May 11 06:31:11 1996 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 23:31:11 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960511063111.006981d8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Schizophrenia and the Psychic At 06:32 PM 5/10/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >No, an embarrassment of Chuck. > >Chuck the Atrocious, MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Why Chuck's no embarassment, he's a paripatetic Gad Fly doing his Dharmic thing! alexis From poulsen@dk-online.dk Sat May 11 12:41:41 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 10:41:41 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3F26.971BA8A0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (assumptions 2) Encoding: 201 TEXT JHE (on Sinnett) But Kim, they are the same person. The attitudes that led to Sinnett seeking out a medium are the same attitudes that led to his break with the Mahatmas in the first place. Sinnett was a problematical person long before the break in correspondence. Kim I do not share your evaluation. Of course they are the same person (not necessarily with the same intensity in their personality traits). The psychological transformations of Hume is worth a study - especially in view of the law mentioned at the beginning of ES instruction I. A transformation from a man with high moral aspirations - to a highly suspicious, spiteful OGRE during his days of occult training - and eventually back to a relatively unselfish state. All these students, chelas and lay-chelas, can be excused in my view - HPB, TSR, Sinnett, Hume, many of the latter-day theosophists as well. In my book only one thing remains - what did they achieve in their lives to help others? This part - the best of them - is the part I care about. Nothing else. ------------------- JHE >I already stated out front that my bias is that HPB's expositions >of the doctrines are the most faithful to her teacher's. >Remember, it was HPB's mission to disseminate the teachings. Do >you recall that letter you partially quoted me? When I finished >the quote, we found that HPB affirmed her position with her >teachers and her mission. Kim Yes, and you clearly saw her own statement (a few words of complaint written in a letter and a very emotional statement regarding her importance!) as some sort of evidence to bring up in all disputes among HPB and others. I find as many emotional reactions in the letters of HPB as in any others. Even when HPB admits an "error", even when the evidence is very clear on a specific philosophical subject you apparently see it fit to bring in argumentation like this. Jerry, I have a strong feeling of dejavu when this type of argumentation arises. The East is full of tulkus, avatars and gurus and reason avails nothing with their supporters: "X was a tulku, who are you to object against his views?".. I may be a little over-sensitive to this line of reasoning perhaps. --------------------------- JHE: Remember: "Plato is Plato, HPB is HPB, TSR is TSR, APS is APS " etc. Kim Not in the opinion of HPB (and myself). Both of us works from the assumption of a esoteric inner meaning which is common, and can be understood and divulged. Again and again she makes comments that Plato and TSR (and other initiates) is meaning this and that from the basis of such a system and their understanding of it. If you wish as an excercise of thought and from some ideal of scholarship to view such system as differing in essence you can naturally do so. No method can be imposed on me, I am satisfied with my own and have seldom formed my opinion on anything but primary evidence. --------------------------------- JHE >>Who made these "exact same accusations" against TSR? I'm >>afraid I missed them. Kim >Never mind. I have a strong dislike for this subject. JHE Interesting. Why? Kim Reasons will be apparent from this letter (see below). I am very sad that I had to write it. I have a tremendeous longing to get back to the cool tenets of philosophy. ----------------------------------------- Kim >"It is very clear from p. 607 of CW that her real system "on >strict esoteric lines" is very close to TSR (except in the >terminology in a few of the principles), that previous writings >of her also is labeled semi-exoteric by herself and as a result >that a whole range of accusations against TSR by devout >theosophists can be disregarded." (inserted argument) HPB herself works from the assumption that their respective teachings were treating of the same subject, that they were discussing the same subject. JHE: >Now, granting for the sake of argument that the systems are >close, I'm asking how does that fact lead you to conclude that "a >whole range of accusations against TSR by devout theosophists can >be disregarded."? Which accusations are these? Who made the >accusations? How are these accusations connected to p. 607? >Are you suggesting by your phrase "accusations of left hand >influence" that someone stated that TSR was under the influence >of "black magicians?" Who made this statement? Where? I missed >it. Kim Let us just say that the first thing that happened when a difference (what appeared to be a difference) was mentioned between HPB and TSR (in this case the issue of 7 principles versus 4+3) I noticed 3 reactions: a) List-contributor A makes the deduction that TSR was under the influence of left-hand adepts since he appeared to contradict his heroine. b) List-contributor B in the same context makes the deduction that TSR was against the divulging esoteric truths, that his ideas consequently probably was the first in a long line of misinformation and distortions of truth. c)You eventually ended up with arguments like "It was her (HPB?s) mission", etc - and this in the face of strong evidence (her own admission). You used your faith in HPB in an argument where she clearly admitted that it was her first explanation that was semi-exoteric (and that TSR was closer to the truth( as an argument in the discussion! d) During the discussion you also brought up a similar statement by Zirkoff which was made in another context but which fits in this group of argumentation of a traditional religious nature and not belonging in a philosophical discussion. Material out of context, biases and proclamations of faith are used where I would have liked to see philosophical argumentation. PLEASE let us get down to business. JHE > So here, she is giving an answer that is equally valid for any or >all of the possible interpretations of TSR's statement: that it >was HPB who was sent to do the work--not TSR. Whether or not TSR >agrees with HPB's methods, it was still her job and her >responsibility to do it. Why would TSR think he had the right to >interfere with someone else's job? Seems to me that how HPB >carried out her mission is an issue between her and her boss--not >her and TSR. Kim - and again, and again. You overrules a piece of evidence on a subject given to personal students during class by a complaint written in a hasty letter (on what would could have been a lousy morning) on another subject. Analyzing the nature of the material is vital. JHE >See Dan Caldwell's post concerning HPB's statement to her ES >members. Kim Exactly. It forms part of the clear-cut evidence in the case of the "seven principles controversy" . Thank you Daniel! ------------------------------ Kim >Then you must have a whole heap of questions arising from the >lives of historical adepts. How about Shankara - suddenly a >perfect adept at 17. JHE >Nope. Different cases. To begin with, I see TSR as a chela, not >an adept. Kim a) You question a source because of the short time of exposure to theosophy (??!!??).b) I give you another example of instant access to esoteric information. c) you end up making cloudy graduations where you aught to have "OK. Such a thing is possible. Let us drop this line of inquiry. d) I say "let us drop this line of inquiry". JHE >We do know, however, that it was HPB's job to promulgate the >teachings to the world. What was TSR's "job?" Did he have one? >Where is it described? Kim I honestly do not think such arguments can be used in a discussion of philosophy. If we want to analyse the role of TSR we can do it at a later time. ------------------------------------- JHE >>I never assume that any two people ever say quite the same >>thing. I treat every writer as unique in outlook and >>expression. Kim >So I have noticed. Permit me to believe in the concepts >"esoteric meaning" >and "common truth". And permit me to corroborate the use of >prakriti for the seventh universal with as many possible writers >as possible. Corroboration, "esoteric meaning", a common >doctrine. JHE >I gladly "permit" you to believe in the concept of "esoteric >meaning" and "common truth." I also share these beliefs. But >for me, corroboration does not necessarily affirm or deny them. Kim But they certainly strongly supports the very concept of them. HPB works with such assumptions all the time. HPB works from the assumption that behind the words of HPB and TSR there is a esoteric meaning and that any difference need to be explained. The world of scholarly research would generally in the case of SIMILARITY make the guess that one copied the other. The two approaches to study are completely antagonistic. I hope you take no offense, these represent my views. Where I have misunderstood motives I apologize. ;-) In friendship, Kim From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Sun May 12 03:55:55 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 20:55:55 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <3195614B.167C@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: higher powers References: <960511014803_111264405@emout17.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Richtay@aol.com wrote: > > I hate to walk in on this minefield, but this comment is not something > insulting aimed at anyone in particular. > > Liesel wrote, > > > Eldon, you're totally zerschimmmelt, on this view. An adept has all sorts > of > > powers, psychic, mental, astral, buddhic, you name it, (s)he's got it. It > > seems to be that your own way is through developing the mind. So that's > your > > way. > > I think Eldon may be saying something different. The point he may be making > is that Adepts may have all kinds of hidden powers, but many of them arise > naturally while pursuing Raja Yoga. The real training which one might focus > on is developing the powers of discrimination and insight and compassion, and > then finding that unusual psychic abilities arise as well. A matter of > emphasis and what exactly is being sought. > > But I think everyone on the board will admit that psychic (and other) powers > NECESSARILY arise when one gets involved in spiritual development. There's > no way around it, as Liesel points out, in order to be "well-rounded." For > some people these powers appear to arise early, for some late. But HPB and > Judge (and Eldon) seem to be emphasizing the idea that these psychic > abilities are "icing on the cake" and not the cake itself. > > Okay, now that I've stuck my neck out, by all means let the personal attacks > come in !No attack coming. I will always remember when I first became involved with the Federation of Spiritual Healers 20 years ago, that they were at great pains to stress that becoming a healer could stimulate the psychic abilities. They also said that they were only a side issue and many a potential healer became stuck at the psychic level because of their delight with these abilities and neglected to continue their spiritual pursuits. Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From michelle@zip.com.au Sat May 11 21:50:55 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 21:50:55 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Subject: Re: Adyar leadership Comments: Authenticated sender is Message-Id: <199605111131.VAA10465@zipper.zip.com.au> Hi All > being greatly discouraged & hampered; except that Adyar is against becoming > part of the Internet; Having talked with Joy Mills upon her recent return from Adyar this comment is incorrect. While I didnt have time to ask Joy for more details, she did tell me that Adyar are setting up connection with the net. I cant offer more details than this. I would think it will be announced in due course - and for committees that can be a longggg time ;-) I think the grumbling about the International or National offices that goes on from time to time is often not based on fact and these falsehoods and preconceived perceptions and then get passed on as truths. This is sad. One thing that has stood out in my time with TS organizations is needing to discriminate. Many of us have strong emotional connections, are very dedicated to "the work" and this can result in a veil through which we transform what we hear, while for others it can lead to a distortion in what we say. Hence a keynote when reading, writing, speaking or hearing Theosophy, for me is to discriminate. Also regarding the point about the Russians - I have heard other versions that indicate that they werent willing to comply with the International Rules of the TS (Adyar) and that was why they werent allowed to join. The international body of any organization has that right, but it is often easier to think wrong of those at the top of an organization. in fellowship Michelle From michelle@zip.com.au Sat May 11 21:50:57 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 21:50:57 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Subject: Re: You Warned Me Message-Id: <199605111131.VAA10453@zipper.zip.com.au> Comments: Authenticated sender is Hi all Firstly I am back after a bought of the flu, followed by a busy work period and problems with the mail server at my ISP so I couldnt post to the list for a few weeks now. So I'm not one who has joined and left this "unit". > Frankly I am tired of deleting fully one half to two thirds of the posts at > Theos-L on sight after paying for downloading them. Amen, and not just the paying for them either, to me there is a consideration of the processes involved in passing messages around the globe - for this process too is part of the whole that we live in, so I also ask for this consideration from a conservation of bandwidth point of view - this too is an aspect of Universal Brotherhood in practice. > Alexis and I finally called it quits. Thank God. How about the rest? Please _everyone_, consider if your message is meant for group consideration or is a personal individual response. I have already deleted 6 messages all personal banter out of only 13, that would have been more appropriately sent to the one person than to all 90 odd of us. The journey starts with a single step, we can all be more conservate in our use of the world's energy resources just by being more judicious in our postings. in fellowship Michelle BTW the imp in me has seriously contemplated forwarding copies of all personal off topic messages to the sender ;-) May be it the retorgrade mayhem in May. From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 11 12:24:09 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 07:24:09 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) In-Reply-To: <960511014420_488763579@emout09.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Chuck: I did not advocate the TS getting involved in politics at all. TS has always kept out of politics. When AB was involved in politics, it was in her personal capacity. Also she set up an office outside the Adyar campus to carry on all her political activities. ...doss From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 11 12:52:37 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 07:52:37 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Adyar leadership In-Reply-To: <199605111131.VAA10465@zipper.zip.com.au> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 11 May 1996, Michelle Donald wrote: > Hi All > > > being greatly discouraged & hampered; except that Adyar is against becoming > > part of the Internet; > > Having talked with Joy Mills upon her recent return from Adyar this > comment is incorrect. While I didnt have time to ask Joy for more > details, she did tell me that Adyar are setting up connection with > the net. I cant offer more details than this. I would think it will > be announced in due course - and for committees that can be a longggg > time ;-) Glad that you inquired of Joy Mills about connection to the net. I am somewhat aware of the cost side of the connection in India. Everything is very expensive unless you are part of government or an educational institution. Even e-mail is prohibitively expensive. The equipment is already there having been donated by a member of TSA. Adyar can see the advantages of e-mail with sections and lodges in so many countries in the world. Again, when the connection is set up, we will have to see what application it will be put to initially. Certainly unless they are able to get a free connection thru an educational institution, they cannot afford to get all the traffic generated on theos-xxxx just from a cost stand point, IMHO. > > I think the grumbling about the International or National offices > that goes on from time to time is often not based on fact and these > falsehoods and preconceived perceptions and then get passed on as > truths. This is sad. One thing that has stood out in my time with TS > organizations is needing to discriminate. Many of us have strong > emotional connections, are very dedicated to "the work" and this can > result in a veil through which we transform what we hear, while for > others it can lead to a distortion in what we say. Hence a keynote > when reading, writing, speaking or hearing Theosophy, for me is to > discriminate. > One of the major problems that is at the root of wrong information and misperceptions is the lack of information flow from the top to bottom on some of the important issues that are very vital for long term growth and survival of TS. I do not know what is happening in other parts of the world. I can only speak for USA. A very glaring case was the memo that Radha Burnier sent to the General Council in 1980 and which was posted here some months ago. I do not know if you have seen it. It raises several policy issues on which many of us agree with her. We do not know what were the reactions of the General Council on these policy matters and what decisions were taken. In my opinion, some of the fundamental policy matters should be explained and discussed with the membership so that the membership can intellgently participate and work towards some common objectives. If this is not done, you only see actions here and there which are bound to be misunderstood and misinterpreted. Lack of information is at the bottom of this problem. Unless more open and better communication is established from the top down, this situation is not likely to change. It is going to be very difficult for independent minded members to blindly accept and support every move every administration makes, because of this lack of information. This is my reading of the situation, and I may be wrong. But I welcome other views on this. > Also regarding the point about the Russians - I have heard other > versions that indicate that they werent willing to comply with the > International Rules of the TS (Adyar) and that was why they werent > allowed to join. The international body of any organization has that > right, but it is often easier to think wrong of those at the top of > an organization. > Thanks for the clarification. You have helped us to understand the background to the decision. ......doss > in fellowship > Michelle > From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 11 13:01:01 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 08:01:01 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: You Warned Me In-Reply-To: <199605111131.VAA10453@zipper.zip.com.au> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 11 May 1996, Michelle Donald wrote: > Hi all ...clip................> > in fellowship > Michelle > > BTW the imp in me has seriously contemplated forwarding copies of all > personal off topic messages to the sender ;-) May be it the > retorgrade mayhem in May. > A very good practical idea which will work. If all do the same, soon the sender will be overwhelmed by messages. This reminds me of a recent message I read. This guy is sending a business promotion messages to all the maillists - you do not see it here because you cannot post a message unless you are subscribed -- and wants you to fax him a message to a toll free number. Someone who got fed up, because he was sending the same message under different names, sent a message 500 pages long - each page being the same and ran up the phone bill and got even. ....doss From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 11 13:47:44 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 09:47:44 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605111452.KAA00530@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Nobody knows Chuck says >convention and summer school are coming up and we are >probably going to be seminared to death but when it comes to making Theosophy >a living thing, something is going to get seriously lost in the translation. > It's that way every year. Boy, Chuck, the Conventions must've changed a lot. The last one I went to, maybe 10 years or so ago, I came back home with a satchelful of new ideas. My problem was that my Branch wanted to stay the same, so all the good ideas went to nought, & you know what happens when you try to stay the same. Several years ago this Branch gave up the ghost. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 11 13:55:51 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 09:55:51 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605111500.LAA02646@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: teachers > Personally, I would have to include James Long >to your list of "bona fide Teacher" in as much as he was >my own Teacher. His aura was beautiful. But Alexis, >Chuck, and I see a difference between Teacher and >Adept. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI 'Scuse me, but first off I see the difference between a Teacher & an Adept, even though I'm not on your list. Second off, that may be your list of Teachers, but to me it's not more than a partial list. Right off the top of my head, I'd include Dora Kunz, Harry Van Gelder, & CW Leadbeater. There must be others. Wish you'd be fair, & tell it like it is. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 11 13:57:12 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 09:57:12 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605111502.LAA06032@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Teachers PS forgot to include Alice Bailey & Rudolph Steiner. LFD From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 11 13:59:47 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 09:59:47 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605111504.LAA06094@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Schizo/psych >There's not much that can be said in response to that! Perhaps >it won't be possible for all the different variants and offshoots >of Theosophy to exist under a single tent? > >-- Eldon To repeat what I quoted yesterday whatever happened to the tent of Sister/Brotherhood? From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat May 11 16:05:49 1996 Date: 11 May 96 12:05:49 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: higher powers Message-Id: <960511160549_76400.1474_HHL39-2@CompuServe.COM> >So it's gotta be a well rounded adept, & if (s)he's >just developed one or 2 faculties, (s)he's still lopsided, not done yet, & >needs to be cooked some more. Liesel, you are "right on" and certainly have a way with words. I love it. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat May 11 16:05:56 1996 Date: 11 May 96 12:05:56 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: higher powers Message-Id: <960511160555_76400.1474_HHL39-4@CompuServe.COM> Bee: >I will always remember when I first became involved with the Federation of >Spiritual Healers 20 years ago, that they were at great pains to stress that >becoming a healer could stimulate the psychic abilities. They also said that >they were only a side issue and many a potential healer became stuck at the >psychic level because of their delight with these abilities and neglected to >continue their spiritual pursuits. Bee, your idea expressed above is exactly what keeps bothering me and the TS view of psychism. It is the TS's duty to warn us. OK, you were duly warned. This is no reason to "ignore" those psychic abilities that come naturally as a result of your work. If you fall into the trap of neglecting your "spiritual pursuits" than this is your karma, and so be it. This can only happen if you ignore the warning. But given the warning, and making sure that you keep up your "spiritual pursuits" whats the problem? Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat May 11 16:05:46 1996 Date: 11 May 96 12:05:46 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Psychism & Mental Illness Message-Id: <960511160546_76400.1474_HHL39-1@CompuServe.COM> Some responses to Eldon: >Jerry S. >>You are saying that mental illnesses such as schizophrenia >>are *caused* by psychism. Is this not correct? > >Eldon: >No. I'm saying that some forms of mental illness like >schizophrenia can cause accidental psychism. The mental >illness causes the body to malfunction and one's perceptions >to include subjective images from the astral light. I am not at all sure about the causal relationahip in this case. And again, maybe we need to define psychism. I am not using it here in the sense of "powers" or "abilities" at all. I am using it in the sense of accidental or spantaneous opening up of one or more chakras due to the premature awakening of Kundalini. If we have a person who hears voices and sees things that no one else does, I would say that s/he is having a premature awakening of Kundalini. A doctor would examine the same person and say schizophrenia. They are two separate diagnoses of the same illness, one medical, and other occult. I don't know how much you know about the chakras, Kundalini, and so on, Eldon, but your statement of seeing images in the astral light is exactly what happens when Kundalini stirs up the Central Channel. An unprepared person will not know anything about the astral light, and will confound it with the physical world. > In one posting, I came to >what I consider the significant point with mental illness: >the process of curing it can be examined by us for helpful >clues to the process of treading the Path. I have been studying psychology for a while now, and have concluded that psychology is very good on diagnosis, but very poor on cure. Treatment for most mental illness is sadly lacking. The hardest of all to cure are those caused as defense mechanisms as children-- usually the result of physical and/or sexual abuse. But the idea of tying this to the Path is intriguing. >This is a different subject than budding psychic abilities, >that would arise on their own, not out of mental illness but >because the individual has a predisposition to perceive the >non-physical. Agreed. However, premature psychism such as seeing images in the astral light without any initiation, can lead to mental illness. I strongly support getting proper prepartion and/or initiation into these things. Knowledge is one's only real hope here, serving as an anchor. And here one area in which something like a universe map (globes, planes, etc) can really help. >If we have Kundalini active, we certainly have to deal with it! >Like if we were in a car, stalled on a train crossing, watching >a train racing towards us at 90 mph! This is a subject that I'd >consider carefully before discussing it in public. After she rises within us, it is too late to start teaching Tantra. With all of the books currently available on this subject, I wonder why you are reluctant to talk publically? > Although we've never met in >person, I feel as if I know you pretty well, from having >communicated with you over the past several years on theos-l, >and hope that if you're ever out at Pasadena, that you'll >call and come by. (Brenda and I live about 32 miles from >the library in Altadena.) Thanks. I was in Pasadena a few years ago and visited that library, and hope to get back there someday. I will look you up. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat May 11 16:05:59 1996 Date: 11 May 96 12:05:59 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Personal Messages Message-Id: <960511160558_76400.1474_HHL39-5@CompuServe.COM> >Please _everyone_, consider if your message is meant for group >consideration or is a personal individual response. I have already >deleted 6 messages all personal banter out of only 13, that would >have been more appropriately sent to the one person than to all 90 >odd of us. While this is already being done, and maybe can be done even more, I have a problem with your basic premise. You seem to assume that some messages, probably a lot of the Chuckisms, and one-liners sent between 'gang' members, are personal and only intended for one person. This is just not so. I enjoy reading the one-liners, for the most part whether to me or not. Those that don't apply to me, I simply delete. And anyone can join in at any time, if they want to. To me, the one-liners keep an air of humor on the list, that will become terribly serious and stuffy without them. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat May 11 16:05:51 1996 Date: 11 May 96 12:05:51 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: higher powers Message-Id: <960511160551_76400.1474_HHL39-3@CompuServe.COM> Some responses to Rich Taylor: > The point he may be making >is that Adepts may have all kinds of hidden powers, >but many of them arise >naturally while pursuing Raja Yoga Rich, you can count the Adepts who got there by practicing Raja Yoga on the fingers of one hand. Your statement is true, but misleading. >The real training which one might focus >on is developing the powers of discrimination and insight and compassion, >and then finding that unusual psychic abilities arise as well. A matter of >emphasis and what exactly is being sought. Agreed, although I would delete the word "real" which is judgmental. >But I think everyone on the board will admit that psychic (and other) powers >NECESSARILY arise when one gets involved in spiritual development. Yes. > For some people these powers appear to arise early, for some late. >But HPB and Judge (and Eldon) seem to be emphasizing the idea that >these psychic abilities are "icing on the cake" and not the cake itself. I am not sure what you mean here. If by "cake" you mean the ultimate goal, then I agree. But icing is an almost essential part of a cake (its my daughter's favorite part). Eat too much, or too fast, and you get sick. But taken slowly, in small proportions, its quite good. Jerry S. Member, TI From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 11 16:11:01 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 12:11:01 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960511121100_488910247@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: You Warned Me(to JRC) Doss, I was just using an example of thiings we can feel strongly about and differ about without letting it get us mad. I love Beyondananda's material. Some of it is almost as good as my own. :-) Chuck From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 11 16:11:52 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 12:11:52 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960511121150_488910573@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: There is no real "Gang" Alan, If I don't Alex or Eldon will. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From alexei@slip.net Sat May 11 17:08:42 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 10:08:42 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960511170842.00698514@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) At 01:46 AM 5/11/96 -0400, you wrote: >Doss, >That is all very true. Of course, in the American Section we have such a >divergence of views that for the society to become actively involved in >politics would probably split it, but that doesn't preclude other things to >make the world a little better for us having been in it. > >Chuck > Chuck: Just a reminder from an old politician. For the T.S. to become involved would not only split it, it would destroy it financially. It costs a Non-Profit Corporation that status for it to become actively involved in politics in any way. There are some kinds of non-profits that do not preclude it, or groups like Green peace and the Sierra Club wouldn't exist, but I would assume that the T.S. is either chartered as a philosophical or Education non-profit (I doubt if it's chartered as a religion) and they can have their status taken away for engagement in any political activity at all. The Mainstream Churches currently involved in Anti-Abortion activity on a political front are only "getting away with it" because of their immense political clout and because the IRS has so far not dared or desired to challenge them. This would not be true of the T.S. But when viewed from the point of view of written law, the Roman Catholic church could and should lose it's tax-free status because of it's current political activities. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat May 11 17:14:52 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 10:14:52 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960511171452.006afaf0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Comparing Auras At 01:47 AM 5/11/96 -0400, you wrote: >Doss, >it might be possible to read the aura of the writer of an e-mail message, but >by the time it has filtered through the different servers there might not be >much left. In any event it might be an interesting experiment. > >Chuck > >Chuck: There wouldn't be any "filtration" because the aura itself wouldn't be transmitted. The Internet merely would allow the operant to "tune in" as it were to the person sending the message, at which point a properly operative aura reader could focus directly on the person no matter where they are, and read the aura that way. I would be surprised if it were as accurate as a personal reading, but it would give some idea as to the quality of energy with which one was dealing. If one can ""distance read" individuals in say Adyar from say California, and this is quite easy, then the computer network would only be the same kind of connecting link that say a photograph would be. The KGB did stuff like this for years and so did our CIA, I'd be amazed to find out that they'd stopped. alexis From am455@lafn.org Sat May 11 17:11:18 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 10:11:18 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199605111711.AA28744@lafn.org> Subject: Divine Mothers Everyone should treasure in his heart love for the mother, who has borne him, reared him with love and fostered him with care. Love of the mother can redeem a man's life, whatever his other lapses may be. Whoever she may be, [the] mother is verily divine. [For that reason,] the person who forfeits [her] love will not earn anyone's love. We should not disregard the mother. If you have some kind of doubt, go to her in a nice way and clarify. Tell her in a nice way and explain. Don't hurt her at any time. No one who hurts [her] will prosper in life. If you disregard your mother now, tomorrow you will be disregarded by your children. This is the law of action and reaction that is always at work. The first guru to the child is the mother. In the tradition of Bharat, mother, father, guru and God have to be worshipped. The mother has the first place. Why does she get the first place? The mother carries the child in her womb for nine months, undergoes all trouble and pain and sacrifices everything including her blood for the child. Therefore, we have to honour [her]. The branch is a part of the tree. A child is a part of the mother. The branch cannot survive without the tree. The child cannot survive without the mother. The mother is prepared to go [to] any length and sacrifice for the sake of the children. She will sacrifice even her life to protect her children. Starting with the mother, gratitude should extend to the father and the preceptor. If you show gratitude to these three, you will realise the presence of the Triune Lord in them and you will reap the fruit of worshipping the Trinity (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva). [But] the mother stands foremost among [the three]. She is indeed the first teacher for everyone. Mothers are the makers of a nation's fortune or misfortune, for they shape the sinews of its soul. ... If you want to know how advanced a nation is, study the mothers: are they free from fear and anxiety; are they full of Love towards all; are they trained in fortitude and virtue? If you like to imbibe the glory of a culture, watch the mothers, ... feeding, fostering, teaching, and fondling the babies. As the mother, so the progress of the nation; as the mother, so the sweetness of the culture. What is the reason for Gandhi becoming a Mahatma? ... One day his mother was worshipping. She had taken a vow that she [would] not take even a morsel of food unless she hears the cuckoo sing. One day it was 12 in the afternoon. The cuckoo did not sing. The mother did not eat. Gandhi was very young then. He asked, "Why have you not eaten so far, Mother?" She said, "The cuckoo has not sung." Then he went to the backyard and tried to sing like a cuckoo. He came inside and said, "Mother, the cuckoo has sung. You can eat." It was not the singing of the cuckoo. The mother came out, caught hold of his ears and said, "What sin have I committed to give birth to you, who [utters] a falsehood. It is sin to consider you as my son." ... Man is the very embodiment of truth. Man should not utter falsehoods under any circumstance. She felt very bad. Gandhi saw it. So this went like a dart into his heart. From that day onwards, he never uttered an untruth. It is the mother alone, not the father, who puts the child on the right path. Quotes from Bhagavan Sathya Sai Baba -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From am455@lafn.org Sun May 5 17:50:02 1996 Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 10:50:02 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199605051750.AA03535@lafn.org> Subject: Ramalinga a Theosophist >In S. India, a well known Saint tried to start an organization based on >Brotherhood in early 1800s. It was a time when there was widespread >feelings of caste and creed divisions. After a couple of years, he folded >up his enterprise with the comment that he opened the shop and there were >no customers. So he is closing his shop. But he added that Mahatmas from >beyond Himalayas will send people from America and Russia (he was very >specific about these two countries) and when they come and preach >Brotherhood, everyone will listen. > >This episode took place years before HPB herself know of the future plans >of starting TS. Obviously the Saint had some connections with the >Mahatmas. Otherwise how else he could accurately predict the future. >There are some who even speculated that the Saint himself may be a Mahatma. See BCW 4, 133ff. for a sketch of "Saint" Ramalinga Pillai's life. I have not found it yet, but I recall a Mahatma letter saying Ramalinga was a chela, not an Adept. -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From alexei@slip.net Sat May 11 17:29:35 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 10:29:35 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960511172935.006a5c3c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: higher powers At 04:59 AM 5/11/96 -0400, you wrote: >I will always remember when I first became involved with the Federation of >Spiritual Healers 20 years ago, that they were at great pains to stress that >becoming a healer could stimulate the psychic abilities. They also said that >they were only a side issue and many a potential healer became stuck at the >psychic level because of their delight with these abilities and neglected to >continue their spiritual pursuits. > > > > > Bee Brown > Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. > Theos Int & L > > Bee: Of course the Federation of Spiritual Healers is right, healing definitely stimulates the development of various paranormal facilities. Where I think they make an error is in assuming that healing is spiritual and other paranormal abilities are not. Any person who has paranormal facilities and who works at developing them is engaged in spiritual pursuits. If we were to follow their line of reasoning then HPB would have been stuck in the "side issue" because he/she apported tea cups and precipitated "letters" rather than engaged in healing. As to healing itself, I can go out on the street pick 20 people at random and teach all of them how to do magnetic healing in about 30 minutes. Shamanic healing is a much more difficult thing because it is the spirits that choose the potential Shaman (by their aura) and then do the training. But the healing itself is the easy part. Now, when an individual does possess paranormal facilities, it makes then a far more efficient healer. For instance seeing Auras allows one to know where energy imbalances lie, seeing Auras allows one to know a person's mental state. Empathy on the other hand, which is a very advanced paranormal facility, allows one to share someone else's feelings and experiences. All of these abilities make it easier and more efficient to participate in the healing process. The problem I have encountered with "Spiritual Healers" who do not consider the healing facility to be merely one of the vast spectrum of paranormal facilities, is that they tend to over-dramatize their own personal part in the process. I tell my students this: "The patient is the Lamp, and the Cosmic Harmonic is the wall plug, all the "healer" is is the cord between the two." The most important thing about paranormal educational activities is to demythologize the paranormal. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat May 11 17:38:53 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 10:38:53 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960511173853.006b61b4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Adyar leadership At 08:02 AM 5/11/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Also regarding the point about the Russians - I have heard other >versions that indicate that they werent willing to comply with the >International Rules of the TS (Adyar) and that was why they werent >allowed to join. The international body of any organization has that >right, but it is often easier to think wrong of those at the top of >an organization. > >in fellowship >Michelle > >Michelle: I should be extremely interested to find out exactly what "rules" the Russians refused to comply with. I understand it was some of these Adyar Instituted "Rules" that caused the Canadian Section to be bounced. I have always been under the impression that the only qualification required for membership in The Theosophical society was that one "supported or agreed with, the Three Objects". Historically all the National Sections and Lodges were intended to be entirely autonomous and anything which changes that goes clear against the intent of the founders. It is easy to think wrong of those at the top of an organization, especially when they behave badly and make "rules" which exist only for the extension of their power. As to the Russians, if they support the three objects, and we all know that they do, and have at great risk for a long time, and if they consider themselves theosophists, and they do, well then, they are theosophists and nothing Radha Burnier or Joy Mills or anyone else can do can change that even one iota. alexis d. From alexei@slip.net Sat May 11 17:47:47 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 10:47:47 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960511174747.006b0248@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: You Warned Me At 09:04 AM 5/11/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >On Sat, 11 May 1996, Michelle Donald wrote: > >> Hi all >...clip................> > >> in fellowship >> Michelle >> >> BTW the imp in me has seriously contemplated forwarding copies of all >> personal off topic messages to the sender ;-) May be it the >> retorgrade mayhem in May. >> > A very good practical idea which will work. If all do the same, >soon the sender will be overwhelmed by messages. This reminds me of a >recent message I read. This guy is sending a business promotion messages >to all the maillists - you do not see it here because you cannot post a >message unless you are subscribed -- and wants you to fax him a message >to a toll free number. Someone who got fed up, because he was sending >the same message under different names, sent a message 500 pages long - >each page being the same and ran up the phone bill and got even. > > ....doss > > >To Michelle and Doss: Don't you think you're generating a tempest in a teapot? It takes perhaps a half a second to delete a "one liner", or if you find one person does only "one liners' you can filter them.There are a number of people on this board who obviously find their banter a friendly kind of connecting link and get something of value from it. If others don't, deletion is easy and quick. Basically, I fear that what you're actually thinking about is censorship of content and that is a basic American "NO-NO". Who has the right to decide what is "on-topic" and what is "off-topic". I know I don't, and I certainly won't cede the right to anyone else. I strongly doubt if anyone on this board will be broken financially by the cost of the telephone time it takes to delete a "one-liner". alexis From poulsen@dk-online.dk Sat May 11 21:15:33 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 19:15:33 +0200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB3F79.809EBCE0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: HPB/CWL (2) Encoding: 350 TEXT 3 days after the first posting (made the 8th) I still have received a return of the message below from the listserver. Attempt No. 4: if people are getting bombarded with the same post then please drop me a note in private ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- Dear JHE and readers, the following message was bounced from Theos-l yesterday - its chronological position is before my later posts on the subject ....................................................................... ......... JHE > My question doesn't concern the consciousness aspect, but >the "extension" aspect. Kim Why? Excuse me Jerry, why would you want to go into an discussion of universal "extension"? What is the relevance to our discussion in your opinion (I have honestly no clue to it)? I think it may be about time that you forward *your* terminology and a few examples of your views on esoteric metaphysics. It would save me some time guessing your meaning - see below for no less than 3 rounds of exchanges related to one of your terms which I apparently keep misunderstanding. In eastern thought finiteness is a manifestation and limited expression of something infinite. To postulate an infinitude of finite systems containing each other as chinese dolls is to miss the vital philosophical point even if the postulate can be made. As manifestations they cannot have any relation to the absolute whatever they may contain. ......... Kim >>>> they are the white circle plane in the black field. The 6th is >>>>completely unknown. The vedantins place their Parabrahm on the >>>>first plane, the seventh being prakritic, the 5th universal >>>>mind. JHE >>>Which chart are you using here? Kim >>Beginning of Proem and the Subba Row/Schwarz diagrams JHE >There are no charts in the Proem, only symbols. I never heard of >the "Subba Row/Schwarz diagrams." I didn't even know they met. >But these would probably be outside the parameters of this >discussion anyway, unless they are a commentary on some specific >teaching of HPB or CWL. Kim Excuse me for being vague. I am using the description of the starting point of esoteric symbology as mentioned on the first page of Proem plus the Schwarz diagrams plus the Subba Row diagrams already mentioned to illustrate my point - which is related to your questioning of me, not the parameters of our discussion. JHE >>>>What do you call the planes for the earth's system of globes? Kim >>>4 lower planes of the solar system also called planes of the 4 >>>ethers (AAB). see again CW XII p. 658 for grossest globe >>>(ours) on 7th or objective plane. >>- an error here. The 4 lower should be called 4th etheric, >>gaseous, liquid and dense. Kim: Note - or buddhic, mental, astral and physical JHE: >Is AAB's definition supposed to be representative of HPB or CWL? Kim: Sofar HPB. Just ignore the mentioning of AAB and use diagram B on p. 658. The consequence of using a system of 7 planes to students well aware of the diagram at p. 153 of SD (Zirkoff facsimile ed.) is that only the 4 lower are described here and described in the diagram as - 4) (globe A+G) human principles: spirit+soul, vehicle of spirit for the fourth plane, buddhic. 5) (globe B+F) mind+upadhi of mind for mental plane 6) (globe C+E) life+astral body for astral plane 7) (globe D) physical body for physical plane These are the human principles (upadhis, vehicles) and planets of any chain within the seven planes of our solar system. This little exposition - my posts read in sequence - should be sufficient to proove one of your initial mistakes. You are of course welcome to refer to it as my view, but to me it is very clear. JHE: >Can you give me an HPB or CWL quote and nomenclature instead? I >don't find the terms "etheric" "gaseous" "liquid" and "dense" >used anywhere on p. 658. Can you give me HPB's corresponding >terms from p. 658? Kim The terms in the SD I mentioned above - for CW XII p. 658 the 4 lower planes of our solar system are called: 4) fohatic 5) jivic 6) astral 7) objective, the fourth globe of every planetary chain. JHE >You are saying that the planes for the earth's system of globes >are the same as the planes of the solar system? Do you have a >name for it? Kim The Earth chain, the planes of the solar system. Have we not been here before? JHE >>>>What do you call the planes for the sun's system of globes? Kim >>>Our planetary chain ARE one of our sun's systems of globes (at >>>least affiliated with this solar system)? Or do you mean the >>>sacred planets? JHE >>No, I don't mean the sacred planets. I was asking for the >>overall term for the planes of the sun's system of globes, ie >>the sun's globes A - E. Kim >>Your question was extremely confusing. You mean by the sun's >>system of globes the visible, physical globes (as I understand >>it). They would generally be globe D of the various chains - all >>on the seventh plane. JHE > The Sun's system of globes would be seven solar globes, just as >the Earth's system of globes would be terran seven globes. HPB >normally refers to the globes of any system of globes as globe A, >globe B, globe C, etc. Now, these seven globes are found on the >four lower planes of a system of seven planes. What is the >overall name you use for this system of seven planes? Kim It is definitely time for you to specify some of your ideas on this subject - we have been going around your terminology for 4 rounds. The above seems very confusing (see below) without specifying what *your* terminology is. What is a solar globe? Give me a reference please. Without any shadow of doubt any principle, and any planet within this system would be on the planes of the solar system (even logic can proove this). By globes of the sun I can only understand the representative globe of the Earth chain (in our case the Earth, D) on one or other plane as well as the corresponding globes of similar chains - OR the physical sun which is obviously a triple (mathematics and logic can proove this). JHE >>>>What do you call the planes where are to be found the human >>>>principles? Kim >>>On all planes of the solar system and hence the planes of the >>>planetary chain except the highest. JHE >We will have plenty of time to get into a description of these >planes. But at present, I'm simply looking for a noun. For >instance, if you were to ask me what I call my correspondent who >lives in Denmark, I would answer "Kim Poulsen." So, in the same >vein, what do you call the plans where are to be found the human >principles? Kim ?!? I just answered you above with "the planes of the solar system". I can hardly be any clearer than this. Now we are here again! JHE >>Then you are saying that the human "astral body" is on the >>solar "astral plane" and the "mental body" is on the solar >>mental plane? Kim >>Generally yes. But a mental body is a very simplified concept >>except if used for the causal body, karana sarira JHE >Are you saying that the term "mental body" can denote the "causal >body" and/or the "karana sarira"? Kim Causal body is a direct translation of karana sarira and yes. But in fact all manifestations of the lower mental plane (kama-manasic) could be designated as such. Mental body is a very loose term. JHE >>Please enumerate for me the terms you use for the seven >>principles of man. Kim >For our purpose the one on p. 607 of CW XII will do, supported >by the one between p. 524-5. The 4 eternal principles are here >atma, buddhi, manas and the auric envelope, together inner man >or monad-ego relation - and the 3 outer aspects, lower mind, >astral and physical (prana as the life-force of the etheric >web). In short 7 principles on 6 planes (2 on the dual mental >plane). It is the best and most occult enumeration by HPB in my >opinion. JHE >You are giving me three here. Two from vol. 12, and yours >described above, which I tabulated below for comparison. The >enumerations in volume twelve are fine, and we can go by them. >Later, we will have to add CWL's. You will be receiving CWL's >diagrams shortly. >Kim p. 607 p. 524-25 >atma atman atman >auric envelope auric envelope >buddhi buddhi buddhi >manas manas manas >lower mind lower manas lower manas kama-rupa >astral linga sarira linga sarira >physical prana prana Kim Excellent! The Microcosmic principles on p. 524-5 represents consciousness on the physical plane (related to the sense apparatus) while diagram C on p. 658 is more general (it can fit any of the seven planes). The principles (upadhis) and the parts of consciousness must not be confounded. Kim >To recapitulate if we are to concentrate on HPB - I would like >to use: > For the 7 principles - the diagram on p. 607 JHE >Done. Kim >For the universal or macrocosmic planes Figure A of p. 658. The >names relates only to forces manifesting within the solar system >and no attempt is made to designate them on their own plane. JHE >By "universal planes" you mean what HPB calls "macrocosmic >planes"? OK Kim And "Kosmic" planes :-) Kim >>For the solar physical body or prakritic planes Figure B of p. >>658. These are the planes of the solar system. On the 4 lower we >>have the 7 globes of a chain. JHE >Then for the planes of the solar system, you call them "the solar >physical body"? By "7 globes of a chain" you mean both the earth >chain and the sun chain? Kim We must identify your sun chain before we go any futher. Please give me a reference. I can think of at least three concepts which may be designated as such. Kim >>For the sub-planes of these planes of consciousness see diagram >>C. They are also the seven parts of consciousness as manifesting >>on either plane. Must not be confused with seven principles. JHE >Diagram "C" represents the sub-planes of each of the 7 prakritic >planes in figure "B"? Kim Not quite. See p. 660 for explanation and names for sub-planes. But diagram C represent the peculiarity of human cosciousness on these planes. The triangle is Atma-buddhi-manas, then comes the 4 lower *principles of consciousness*. The analogy to the human principles are exact. Kim >>For explanation of AAB see Cosmic Fire p. 116-7 (for want of a >>diagram by CWL) JHE >I don't know whether AAB is representative of CWL. Let's wait >until you have a diagram from CWL. Kim Sure. Kim >>On p. 116 is explained the position of seven planes of solar >>system as sub-planes of cosmic physical. On p. 817 the >planes of the solar system is shown in the diagram "Cosmic >Physical Plane" >> In the diagram is shown the major principles and their >>correlations on the planes. They correspond to Auric body and >>atma-buddha-manas in CW p. 607 tabulation. Astral and physical >>bodies are ignored in the diagrams but treated of elsewhere JHE >I don't have a copy of ~Cosmic Fire~ at the moment. But a >comparison of ~Cosmic Fire~ to the ~CW~ seems to be outside of >the parameters of discussion anyway. Kim See it as a footnote directed towards readers interested in AAB. It may come in handy later in the discussion. JHE >With regard to CWL's "constitution of man" compared to HPB's >"constitution of man." As for your "notion" of a common >esoteric system, I understand that you operate from this >assumption. The reason why this or any other assumption can't be >forwarded as proof is because doing so is an exercise in circular >reasoning. Kim The evidence will speak for itself. It already did. Your initial objection which caught my eye was the following: "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." This is in my opinion a confusion on somebodys behalf (you or CWL - or you AND CWL) of a) the "upadhis", the vehicles of consciousness, the principles and b) the parts (to avoid confusion with principles) of consciousness as manifesting on any plane of consciousness. JHE >OK, so far, here is what I understand of your nomenclature: >Kim HPB CWL >Universal planes Macrocosmic planes (B:CW XII:658) ? >Solar physical body Prakritic planes ("") ? Kim Fine. Let us postpone further investigation in this direction until your letter arrives. Thank you :-) In friendship, Kim From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat May 11 20:15:08 1996 Date: 11 May 96 16:15:08 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Eating my words with fruitcake Message-Id: <960511201508_74024.3352_BHT163-3@CompuServe.COM> I got the book "Knee of Listening" a spiritual autobiography by Adi Da (Free John) and I must say I have to reconsider my hasty judgement. He has a lot to say about achieving the "Bright" a unitive consciousness or enlightenment. He says we all experienced the "bright" as children, but are stripped of it by our socialization to seeking. Seeking pleasure, recognition, even love and enlightenment itself are futile and lead to more seeking and suffering. Seeking is seen as the cause of suffering, borrowing heavily from Buddhism, but the cure is enquiring "avoiding relationship?" That is by a process of meditation and asking oneself through the day why I am choosing sepreation rather than relationship with "God" transcendent and emmanent, I forget my divine nature. The question is not in the form: "am I avoiding relationship?" because there is no separation from I and enlightenment. There is no separation from enlightenment, it is already achieved. The only problem is separating oneself from enlightenment by seeking, seeking, seeking. The problem for me is that his followers, more than Adi Da, claim that Adi Da is a shortcut to bliss to the bright.. Here I still have a problem. I have my own "bright" thank you very much and I don't need to get a jump-start from Mr. Da or at least not JUST from Da. However the "bright" does grow brighter in groups and when a clear focus and example is presented an I'm am sure he is helping a lot of people who are in the dark and need their batteries recharged a little. He has an amazing story, but he still looks like a fruitcake to me, an avatara to some. Maybe he is fully God, fully man and fully fruicake. It could happen! Namaste Keith Price From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 11 20:24:49 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 15:24:49 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: You Warned Me(to JRC) In-Reply-To: <960511121100_488910247@emout07.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Chuck: I fully agree. Life is too short. No point in getting mad and raising our blood pressure and waste our emotional energy. BTW, Swami Beyondananda puts on his trademark swami outfit and performs to entertain groups. May be one of these days I should try to get him for our Federation meeting after I have given him some background material on TS. He would be devastating and give heart attack for some traditionalists. ...doss "May the Farce be with you" "Don't get even, get odd" - Beyondananda From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Sun May 12 15:24:06 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 08:24:06 -0700 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <31960296.349D@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: higher powers References: <960511160555_76400.1474_HHL39-4@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jerry Schueler wrote: > > Bee: > >I will always remember when I first became involved with the Federation of > >Spiritual Healers 20 years ago, that they were at great pains to stress that > >becoming a healer could stimulate the psychic abilities. They also said that > >they were only a side issue and many a potential healer became stuck at the > >psychic level because of their delight with these abilities and neglected to > >continue their spiritual pursuits. > > Bee, your idea expressed above is exactly what keeps bothering > me and the TS view of psychism. It is the TS's duty to warn us. OK, you were > duly warned. This is no reason to "ignore" those psychic abilities that come > naturally as a result of your work. If you fall into the trap of neglecting > your "spiritual pursuits" than this is your karma, and so be it. This can only > happen if you ignore the warning. But given the warning, and making sure > that you keep up your "spiritual pursuits" whats the problem? > > Jerry S. > Member, TI They weren't saying to ignore them or to deny them, just not to think that one had 'arrived' spiritually because of the psychic developments. In the groups I wander in and out off, I see many who are enamoured of their psychism and get an ego trip out them and I see the warnings as being to avoid that, not the psychism itself. I consider myself to be clairsentient but so what. It is useful to me and has increased my understanding of many things but I realise that there is much more to spiritual growth than that. If it helps that growth then I am grateful for it. I understand why HPB was was against 'mediumship' as she found it in those days but that was only one aspect of psychism and she was against the meddling on the astral planes that many mediums were doing quite unwittingly. Healing is, as Alexis says, acting as a channel for the energy, however one perceives it. I am not an active healer these days but have found myself in places where it has been required and the results were indeed good but it is just one of the things I do. I am not clairvoyant but secretly fancy that it might be intersting to be so but if that is not to be, it doesn't matter. I attach more importance to my 'path' and the progress there on. Regards Bee Brown Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch. Theos Int & L From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 11 20:27:11 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 15:27:11 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960511170842.00698514@mail.slip.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 11 May 1996, alexis dolgorukii wrote: > At 01:46 AM 5/11/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Doss, > >That is all very true. Of course, in the American Section we have such a > >divergence of views that for the society to become actively involved in > >politics would probably split it, but that doesn't preclude other things to > >make the world a little better for us having been in it. > > > >Chuck > > > > Chuck: > > Just a reminder from an old politician. For the T.S. to become involved > would not only split it, it would destroy it financially. It costs a > Non-Profit Corporation that status for it to become actively involved in > politics in any way. There are some kinds of non-profits that do not > preclude it, or groups like Green peace and the Sierra Club wouldn't exist, > but I would assume that the T.S. is either chartered as a philosophical or > Education non-profit (I doubt if it's chartered as a religion) and they can > have their status taken away for engagement in any political activity at > all. The Mainstream Churches currently involved in Anti-Abortion activity on > a political front are only "getting away with it" because of their immense > political clout and because the IRS has so far not dared or desired to > challenge them. This would not be true of the T.S. But when viewed from the > point of view of written law, the Roman Catholic church could and should > lose it's tax-free status because of it's current political activities. > > alexis > > Alexis: See my earlier response. I am fully aware of all the implications. I am a practicing CPA! ..doss From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 11 20:29:20 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 15:29:20 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960511170842.00698514@mail.slip.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 11 May 1996, alexis dolgorukii wrote: > At 01:46 AM 5/11/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Doss, > >That is all very true. Of course, in the American Section we have such a > >divergence of views that for the society to become actively involved in > >politics would probably split it, but that doesn't preclude other things to > >make the world a little better for us having been in it. > > > >Chuck > > > > Chuck: > > Just a reminder from an old politician. For the T.S. to become involved > would not only split it, it would destroy it financially. It costs a > Non-Profit Corporation that status for it to become actively involved in > politics in any way. There are some kinds of non-profits that do not > preclude it, or groups like Green peace and the Sierra Club wouldn't exist, > but I would assume that the T.S. is either chartered as a philosophical or > Education non-profit (I doubt if it's chartered as a religion) and they can > have their status taken away for engagement in any political activity at > all. The Mainstream Churches currently involved in Anti-Abortion activity on > a political front are only "getting away with it" because of their immense > political clout and because the IRS has so far not dared or desired to > challenge them. This would not be true of the T.S. But when viewed from the > point of view of written law, the Roman Catholic church could and should > lose it's tax-free status because of it's current political activities. > > alexis > > Alexis: After the serious results that ensued by mixing politics and"religion" during the French Revolution, from day one, TS has scrupulously kept out of *all* political activities. That was a wise policy, in hind sight. ...doss From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 11 20:36:10 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 15:36:10 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Ramalinga a Theosophist In-Reply-To: <199605051750.AA03535@lafn.org> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 11 May 1996, Nicholas Weeks wrote: ....clip...... > > See BCW 4, 133ff. for a sketch of "Saint" Ramalinga Pillai's life. I have > not found it yet, but I recall a Mahatma letter saying Ramalinga was a > chela, not an Adept. > > > -- > Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles > "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight > cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble > presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) > Personally, it does not really matter to me if Ramalingam was an Adept or Chela not does it matter at what level. What is relevant is that he did have contacts with Those who were being the TS and did have prior knowledge of TS before even HPB knew about the founding of TS. Today, almost over a century after Ramalingam's mysterious disappearance, a lot of activity is going on in investigating, discussing his philosophy in South India. Since his philosophy was based on Universal Brotherhood, all this activity can do nothing but good to the masses. ....doss From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 11 20:42:38 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 15:42:38 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: You Warned Me In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960511174747.006b0248@mail.slip.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 11 May 1996, alexis dolgorukii wrote: > At 09:04 AM 5/11/96 -0400, you wrote: > > > > > >On Sat, 11 May 1996, Michelle Donald wrote: > > > >> Hi all > >...clip................> > > > >> in fellowship > >> Michelle > >> > >> BTW the imp in me has seriously contemplated forwarding copies of all > >> personal off topic messages to the sender ;-) May be it the > >> retorgrade mayhem in May. > >> > > A very good practical idea which will work. If all do the same, > >soon the sender will be overwhelmed by messages. This reminds me of a > >recent message I read. This guy is sending a business promotion messages > >to all the maillists - you do not see it here because you cannot post a > >message unless you are subscribed -- and wants you to fax him a message > >to a toll free number. Someone who got fed up, because he was sending > >the same message under different names, sent a message 500 pages long - > >each page being the same and ran up the phone bill and got even. > > > > ....doss > > > > > >To Michelle and Doss: > > Don't you think you're generating a tempest in a teapot? It takes perhaps a > half a second to delete a "one liner", or if you find one person does only > "one liners' you can filter them.There are a number of people on this board > who obviously find their banter a friendly kind of connecting link and get > something of value from it. If others don't, deletion is easy and quick. > Basically, I fear that what you're actually thinking about is censorship of > content and that is a basic American "NO-NO". Who has the right to decide > what is "on-topic" and what is "off-topic". I know I don't, and I certainly > won't cede the right to anyone else. I strongly doubt if anyone on this > board will be broken financially by the cost of the telephone time it takes > to delete a "one-liner". > > alexis > Alexis: Don't take my comment seriously. Program filter does a great job with no waste of anyone's time, if that is what some one wants. There are many ways to deal with any problem. ..doss From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat May 11 20:49:14 1996 Date: 11 May 96 16:49:14 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Dangers of Bakti-Yoga Message-Id: <960511204914_74024.3352_BHT163-5@CompuServe.COM> Eldon quoting Rich: Rich: >I suspect that Krishnamurti did FAR, FAR more good after he >left the TS than he would have been allowed to accomplish >WITHIN it. Hmmm. That's an important point to go "Hmmm" over. But it's not really within versus without, but *doing the good*. If an initial exposure to Theosophy gets us going, then we can empower ourselves to do good things in the world. What we do is individual, self-discovered. One person may write a heavily cited work of scholarship; another may write a 500-page book based upon personal reflections and experiences. A third could learn Tibetan and Sanskrit and search out the original religious texts upon which the Stanzas of Dzyan are based. A fourth could spend a number of years caring for a sick family member. And a fifth could patiently work to setup books in Wordperfect, unseen and unappreciated, for the benefit of others. It's all individual. The important thing is first to have some form of awakening, which theosophical groups can help with, then to be of benefit to the world, which does not require (nor preclude) being active in a theosophical group. Your suspicion is true, I suspect, of any group that we can join and participate in. We could even say, as many unsubscribers may have felt in the past: "I suspect that XYZ did far, far more good after he left theos-l than he would have been allowed to accomplish within it. Humm." -- Eldon I think many tried to practice Bakti-yoga with Krishamurti as the guru-world teacher-avatara. He renounced this position and more of less said that we must do it ourselves. Being a guru is responsiblity not to be taken lightly and has martyred many world teachers, I am sure. Many practice a type of Bakti-yoga around the personalities and even the words of past teachers. You cannot say anything bad about XYZ because I love XYZ because he or she makes me feel "enlightened, uplifted, spiritual, in-the-know, special (superior?)"> The three expressions of the one are usually termed will, love and idea (intelligence). Theosophy offers a lot of mental stimulation and is usually thought to be in the jana yoga tradition. WIlber has suggested at the end of many of his books that at some point one must go beyond the analytical mind that always operates so that duality appears. He had suggested that he had explored meditation and thought it necessary to find a guru. Most on the spiritual path have heard this many times. But when I found out that WIlber had choosen Adi Da (John), I was in turmoil. Some would make a type of hero out of WIlber, but he refuses to speak publically etc. saying that he is not in the guru tradition, but the teacher tradition. Guru in bakti-yoga becomes not a teacher, but a tramsmitter or channel (I am having trouble finding the word) or link to the Godhead itself. By sitting in the aura of the guru, you partake of divinity and all of one's vehicles are raised to a higher vibration, I am told. It doesn't matter if it is true, just the devotee's belief can make it a psychological reality for the devotee. The guru is wisdom, love, perfection and by linking or yoking to the guru, one can link to God. Beauty and love cannot be anayzed- they are. If one is exalted by Adi Da, no one can negate that experience. But to me, I would have trouble accepting Adi Da and such a perfected being and wonder how Wilber could when he seems so intellectually independent ( and therefore unconsciously emotionally dependent), I think Wilber's ideas have powerful implications in an attempt to put God as "Spirit" back in science, politics, psychology and art. He attempts to show that evolution is not driven by matter, but by primordial Spirit. Love is another matter and it is harder to find Love alway working throughout history. Love seems to require personality and even a body and so God"s image become very human in some minds. Blavatsky has always seemed an unlikely person to practice bakti-yoga with. Even her ideas rarely fill me with bliss. Does anyone practice bakti with the SD? Some have tried with the Masters, I presume. I have always admired HPB for NOT making herself President of the TS. Real gurus renounce more than promote. I know that the Houston Lodge seems to want to get into a fit of "getting new members, raising more money" or finding "really charasmatic speakers". This seems to be the problem more than the solution. If we were doing what we needed to do, we wouldn't need to get more members and make more money. Money and members would be there! If people felt connected and enlightened, the we wouldn't need, need, need. Namaste Keith Price From am455@lafn.org Sat May 11 20:56:18 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 13:56:18 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199605112056.AA22656@lafn.org> Subject: Re: Ramalinga a Theosophist >On Sat, 11 May 1996, Nicholas Weeks wrote: >....clip...... >> >> See BCW 4, 133ff. for a sketch of "Saint" Ramalinga Pillai's life. I have >> not found it yet, but I recall a Mahatma letter saying Ramalinga was a >> chela, not an Adept. > Personally, it does not really matter to me if Ramalingam was an >Adept or Chela not does it matter at what level. What is relevant is that >he did have contacts with Those who were being the TS and did have prior >knowledge of TS before even HPB knew about the founding of TS. > > Today, almost over a century after Ramalingam's mysterious >disappearance, a lot of activity is going on in investigating, discussing >his philosophy in South India. Since his philosophy was based on >Universal Brotherhood, all this activity can do nothing but good to the >masses. Doss, It sure is irritating to see postings doubled, delayed, dropped etc. The one above was sent out a week ago or so. It was followed up by two related ones -- one of which said I was wrong about the chela business. HPB, in BCW 6 (I think) said Ramalinga Deb was a chela. He was a different man from Ramalinga Pillai. -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 11 21:10:28 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 16:10:28 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Ramalinga a Theosophist In-Reply-To: <199605112056.AA22656@lafn.org> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I find no problem with multiple posting. Had another chance to indicate my personal feelings about the situation and nothing more!!! ....doss On Sat, 11 May 1996, Nicholas Weeks wrote: > > >On Sat, 11 May 1996, Nicholas Weeks wrote: > >....clip...... > >> > >> See BCW 4, 133ff. for a sketch of "Saint" Ramalinga Pillai's life. I have > >> not found it yet, but I recall a Mahatma letter saying Ramalinga was a > >> chela, not an Adept. > > > Personally, it does not really matter to me if Ramalingam was an > >Adept or Chela not does it matter at what level. What is relevant is that > >he did have contacts with Those who were being the TS and did have prior > >knowledge of TS before even HPB knew about the founding of TS. > > > > Today, almost over a century after Ramalingam's mysterious > >disappearance, a lot of activity is going on in investigating, discussing > >his philosophy in South India. Since his philosophy was based on > >Universal Brotherhood, all this activity can do nothing but good to the > >masses. > > Doss, > It sure is irritating to see postings doubled, delayed, dropped etc. The > one above was sent out a week ago or so. It was followed up by two > related ones -- one of which said I was wrong about the chela business. > HPB, in BCW 6 (I think) said Ramalinga Deb was a chela. He was a > different man from Ramalinga Pillai. > > -- > Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles > "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight > cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble > presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) > From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 11 22:41:01 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 18:41:01 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960511184059_111591945@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Doss) Doss, I think I already explained in a post that went out this morning that I'm not blaming you for anything, just using an example of how we can get along. The problem with AB in politics was that she was so inextricably bound up with the TS that the fact that she had an office off the grounds fooled no one, except maybe her, for as Krishnaji said to George Bernard Shaw "At her great age she could not longer think consecutively." By the way, Gerda Thompson is going to be observing the vote count Monday as she is the most obnoxiously honest person in the whole TSA. Nothing crooked passes her unscathed, which is why I have to work so hard to hide things from her. Chuck From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat May 11 22:41:03 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 18:41:03 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960511184102_111591964@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: You Warned Me Doss, Now wait a minute. Do you really want to do that to your fellow theosophists? At the rate people on this list get mad at each other the idea of running up their phone bills could be a real disaster. Especially when the recipients retaliate with ten thousand page manuscripts with thoughtforms and viruses burined in them. Still, I wonder if my relatives have internet accounts....hmmm.... Chuck From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 11 18:20:43 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 19:20:43 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: You Warned Me In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960511174747.006b0248@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Michelle wrote: >>> BTW the imp in me has seriously contemplated forwarding copies of all >>> personal off topic messages to the sender ;-) May be it the >>> retorgrade mayhem in May. >>> And if they all send them back to you .... ? Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 11 23:14:36 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 18:14:36 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Doss) In-Reply-To: <960511184059_111591945@emout17.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Chuck: I fully understand what you stated. BTW, I am glad Gerda will be there when votes are counted. Our Society's motto is "There is No Religion Higher Than Truth" and it is a pity that someone has to be there during counting. For some of us whose whole livelyhood depends on the trust others have, it is something that is even unimaginable. For some of my affluent clients when I hand their tax returns and try to explain to them the details of the income and losses and deductions, the only response is "where do I sign". These are people whose tax bill is in six figures. So what I am used to on a daily basis, it does say something about the state of affairs at TSA elections - all the politics involved. ....doss From ramadoss@eden.com Sat May 11 23:17:36 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 18:17:36 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: You Warned Me In-Reply-To: <960511184102_111591964@emout19.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Chuck: Don't take things seriously. I am a real nice guy and do you expect me to run somebody's phone bill and make the phone company rich? The phone company is yet to pay any third party a commission to run up anyone elses phone bill. ...doss From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat May 11 18:09:42 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 19:09:42 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <+a0h8BAmfNlxEwjZ@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Response In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960511060648.0069c074@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960511060648.0069c074@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >I make no claim to knowing what I'm doing. Tee hee! Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 11 23:07:19 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 19:07:19 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605120012.UAA06819@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: ground rules Doss, You said it very well. I agree with you 100% Liesel, member ti> Eldon: > >Your objective is good. I have been around the discussion "lists" long >before Internet was available to the public. To achieve the objective, based >on my experience, it is going to require very detailed narrow guidelines >and also a "moderator/censor" whose job is to warn anyone transgressing >the guidelines and after two or three warnings the poster should be >removed from the list. Without these two, IMHO, it would not work. > >IMHO, it is very impractical come up with *any* guidelines. Any time you >start with guidelines, it is slowly going to gravitate towards a >censored list. I do not think *any one* here would like any kind of >censoring. IMHO, all that can be done is to "play by the ear". >If everyone makes an effort to make this list educative, informational, >helpful, then we can make it succeed. > >This is my 2 cents worth. > > ..doss From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 11 23:20:13 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 19:20:13 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605120025.UAA12360@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: guidelines Eldon says: > This list is a free-for-all that has >a certain charm because of that fact. Liesel says: Eldon, I think John Meade did put down some guidelines for this list, which, if they were adhered to, would take the conversation out of the free-for-all category. Maybe it would be good if he repeated them from time to time. I seem to remember that people should treat each other with courtesy & consideration. Here, I found it: "This informal discussion list has been created to serve as an "Electronic Study Group" for the Theosophical Society in America. However, all Theosophists are welcome regardless of any formal membership status. We are here to serve Humanity, rather than any specific organization.... "Please be tolerant, and respect the opinions and religious views of all the list members. "Thank you " signed John E. Mead From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat May 11 23:43:43 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 19:43:43 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605120048.UAA23292@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: higher powers Rich, I agree with your view of it, but that's not what I thought Eldon said. I especially don't agree with that everyone should at first cultivate their mental abilities. That's the route of cold intellectualism, & I don't think a very cold scientific approach, trying to squelch the emotions, produces the greatest wisdom. I've been taught to observe what I'm doing, without any judgement (which I do sometimes, when I remember to do it), but not without any emotion. That's very prevalent in our science minded society today & IMO lop sided. It may be the way to start on the Path, if that's your inclinatiion, but lateron you also need to develop other qualities. I agree with your belief that people should not try to force developing psychic abilties, and that they will come by themselves somewhere along the journey. But I'm also of the opinion that if you have psychic abilities you should develop them and use them, on the assumption, which I've been taught, that anything you supress comes out sideways & cockeyed & makes trouble. I'm also of the opinion that a person should try to use optimally any talents they've been born with, again so as to not to be a psychological cripple. Liesel ....................................................................... From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun May 12 00:03:46 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 20:03:46 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605120108.VAA04216@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: The Russian TS >Also regarding the point about the Russians - I have heard other >>versions that indicate that they werent willing to comply with the >>International Rules of the TS (Adyar) and that was why they werent >>allowed to join. The international body of any organization has that >>right, but it is often easier to think wrong of those at the top of >>an organization. >> >>in fellowship >>Michelle >> Dear Michelle, I'm expecting a FAX back from the Russian TS in answer to the FAX I sent them a few days ago. Eventually, we'll find out from them what the story is. If what I heard is correct, then I really wouldn't blame them, if they had refused to comply with what Adyar demanded of them before they could become members. I was told that they were to study the theosophical classics for several years & then pass a test, before they could be admitted. That's not demanded of anyone else, and these people, the ones who were theosophists under Stalin, took chances with their lives by being theosophists. They went to their leader's house one at a time, & learned theosophy by heart, because our books weren't allowed, nor were theosophical meetings. Liesel, member ti From mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz Sun May 12 02:21:37 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 14:21:37 +1200 From: mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz (Murray Stentiford) Message-Id: <199605120221.OAA64274@iprolink.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: The Big Question In response to JRC's >Now and then I ruminate about what the ML would have looked like *had >Sinnet asked different questions* ... but I thought it might provide an >interesting topic for the list (if anyone wants to take it up): > > If *you* (anyone on the list that wants to respond) were given >the opportunity to ask *one question* of an Adept, what would that >question be? I'd want to ask: How well does the text of the Mahatma Letters reflect your thought of the time - and your thoughts now? And just to be a bit of a trouble-maker, I'd like to ask what they think of birth control - now? But that's a second question. Murray Stentiford From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun May 12 02:22:34 1996 Date: 11 May 96 22:22:34 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: teachers vs adepts Message-Id: <960512022234_76400.1474_HHL41-2@CompuServe.COM> Liesel: >... Right off the top of my head, I'd include Dora Kunz, >Harry Van Gelder, & CW Leadbeater. There >must be others. Wish you'd be fair, & tell it like it is. Sorry, Liesel, I never intended to make a comprehensive list of Teachers. I am sure that there are lots more than those we have named. All Adepts are Teachers, but not all Teachers are Adepts. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun May 12 02:22:33 1996 Date: 11 May 96 22:22:33 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Comparing Auras Message-Id: <960512022233_76400.1474_HHL41-1@CompuServe.COM> >> I can "read" their auras just by reading their writings that >> they left behind. What a person writes tells us as much >> about them as looking at their auras. For example, the >> three volumes of Echoes of the Orient tells me more >> about Judge than someone's biography ever could. > > Can the same thing done with e-mail messages i.e. "read" the >auras of the writer of the message? > ....doss What you "read" is the astral body, or emotions, at the time of writings. Sometimes it is quite easy. Sometimes not. Email per se is usually too short to get much. But some postings fairly ooze with emotional undertones, vibes, & colors. Jerry S. Member, TI From ramadoss@eden.com Sun May 12 02:29:33 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 21:29:33 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: The Russian TS In-Reply-To: <199605120108.VAA04216@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 11 May 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > >Also regarding the point about the Russians - I have heard other > >>versions that indicate that they werent willing to comply with the > >>International Rules of the TS (Adyar) and that was why they werent > >>allowed to join. The international body of any organization has that > >>right, but it is often easier to think wrong of those at the top of > >>an organization. > >> > >>in fellowship > >>Michelle > >> > Dear Michelle, > > I'm expecting a FAX back from the Russian TS in answer to the FAX I sent > them a few days ago. Eventually, we'll find out from them what the story is. > If what I heard is correct, then I really wouldn't blame them, if they had > refused to comply with what Adyar demanded of them before they could become > members. I was told that they were to study the theosophical classics for > several years & then pass a test, before they could be admitted. That's not > demanded of anyone else, and these people, the ones who were theosophists > under Stalin, took chances with their lives by being theosophists. They went > to their leader's house one at a time, & learned theosophy by heart, because > our books weren't allowed, nor were theosophical meetings. > > Liesel, member ti > > Liesel: I think we can never fully understand the risks they took under Stalin. Potentially losing everything including your life for being a Theosophist. I have learnt similar things took place in Hungary and in other countries which were under communist rule. It is possible that some sort of personal meeting and one on one discussion between the Russian Theosophists and an experienced emissary from Adyar may be needed to resolve any sticky points. Many times the real problems cannot be solved either by dictating or by correspondence. The fact of the matter is Russia is a very large country. Don't we all want as many people as possible to get the same benefit of the knowledge of Theosophy you and I got. I think any kind of examination is outrageous. If someone had told me that I had to take an exam to join the TS, I would not be here. One of the most well known Theosophists - J Krishnamurti, never passed any formal examinations. Even some of the Adepts who are not english literate may flunk any writtent test of Theosophy. If the information you have is correct, some one is not thinking and something ludicurous is going on, which is not good for "Theosophy". Let us wait and hear the full story before we pass judgement. ....doss From ramadoss@eden.com Sun May 12 03:35:10 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 22:35:10 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Comparing Auras In-Reply-To: <960512022233_76400.1474_HHL41-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 11 May 1996, Jerry Schueler wrote: > >> I can "read" their auras just by reading their writings that > >> they left behind. What a person writes tells us as much > >> about them as looking at their auras. For example, the > >> three volumes of Echoes of the Orient tells me more > >> about Judge than someone's biography ever could. > > > > Can the same thing done with e-mail messages i.e. "read" the > >auras of the writer of the message? > > ....doss > > What you "read" is the astral body, or emotions, at the > time of writings. Sometimes it is quite easy. Sometimes not. Email > per se is usually too short to get much. But some postings fairly > ooze with emotional undertones, vibes, & colors. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > I do not know much about astra body auras etc except what I have seen written about them. One questions that comes up is, if one is able to put a sheath over the astral body so that one cannot see what is behind it - an analogy like some one wearing a easy flowing dress - then it is possible to prevent anyone looking at the aura. Is this possible? ....doss From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 12 03:56:40 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 23:56:40 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960511235640_111736594@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) Alex, Another good reason why we have to stay out of politics. I should have remembered that one myself. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 12 05:37:20 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 01:37:20 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960512013719_111780218@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: News from England Doss, About reading something about this list in the AT, don't hold your breath. We got too many folks at Olcott mad at us. And at ME! Chuck From ramadoss@eden.com Sun May 12 15:39:55 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 10:39:55 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Free PC Mail Program with Filters Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Many times, there were mentions about e-mail programs which can sort incoming messages into several folders so that it is easy to read and respond. Till now, there were commercial programs which can be purchased which had that capability. It is called filtering of messages. Finally a low cost program is hitting the market. It is expected to sell for $29.00 street price. But for a short time, you can get download it for free. The catch is this - the company which is putting out this program is also into a database of persons. They do not sell the database. But make it available for access. If you are in white pages, you may find your name and address and phone number already in their data base. If you are interested, please read further and get the program and try it. You may like it. ....doss PS: I have no axes to grind in this matter!!!! > Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 05:03:50 -0400 > From: Beyond.News@radar.banyan.com > Subject: Beyond News - Vol. 1, #1 Greetings! You received this message because you either - a) Are a registered Switchboard user who clicked on the "Download" BeyondMail Beta button from within Switchboard or - b) Filled out the Beta user registration form to download the BeyondMail Beta from within the Coordinate.com Web site. BeyondMail is a product of Coordinate.Com (the makers of Switchboard.) When you clicked on the "Download" BeyondMail button (you can only do this from within Switchboard or from the Coordinate.com site) you were offered a FREE VERSION OF BEYONDMAIL. We are trying to fulfill our obligation to notify Beta users of the release of the full product. Registered Switchboard users are entitled to access this production version for free! The only way to download the production version of the client is from within your Switchboard account. To download an evaluation version of the product go to the Coordinate.com web site at: http://www.coordinate.com/bmail/ To download your free copy of BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition, follow these steps: 1) Log into Switchboard ( http://www.switchboard.com ) If you aren't a registered user of this free service, here's your chance to become one. 2) Once you are logged in, scroll down the "Update Your Listings" screen until you see the "Promotional Offer" link. Click on this link. 3) From the "Switchboard: Promotional Offer" page you may press the "Download" button to jump to the BeyondMail Download Screen. 4) From the "Download BeyondMail" screen you should be ready to go! Just follow the instructions and you will be on your way to becoming a full BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition user! Note: If you are a user of Webminders, you should definitely upgrade to the latest release of BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition. We have found a few minor problems with the earlier releases of Webminders that could cause disk problems for users with multiple hard disks. You also have the option of downloading the production release of the Macintosh version when it becomes available in June. BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition is leading-edge, easy-to-use e-mail, specifically designed for the Internet. It's the first e-mail software that automatically surfs the Internet and downloads selected web pages to where they are most accessible -- in your mailbox. You can even surf off-line! You can also stay on top of your incoming messages by using MailMinders -- filters that automatically sort all new mail into folders. And, "hot link" to any web site by simply clicking on any URL that is located in a mail message. BeyondMail will launch your web browser and display the web page right from BeyondMail! We hope you enjoy this world-class software. If you have any questions please send e-mail to: bmail-smtp-help@coordinate.com Thanks, The BeyondMail Team From michelle@zip.com.au Mon May 13 10:20:29 1996 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 10:20:29 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Subject: Re: News from England Message-Id: <199605130001.KAA21898@zipper.zip.com.au> Hi all > The write up of internet activity in the UK's Theosophical Journal, and the > description of the Reading Lodge ... applause, applause. At least we have > some people on our side! I am curous as to why there are sides in this? It is great that what is happening is being printed but what does "us vs them" have to do with it? Am I missing something? BFN OOROO Michelle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - michelle@zip.com.au Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ From michelle@zip.com.au Mon May 13 10:20:35 1996 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 10:20:35 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Message-Id: <199605130001.KAA21910@zipper.zip.com.au> Subject: Re: Free PC Mail Program with Filters Hi All > Many times, there were mentions about e-mail programs which can sort > incoming messages into several folders so that it is easy to read and > respond. Till now, there were commercial programs which can be purchased > which had that capability. It is called filtering of messages. > > Finally a low cost program is hitting the market. It is expected to sell > for $29.00 street price. But for a short time, you can get download it There is a very popular mail reader that's FREEWARE been around for over a year its called Pegasus. Its great - If you need help setting it up email me directly and not to this list. Filtering etc all for FREE. Available from the following URL's: http://www.gla.ac.uk/Compserv/Doc/Windows/un527/un527.html http://gopher.gla.ac.uk/Compserv/Doc/Windows/un527/un527.html ftp://risc.ua.edu/pub/network/pegasus/ But for the benefit of you all there is a site for Windows Internet shareware and freeware called Tucows. It's has Pegasus and lots more the address is www.tucows.com. you can get a whole lot of nifty programs there. If you are a Mac person try www.shareware.com, I know it has a mac section. BFN OOROO Michelle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - michelle@zip.com.au Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ From michelle@zip.com.au Mon May 13 10:20:27 1996 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 10:20:27 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Message-Id: <199605130001.KAA21920@zipper.zip.com.au> Subject: Re: News from England Hi ....doss > I am glad to see the above published in the TTJ. In this respect UK is > ahead of TSA. > > I have not yet seen any comprehensive article introducing Internet E-mail > and its application to the members of TSA. I hope we see something soon > in AT. I have seen two articles in the AT - one around June/July 1992or 93 and again later - might have been during 1994 cant remember for sure. I know that at least one notice also appeared in the TinA (australian mag/newsletter). If you would like to see a longer treatise why not write something yourself and send it in? The first article, submitted by John Mead to AT, was the one that spurred me onto this list as soon as I got an internet connect. It was a few paragraphs in the news column probably a paragraph longer than the UK one Alan has so kindly posted. I also believe the Australian section will be posting another article in there next issue. So we are getting more widely known. BFN OOROO Michelle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - michelle@zip.com.au Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 12 03:57:30 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 23:57:30 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960511235729_111736971@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Comparing Auras Alex, We can do it through videotaped transmission with no trouble at all. It might depend on a number of variables, but an e-mail could conceivably carry the information we would be looking for. I'm going to have figure out how to set up the experiments. I'm getting very interested in this one. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 12 03:57:34 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 23:57:34 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960511235733_111737006@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: You Warned Me(to JRC) Doss, I've been trying for years to figure out a way to get the Swami to Olcott. Chuck From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 12 05:36:38 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 01:36:38 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960512013637_111779998@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: You Warned Me Doss, Me take things seriously? I knew you were joking. I just wanted to make sure certain other folks didn't try it. Chuck From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 12 05:37:30 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 01:37:30 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960512013729_111780281@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Doss) Doss, For some reason I get less bothered about all this than most of my fellow TSers. I have a feeling it's because since I joined I have been close to the Olcott power center and it is a truth that the closer anyone is to the center of power in an organization the more cynical that person is about the politics of the organization. Fortunately, I have always contended that the real work of the TS has little to do with how the society is run. For some reason it transcends such mundanities. Chuck From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 12 05:37:46 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 01:37:46 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960512013745_111780385@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Comparing Auras Doss, Yes, it is possible to create such a sheath but it takes a great deal of work to be able to hold it for any length of time. Chuck From ramadoss@eden.com Sun May 12 06:58:42 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 01:58:42 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: You Warned Me(to JRC) In-Reply-To: <960511235733_111737006@emout17.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Chuck: He has a video tape. Can be shown in hodge podge lodge. ....doss From Richtay@aol.com Sun May 12 07:09:20 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 03:09:20 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960512030920_396943747@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Dangers of Bhakti-Yoga Keith Price wrote, "But when I found out that WIlber had choosen Adi Da (John), I was in turmoil. Some would make a type of hero out of WIlber, but he refuses to speak publically etc. saying that he is not in the guru tradition, but the teacher tradition." The word on the street is that Ken Wilber is no longer closely associated with Free John. Wilber seems to have turned to an esoteric Buddhist tradition called "Dzogchen." This I learned the other day from a friend of mine who also knows Wilber (though I personally don't). From Richtay@aol.com Sun May 12 07:09:37 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 03:09:37 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960512030936_396943826@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Divine Mothers Nicholas -- Thanks for the great post from Sai Baba. Helped get me in the mood to give my Mom a nice Mother's Day today. From alexei@slip.net Sun May 12 08:04:28 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 01:04:28 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960512080428.00670d18@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: You Warned Me At 04:46 PM 5/11/96 -0400, you wrote: > >> >Alexis: Don't take my comment seriously. Program filter does a great job >with no waste of anyone's time, if that is what some one wants. There are >many ways to deal with any problem. >..doss > > >Doss: I won't take it seriously but you scared me for a minute. As you know the program filter is something I know how to use, and it works really well. Actually I primarily filter my own messages, I know what I wrote. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun May 12 08:14:22 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 01:14:22 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960512081422.006bcc90@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: You Warned Me At 07:05 PM 5/11/96 -0400, you wrote: >Michelle wrote: >>>> BTW the imp in me has seriously contemplated forwarding copies of all >>>> personal off topic messages to the sender ;-) May be it the >>>> retorgrade mayhem in May. >>>> > >And if they all send them back to you .... ? > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >If they did, it would be Karma in action! alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun May 12 08:18:03 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 01:18:03 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960512081803.006ae80c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Response At 07:18 PM 5/11/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960511060648.0069c074@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>I make no claim to knowing what I'm doing. > >Tee hee! > >Alan :-) >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Do you? I hope not! alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun May 12 08:28:09 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 01:28:09 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960512082809.006b6278@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Comparing Auras At 11:38 PM 5/11/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >I do not know much about astra body auras etc except what I have seen >written about them. > >One questions that comes up is, if one is able to put a sheath over the >astral body so that one cannot see what is behind it - an analogy like >some one wearing a easy flowing dress - then it is possible to prevent >anyone looking at the aura. > >Is this possible? > > ....doss > > >No Doss, it isn't possible for a person to prevent a psychic from seeing their Aura. Now almost all Psychics share a "code of conduct" under which they carefully avoid "peeking" unless asked. They also regard the nature of another person's Aura as totally confidential. When healing, one can use the aura to see how the energy field is balanced, and thereby bring the field into better balance. Spiritual teachers, of course, keep track of their students auras for obvious reasons. I have found that sometimes the Perispirit of a person will prevent that person from seeing some particular person's aura, but it's the Perispirit that guides evolutionary development. I also think that an Adept, being a perispirit incarnate, can cast a "glamour" over his or her Aura in order to make it less spectacular. But I do think that's extremely rare and would only be done in a defensive posture. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun May 12 08:30:42 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 01:30:42 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960512083042.006b3fc0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) At 11:57 PM 5/11/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Another good reason why we have to stay out of politics. I should have >remembered that one myself. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Well it's probably the very best reason for a non-profit to stay out of politics. (Of course that means National, State, and Local Politics). Now it wouldn't effect the tax status but the T.S. would be infinitely better off without its internal politics. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun May 12 08:43:02 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 01:43:02 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960512084302.006bef40@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Comparing Auras At 12:02 AM 5/12/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >We can do it through videotaped transmission with no trouble at all. It >might depend on a number of variables, but an e-mail could conceivably carry >the information we would be looking for. I'm going to have figure out how to >set up the experiments. I'm getting very interested in this one. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >So, my friend, am I. I know that in my case my clairvoyance is intricately tied in with clairsentience and so I can "get" an aura over the phone, I don't, but I can. I think it important that we also discuss the psychic "code of conduct" or "Code of Ethics" too. It's important for people to be comfortable with psychics, and for people to be aware that they are not being "spied upon". Most psychics I have met, and I've met multitudes, are extremely ethical and discreet people, they know to much about what makes people tick not to be. Now, in connection with subjects like these, I think those of us who are either capable of paranormal functioning, or positively interested in it, should have elongated discussions or "threads" on all apects of psychism and simply ignore those who wish to equate psychism and psychosis. The headblind are really irrelevant to those whoa re not so afflicted and I really think we could get a lot more positive things accomplished in this regard if we kept our discussion to the knowledgable, expereinced, and simply positively interested, and absolutely refused to get drawn into arguments with those who are incapable of appreciating the entire subject. In other words let's not talk sex with eunuchs. I mean we have an excellent panel for discussion here. You're a Psionisist, Jerry Schueler is a Ceremnoial Magician, and I am both a ceremonial magician and a Shaman, and JRC is a psychic and the Gods know what else. That's a pretty good basis to begin. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun May 12 08:44:54 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 01:44:54 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960512084454.0068fc98@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Comparing Auras At 01:40 AM 5/12/96 -0400, you wrote: >Doss, >Yes, it is possible to create such a sheath but it takes a great deal of work >to be able to hold it for any length of time. > >Chuck > >Chuckie: It wouldn't work against me! That I know. alexis From RIhle@aol.com Sun May 12 14:55:44 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 10:55:44 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960512105543_292410390@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: higher powers Rich Taylor writes> >But I think everyone on the board will admit that psychic (and other) powers >NECESSARILY arise when one gets involved in spiritual development. Richard Ihle writes> Rich, you must know by now that it is doubtful that *everyone* on this board will admit to anything someone else says they will admit to. In my work with the high school "talented-and-gifted," a problem can arise from time to time in regard to bragging about I.Q. scores. Over the years, I have had a few true "super-exceptional" students who have been followed by Johns Hopkins and other universities from a very early age, and the flaunting of their reputed scores is often enough to cause serious personality clashes with the more "run of the mill" TAG-types. Sometimes, the validity of these scores are often taken so much for granted that there can even be a problem where a 135-I.Q. student will keep bringing up the subject in order to keep lording it over a 134-I.Q. student. Consequently, at the beginning of the year I have all my students commit a little saying to memory: "If advertising your I.Q. score is the only way you can think of to get others to recognize your intelligence, perhaps you have a low "creativity quotient." Anyway, in the days when I used to do a little seminar speaking, I used to run across many individuals who were billed as "psychics." Getting to know some of them in informal situations, I often found myself thinking to myself that it was a good thing that they had thus labled themselves--for it certainly would not have been very easy to guess from their conversations, insights, etc. that they were in possession of any advanced perceptional or precognative apparatus at all. But I am not a doubter by nature, so if someone says they are a such-and-such, I usually treat them as a such-and-such. Still . . . apart from the self-advertising, I sometimes find myself wondering just how common a development true psychic ability really is among those who get "involved with spiritual development.". . . On the other hand, I am pusillanimous by nature so I will admit to your statement along with everyone else. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From vrc@tiac.net Sun May 12 15:06:52 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 11:06:52 -0400 From: Vegetarian Resource Center Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960512105653.0917dd94@pop.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Science Fair Project - OFF TOPIC !! Some of you may want to respond to this. Note that it is NOT a pyramid scheme in the usual sense, and not a commercial announcement. No -- I don't know the people involved. Respond to smc@tiac.net >Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 09:58:55 -0400 >Sender: Methods of Teaching Mathematics >From: Peggy R Shearin >Subject: Science Fair Project > >Hi, our names are Stevie and Amanda. We are in the 5th grade at >the Phillipston Memorial school, Phillipston, Massachusetts, USA. >We are doing a science project on the Internet. We want to see >how many responses we can get back in two weeks. (We are only >sending out 2 letters). > >Please respond and then send this letter to anyone you >communicate with on the Internet. > >Respond to smc@tiac.net. ======================= From ramadoss@eden.com Sun May 12 15:39:55 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 10:39:55 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Free PC Mail Program with Filters Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Many times, there were mentions about e-mail programs which can sort incoming messages into several folders so that it is easy to read and respond. Till now, there were commercial programs which can be purchased which had that capability. It is called filtering of messages. Finally a low cost program is hitting the market. It is expected to sell for $29.00 street price. But for a short time, you can get download it for free. The catch is this - the company which is putting out this program is also into a database of persons. They do not sell the database. But make it available for access. If you are in white pages, you may find your name and address and phone number already in their data base. If you are interested, please read further and get the program and try it. You may like it. ....doss PS: I have no axes to grind in this matter!!!! > Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 05:03:50 -0400 > From: Beyond.News@radar.banyan.com > Subject: Beyond News - Vol. 1, #1 Greetings! You received this message because you either - a) Are a registered Switchboard user who clicked on the "Download" BeyondMail Beta button from within Switchboard or - b) Filled out the Beta user registration form to download the BeyondMail Beta from within the Coordinate.com Web site. BeyondMail is a product of Coordinate.Com (the makers of Switchboard.) When you clicked on the "Download" BeyondMail button (you can only do this from within Switchboard or from the Coordinate.com site) you were offered a FREE VERSION OF BEYONDMAIL. We are trying to fulfill our obligation to notify Beta users of the release of the full product. Registered Switchboard users are entitled to access this production version for free! The only way to download the production version of the client is from within your Switchboard account. To download an evaluation version of the product go to the Coordinate.com web site at: http://www.coordinate.com/bmail/ To download your free copy of BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition, follow these steps: 1) Log into Switchboard ( http://www.switchboard.com ) If you aren't a registered user of this free service, here's your chance to become one. 2) Once you are logged in, scroll down the "Update Your Listings" screen until you see the "Promotional Offer" link. Click on this link. 3) From the "Switchboard: Promotional Offer" page you may press the "Download" button to jump to the BeyondMail Download Screen. 4) From the "Download BeyondMail" screen you should be ready to go! Just follow the instructions and you will be on your way to becoming a full BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition user! Note: If you are a user of Webminders, you should definitely upgrade to the latest release of BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition. We have found a few minor problems with the earlier releases of Webminders that could cause disk problems for users with multiple hard disks. You also have the option of downloading the production release of the Macintosh version when it becomes available in June. BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition is leading-edge, easy-to-use e-mail, specifically designed for the Internet. It's the first e-mail software that automatically surfs the Internet and downloads selected web pages to where they are most accessible -- in your mailbox. You can even surf off-line! You can also stay on top of your incoming messages by using MailMinders -- filters that automatically sort all new mail into folders. And, "hot link" to any web site by simply clicking on any URL that is located in a mail message. BeyondMail will launch your web browser and display the web page right from BeyondMail! We hope you enjoy this world-class software. If you have any questions please send e-mail to: bmail-smtp-help@coordinate.com Thanks, The BeyondMail Team From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sun May 12 16:05:21 1996 Date: 12 May 96 12:05:21 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: TS Election Results? Message-Id: <960512160521_74024.3352_BHT56-1@CompuServe.COM> Could somebody post or e-mail me the results of the TS election? The ballots were counted Friday, I am told and some people in Houston would like me to share the news of the few contested elections. Thank you very much. Namaste Keith Price From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sun May 12 16:12:14 1996 Date: 12 May 96 12:12:14 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Election Results Monday? Message-Id: <960512161214_74024.3352_BHT56-2@CompuServe.COM> I'm sorry, it seems everybody is talking about the ballots being counted Monday. I'll stay tuned! From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun May 12 15:15:30 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 11:15:30 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605121620.MAA14402@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: The Heart This is a long message which Mark Foster, owner of Medit-l, copied from a text. I hardly ever read lengthy messages, but this one, I think, is really worth while. Besides, it fits in with some ideas we talked about yesteerday. Hope at least some of you agree that it's an important message. >From: "Mark A. Foster" >Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 11:37:16 -0500 >Subject: The Flame > >In the Meditation List today: > >- --=====================_831850636==_ >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >An interesting file. I hope that you enjoy it, > >Mark Foster, your friendly, nighborhood listowner. ;-) > >- --=====================_831850636==_ >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Doctrine of the Heart > >This summary, based on Torkom Saraydarian's book The Flame of the Heart, >emphasizes the esoteric importance of the heart. It offers detailed >suggestions about listening to, protecting, and developing the Heart-- >the Core of our Being. > >Listening to the Heart > >Instead of relating just to your brain and expecting guidance exclusively >from it, why not also relate yourself to the heart and listen to its >silent voice? Many people think development means only increased data and >brain knowledge. It doesn't. In the East it's said "Satan knows >everything, but his wealth of knowledge doesn't make him an angel." >It's your Beingness that makes you progress on the Path not your >knowingness. > >The heart thinks differently than does the mind. Without the >overshadowing heart, the mind is not a dependable advisor. For example: >when we do something wrong, the mind will attempt to justify it and >suggest to us many rationalizations, excuses, self-justifications, and >ways of escape. But no one can ever really deceive the heart, and the >heart never deceives anyone. Here is an example of a dialogue going on >between the heart and mind. The heart says "You did something wrong." >The mind says "I don't think so. I did it because of such an such." >The heart responds " I do not know the word 'because.' I know only you >did something wrong." > >Actions not aligned with Truth, Goodness, and Beauty, will not be >justified by the heart. The heart knows immediately. If one catches >the first flash of heart knowledge, listens and follows it, there will >be few regrets. When motives are mostly related to self-interest, >separatism, to matter, to the world, and to the ego, they belong to mind, >be careful! All its actions are based on self-interest, and to support >its interests it rationalizes and creates fantastic excuses! The motives >of the heart are inclusive and related to the group, Beauty, Goodness, >and Truth. Don't let the mind work without the overshadowing and watchful >eye of the heart. >The heart knows the right direction. Before you think, speak or act, check >with your heart. You'll discover your heart leads you to directions that >bring health, happiness, truth, goodness, and beauty. When you listen >carefully to your heart, you'll minimize mistakes. So enter into silence >and ask your heart if what you are thinking, speaking, or doing, is right. >Listen carefully for the answer. It's said "those who obey the whisperings >of their heart are on the path of heroism." > >The Keynote of Heart > >The heart contains the keynote of your life. The heart is your pole-star. >It's been said the majority of our problems are caused by the fact our >heart has been left behind by our head; its whispers are neglected and >ignored. Many of our ancient teachers told us the path to the Most High >is found through our heart, that the human heart is the doorway leading >to the path reaching all the way to the Great Cosmic heart. Self-knowledge >cannot be achieved through logic, knowledge, and reasoning. >Knowledge is not what is needed for the divine alchemy but the fire of the >heart. All transmutation, transformation, and transfiguration processes >are carried out through the fire of the heart. The only way to know >ourselves is through the path of the heart. In discovering your heart, >you discover the hearts of others. As you love and care for others, >you'll discover the path of the heart. As you discover this path, >you'll discover not the treasury of knowledge but the treasury of wisdom. >You discover the Divinity in the hearts of people. When Divinity is found, >the system of life is found. After heart is found, the direction of life >is found and the life-purpose is seen. Unfold your heart with service, >prayer, meditation, patience, courage, fearlessness, benevolence, purity, >love, creativity, beauty, striving, silence, and through the vision of the >future. These are the wings of your heart. Torkom tells us "The whole of >Space, with its billions of stars, is waiting for your flight." > >The Heartless Mind > >When mind is developed and heart is ignored, the following things often >happen: a person begins to develop separatism and ego, they begin to >look at others as inferior, there's a growing tendency to manipulate >others, the person develops an urge to dominate, rule and force their >will on others, the person develops greed, nothing satisfies them and >they feel they must possess more and more to feel secure. Possessiveness >is a sure sign there is a vacuum in the person, a sign the heart is absent. >It's said "When the chest is empty of a heart, the person feels urged to >fill that vacuum with possessions. And the possessions are acquired by >the power of separatism, egotism, manipulation, and greed. Greed is like >a bucket whose bottom has fallen out. Nothing can fill it." If the mind >is cultivated without the heart, the person develops vanity and imagines >they are something they aren't. The person without heart develops >advanced techniques of exploitation. Heartless people are like birds withbroken wings. > >Developing the Heart and Mind Together > >The heart is the furnace where knowledge transmutes into love-wisdom. >The mind, heart and the Presence work as the sacred trinity in the form >of goodness, beauty, and righteousness, or in other words, will, love, >and light. This is how a person achieves balance and equilibrium. The >heart synthesizes, and mind analyzes. The heart feels and the intellect >explains. When the heart and mind are cultivated simultaneously, you >will develop powers of synthesis and analysis. Idealism comes from the >heart; practicality issues from the mind. Intuition is a quality of heart. >Intelligence is a fiery mental quality. When you cultivate heart and mind >simultaneously, you develop a deep sense of beauty and an intense urge for >knowledge. It is the heart that searches for beauty; it is the mind that >searches for knowledge--but it's the will that paves the way for their >manifestation. People often fail because they use either heart or mind >rather than both. Needs are sensed by the heart, action is taken by the >mind. Cultivate your mind to actualize the dreams of your heart. > >Development of mind is done through scientific thinking, studies, duties, >responsibilities, and positions. Both heart and the mind can be developed >by pursuing the creative arts such as painting, music, sculpting, and >sacred dance etc. > >Instead of being focused in the mind, try to think in your heart, talk >from your heart, look from your heart, and listen from your heart. You >want to develop your heart focus to such a degree that you have an >unfailing compass to cross the oceans of life. For an example, put >your right hand over your heart and feel the rhythm of the beat. Now, >relax and close your eyes. Visualize in the heart two eyes. Now opening >your physical eyes, look around as if you're looking through the two eyes >of your heart. > >Develop your heart with heart felt actions. The heart is concerned with >the well-being of others before it thinks of itself. The mind says " How >can I use this person or object?" The heart says "How can I be useful to >people and use this object to help them?" > >The heart never lies because it carries the flame of life. If you find >yourself in crisis depend on the heart. Go closer to your heart and ask >its opinion. The heart can reveal the cause of the trouble and the path >to take to overcome it. > >Those who ignore the whisperings of their heart eventually lead it to >silence. The silenced heart dries up and the mind and emotions pursue >their own illusions and glamours which can devastate the life of the >person and those nearby. > >The Cost of Betraying the Heart > >When we take action against the advice of our heart, we often lose joy, >love, and enthusiasm. We create impurities. These impurities become >lodged in the heart as inflammable materials. These impurities lead to >various dangerous states or conditions of the subtle heart. One condition >is called drooping petals. It's said there are 6 polluting elements ofthe heart known as fear, anger, hatred, jealousy, greed, and slander. > >Suffering from the poisonous effect of negative emotions, the heart petals >begin to droop, similar to flower petal which droop when sprayed with a >poisonous substance. The 12 petals of the heart are said to correspond >to 12 specific virtues. When we act against one of these virtues, the >corresponding petal of that virtue begins to droop. For example, consider >the petal of compassion. If we lack compassion, if we start hating and >behaving as a criminal, the petal of compassion droops, closes, decays, >and eventually vanishes. When we begin exercising compassion the petal >jumps back to life, and becomes active and vital again. Another >disastrous condition is where the petals are dried and petrified. > >Torkom tells us there are 3 factors that really petrify the heart >petals: crime, revenge, separatism. Still another heart condition has >to do with the blockage of energies that occurs when our motives are not >pure. Saraydarian predicts in the future, medicine will prove the >existence of 100-200 heart diseases, each caused by negative emotional and >mental conditions. For example, self-pity is a disease of the heart. >Hatred is another. Hatred nourishes fear. Hatred burns the heart. Those >who hate are controlled by fear, and fear is the destroyer of the heart. > >Hatred distorts the rhythm of the intake of prana and affects the spleen, >heart, and lungs, then it weakens the mind and brain. Anger has very >close affinity with hatred and fear. Anger is the process of release of >the forces accumulated by hatred and fear. Anger focuses these forces for >destructive purposes. Anger damages the heart and burns the subtle >counterparts of the nerves in the etheric body, the nadis. Darkening of >the heart is another serious condition. The heart normally glows with a >blue flame surrounded by 12 golden petals. When the heart traps impure >thoughts of hatred, crime, separatism, revenge, jealously, and greed, the >light of the heart dims and darkens. We are warned we cannot hurt the >heart of another human being without first damaging or ruining our own >heart. One more condition is the state in which past memories of pains >and sufferings continuously echo within our heart. This is said to be >very dangerous because it eventually destroys our blood and nervous >systems. As the Great One's have so often reminded us, the best remedy >is forgiveness. > >The Decay of the Heart > >We are warned the greatest calamity in life is to allow our heart to >decay. When the heart decays, psychic energy slowly departs, and the heart >goes begins to petrify. In this slow process of petrification, all >virtues begin to vanish one by one. The flame of the heart can literally >be seen in the eyes. You can see in a persons eyes if the flame is lit or >out. When the flame is out the following conditions manifest: >obsession and possession, hearing and eyesight deteriorate, friendships >end, prosperity vanishes, etc. What causes the heart to become petrified? Heart petrification is caused by harmful actions, harmful >thinking, harmful words, and harmful directions. When you are harmful >and go against Beauty, Goodness, Truth, etc., your heart petals start >drooping. Crime does this. Hatred does this. Violence does this. > >Above all, guilt feelings cause the petals to droop. The heart closes >with thoughts, feelings, and actions based on malice, slander, separatism. >Revengefulness destroys the heart. Jealously is very bad for the heart. >You must be very careful. If you damage the heart petals they can take >years to repair. Be very careful to avoid damaging the heart! Anger >causes the heart petals to droop, dry, and fall. Ugliness destroys the >heart--ugly clothes, ugly make-up, ugly behavior, ugly relationships, >ugly films and books. Exploitation and manipulation really close the >heart! Cruelty is very bad for the heart! Cruel action also means not >to do your duties and responsibilities as they should be done--this is >stealing the time and money of others! One starts cruelty gradually. > >First you kill a bug, then a snake, then a fox, a deer, a cow. Next you >begin hunting animals then even people! A time comes when you can kill >armies or a nation without feeling the slightest pain in your heart. >This is when the heart is sold to Satan. This pattern shows the slow >but steady drooping of the heart petals. The heart center loses all of >the micro-links which tie a person to the currents of Compassion and the >All-existing Spark of God, and the flame in your heart is extinguished. > >How You Can Develop Your Heart > >Heart can be developed though rendering service for humanity. You can >develop the heart by visiting with people who are sick and helping others. >Family relationships, group service, service to animals develop the heart. >Gratitude opens the petals of the heart. Develop a sense of responsibility. Aspire towards beauty, purity, and joy. Your heart can be developed by living an unselfish and heroic life. Your heart can be developed by deepening and expanding your love and making it more inclusive. >Develop your heart by coming in contact with the Christ and Hierarchy. >Daily meditation develops the heart, if it is done with the heart and in >the heart. Prayer, worship, and devotion to Great Ones make your heart >further bloom. To further unfold your heart, take each of virtues and >meditate 10 minutes daily upon their deeper meanings. Visualize yourself >as if you were actualizing these virtues in your life. Try to think of >other people in history who have demonstrated these virtues. Dedicate >yourselves to the development of your heart. The weakest person in the >world is one who has no commitment. The best husbands and wives are the >ones who has made commitments to each other. It' said Manhood and W >omanhood start from the moment of commitment. A commitment making the >decision you're going to dedicate yourself to the highest good and meet >your promises with your utmost dedication. Again I say dedicate yourselves >to the development of your heart. Take this list and meditate on one >virtue per day. > >1. Pure motives--try to have pure, selfless, harmless motives. >2. Striving--pressure within the chalice, urges you to unfold, and > achieve. >3. Sincerity--be who you. >4. Enthusiasm--brings Beauty, Goodness, Joy, Freedom, and Righteousness >5. Responsibility--do what is needed, what you know how to do. >6. Devotion--steady service to the highest degree possible. >7. Dedication--start using your mind for your life-purpose. >8. Purity--thought, words, deeds in tune with your heart. >9. Inclusiveness--unity and synthesis. >10. Synthesis--see how things are clearly related to each other. >11. Identification--identify with others through compassion. >12. Sacrificial service--create a transformative influence by which > people are enthused to change themselves and their lives by inspiring > and challenging, by discovering wisdom and offering it to others. >13. Patience--reduces possibility of imperil poisoning. >14. Wisdom--love fused with intelligence in the flame of the heart, love > plus logic. >15. Nobility--respect for self and others, a realization of inherent > Divinity, your innate Divinity shines through your thoughts, emotions, > words, and actions. Methods for Purifying the Heart > >Here are some of the methods we can begin to use today to purify our hearts. > >1. Overcome selfishness. Don't use other people to satisfy or gratify > your own interests. Stop trying to manipulate and control others. >2. Clean out your vanities. Find out who you really are, what you really > are, and don't pretend to be more or less than that. >3. Double-check your motives. Discover the real motives behind your > actions, feelings, and thoughts. >4. Cultivate aspiration, admiration, devotion--a life dedicated to higher > ideals. Find something beautiful--become that beauty. >5. Don't speak negative or evil words. >6. Attempt to see some beauty in everyone you meet. >7. Heart can be damaged by noise pollution. Minimize noise in your home > and office. Avoid living to close to airports, radio and TV towers, > and where there's a lot of night-time traffic. >7. The most important step of all is to obey your heart. Always remember > --your heart is the abode of the Flame of Life. So enter into silence > and ask your heart if what you are thinking, speaking, or doing, is > right. Listen carefully for the answer. Obey the heart. It's your > Beingness that makes you progress on the Path not your knowingness! > This summary of Torkom Saraydarian's book The Flame of the Heart, was > written by Tim Storlie and presented by the World Service Network. > >For more information about the writings of Torkom Saraydarian contact: > Aquarian Educational Group, P.O Box 267 Sedona Arizona 863 From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 12 16:41:05 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 12:41:05 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960512124104_489416144@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Comparing Auras Alex, Much as I hate to disagree with you on this, we did a series of experiments about 15 years ago that proved that the aura can be masked. The problem is that doing it takes continuous concentration and can only be held for a brief period of time. Any external distraction, such as a noise of any sort, breaks the pattern down and the aura is visible again. Chuck From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 12 16:41:15 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 12:41:15 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960512124113_489416215@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Comparing Auras Alex, Code of Ethics? Me? You're talking to a man who wrote that "Ethics are for wimps!" I really think you should read my books before we get into this one. My chaos magicians would laugh themselves off their chairs at the thought of it. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 12 16:41:10 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 12:41:10 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960512124110_489416202@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) Alex, It is inevitable that any organization will develop internal politics when it gets over 8 members. What is going on in the TS is nothing more than Michelle's Iron Law of Oligarchy in action. Annoying as it is, there is no way to avoid it. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 12 16:41:17 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 12:41:17 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960512124116_489416233@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Comparing Auras Alex, Someday when we have the time and nothing distracting us, like my usual worries, we will have to conduct the experiment. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From am455@lafn.org Sun May 12 16:48:43 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 09:48:43 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199605121648.AA11541@lafn.org> Subject: Book of Dzyan Research Report Some of you may have already received David Reigle's latest pamphlet. The subtitle is "Theosophy in Tibet: The Teachings of the Jonangpa School". If have not, and would like one, write to: Eastern School Press 3185 Boyd Road Cotopaxi, CO 81223 It presents quite an interesting theory. -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From alexei@slip.net Sun May 12 18:19:32 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 11:19:32 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960512181932.006a1c0c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: higher powers At 10:57 AM 5/12/96 -0400, you wrote: >Rich Taylor writes> >>But I think everyone on the board will admit that psychic (and other) powers >>NECESSARILY arise when one gets involved in spiritual development. > >Richard Ihle writes> >Rich, you must know by now that it is doubtful that *everyone* on this board >will admit to anything someone else says they will admit to. > Richard: I think my only disagreement with Rich's statement is that I strongly believe that EVERYONE is involved in "spiritual development" for that, as I see it, is the sole purpose of "creation" though to me "spiritual development" means the evolution and intensification of not-carnate intelligence and awareness. As to "psychic powers" which to me are simply a connection between physical intelligence and it's non-physical component, they develop when the "program" calls for them to develop, neither sooner or later. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun May 12 18:32:19 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 11:32:19 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960512183219.0069aa14@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Comparing Auras At 12:43 PM 5/12/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Much as I hate to disagree with you on this, we did a series of experiments >about 15 years ago that proved that the aura can be masked. The problem is >that doing it takes continuous concentration and can only be held for a brief >period of time. Any external distraction, such as a noise of any sort, >breaks the pattern down and the aura is visible again. > >Chuck > >Chuck: It would seem to me that the caveat here is "not by just anyone". The "masker" would have to be a powerful "image creator and holder" and even in that event, the "hidden Aura" would in itself be quite revelatory, because I assure you there is nothing more startling than the lack of an electro-magnetic field where there should be one. I any case I don't think one would be dealing with "absence" but rather with cloaking and that's even more obvious. Second, what were the conditions of your experiment? From whom/what were the Auras/aura hidden? Knowing your propensity for equipage was it an "aura reading psionic device", or an Aura reading psychic, or a fairly large sampling of aura reading psychics? In the instance you cite, all one would have to do when confronted with "cloaking" is clap one's hands and shout and viola! Alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun May 12 18:42:43 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 11:42:43 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960512184243.006941bc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Comparing Auras At 12:44 PM 5/12/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Code of Ethics? Me? You're talking to a man who wrote that "Ethics are for >wimps!" >I really think you should read my books before we get into this one. >My chaos magicians would laugh themselves off their chairs at the thought of >it. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > But you must remember this Chuck, that I laugh myself off my chair at the very thought of "Chaos Magicians". Think on this: Ethics are useless or at least irrelevant, for "wimps", but extremely important for those strong enough to require them. I strongly imagine that a "Chaos Magician" fits easily into the former category. Why? Well because those with real power don't need melodramatic labels. The Sangreal gives one a slightly different perspective of what "power' really means. "The power to act, gives one the absolute responsibility to do so, it also confers the absolute responsibility for the results of the action" and that, Chuck, is the only definition of Ethics. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun May 12 18:43:53 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 11:43:53 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960512184353.006a887c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) At 12:44 PM 5/12/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >It is inevitable that any organization will develop internal politics when it >gets over 8 members. What is going on in the TS is nothing more than >Michelle's Iron Law of Oligarchy in action. Annoying as it is, there is no >way to avoid it. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: "Michelle"??????? alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun May 12 18:50:15 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 11:50:15 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960512185015.00694050@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Comparing Auras At 12:44 PM 5/12/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Someday when we have the time and nothing distracting us, like my usual >worries, we will have to conduct the experiment. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Don't worry my friend, I won't say anything totally asinine like "you mustn't let things distract you" becuase I know that's impossible for anyone. But I know you, and I know that you will never reach a time when someone's problems (usually not your own) don't worry the hell out of you. That's why when you say things like "Ethics are for wimps" it doesn't concern me in the slightest. You know why? It's because you are one of the most ethical and compassionate people I've ever run into! You're a really advanced empath, you really do "hurt for others". That's why I like you so much! alexis From ramadoss@eden.com Sun May 12 19:23:07 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 14:23:07 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Book of Dzyan Research Report In-Reply-To: <199605121648.AA11541@lafn.org> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Does Reigle have e-mail? Is the pamphlet available in e-book or some ascii form? ....doss On Sun, 12 May 1996, Nicholas Weeks wrote: > > > Some of you may have already received David Reigle's latest pamphlet. The > subtitle is "Theosophy in Tibet: The Teachings of the Jonangpa School". > If have not, and would like one, write to: > > Eastern School Press > 3185 Boyd Road > Cotopaxi, CO 81223 > > It presents quite an interesting theory. > > -- > Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles > "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight > cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble > presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) > From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Sun May 12 19:52:28 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 12:52:28 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9605121952.AA03030@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: HBP/CWL (assumptions) JHE (on Sinnett) >>But Kim, they are the same person. The attitudes that led to >>Sinnett seeking out a medium are the same attitudes that led to >>his break with the Mahatmas in the first place. Sinnett was a >>problematical person long before the break in correspondence. Kim >I do not share your evaluation. Of course they are the same >person (not necessarily with the same intensity in their >personality traits). The psychological transformations of Hume >is worth a study - especially in view of the law mentioned at >the beginning of ES instruction I. A transformation from a man >with high moral aspirations - to a highly suspicious, spiteful >OGRE during his days of occult training - and eventually back to >a relatively unselfish state. All these students, chelas and >lay-chelas, can be excused in my view - HPB, TSR, Sinnett, Hume, >many of the latter-day theosophists as well. In my book only >one thing remains - what did they achieve in their lives to help >others? This part - the best of them - is the part I care about. >Nothing else. JHE Let us hope that we are all remembered for our positive contributions and not for our failures. However, for me to better appreciate the successes, I also need to know the failures. I have to care about both. One helps in the understanding of the other. For me, understanding someone requires that I find out as much as possible about them--not just to select the positive aspects. I believe that the greatness in people come from their efforts to overcome what is not great. For me, to understand one is to understand the other. JHE >>I already stated out front that my bias is that HPB's >>expositions of the doctrines are the most faithful to her >>teacher's. Remember, it was HPB's mission to disseminate the >>teachings. Do you recall that letter you partially quoted me? >>When I finished the quote, we found that HPB affirmed her >>position with her teachers and her mission. Kim >Yes, and you clearly saw her own statement (a few words of >complaint written in a letter and a very emotional statement >regarding her importance!) as some sort of evidence to bring up >in all disputes among HPB and others. JHE It appears to me that you are discounting HPB's statement because it seems to be emotional. Am I reading you correctly? My own view is that her statements in this letter are true whether or not she was emotional at the time she made them. If you are suggesting that she may not have made that statement if she was in a different mood--well, that could be true--but it is not very relevant to me. The veracity of the statement is what is important to me here. Regarding the idea of discounting one's message because of the feelings behind it seems to be a very common human trait. Prosecution lawyers in this country love to use this. They know that if a person protests his innocence too loudly, the jury will be inclined to assume his guilt, whether he is or not ("Me thinks thou protests too much"). Therefore lawyers usually prefer to keep their clients off the witness stand whether they are guilty or not. In reality, innocent people are as inclined to protest their innocence as much as a guilty person. Obviously HPB was protesting rather loudly here, but I believe it to be an error of prejudice to discount her message. Kim >I find as many emotional reactions in the letters of HPB as in >any others. Even when HPB admits an "error", even when the >evidence is very clear on a specific philosophical subject you >apparently see it fit to bring in argumentation like this. > Jerry, I have a strong feeling of dejavu when this type of >argumentation arises. The East is full of tulkus, avatars and >gurus and reason avails nothing with their supporters: "X was a >tulku, who are you to object against his views?".. I may be a >little over-sensitive to this line of reasoning perhaps. JHE Kim, I believe that you are gravely mis-judging me here. But you are not the first to suggest that I blindly worship HPB when I offer evidence in her defense. I have also been accused of the same thing about Judge. On several occasions I made postings here on theos-l where I made critical statements concerning HPB and Judge--but they were done in the context of conversations that concerned their falliblities. No one has ever protested my making those remarks. Yet, when I offer information in her defense I get this accusation that I worship her, or consider her infallible. To dispel this accusation, I have on two occasions itemizing statements in HPB's writings that I consider to be factually wrong, and pose opinions concerning the weaknesses in her character. More recently, I did the same for Judge. I tried to get this across to you in earlier posts, when I said straight out that I did not believe HPB to be infallible. Perhaps I need to retrieve those posts where I enumerate HPB's errors and re-post them every thirty days just to remind people that I don't believe her to be perfect. Now I hope that we can disregard the incorrect inference that I can see no wrong in HPB or Judge. I suggest that this accusation is too often used as defense mechanism in order for one to avoid making a serious examination of the evidence raised in the discussion. I'm sure that this is not your intention, but I have many times seen this used as a smoke screen. In another discussion, someone recently, someone tried to "score a point" by informing me that they "know" that I don't like Purucker, and suggested that if I wasn't so ignorant of Purucker's teachings, I would better understand HPB if I had read him. The accusations as well as the logic was in my opinion ridiculous in light of the fact that I studied for almost twenty years in close contact with three of Purucker's personal students. My study with them terminated not because I left that circle, but because these students finally died--leaving me, the youngest among them to fend for myself. After twenty years of exposure to Purucker students who were in turn my teachers, I think it A bit hard to understand how one would assume me to be ignorant of Purucker. The other part of the argument that I found to be unexceptable is that one has to read Purucker to understand HPB. My approach is to read HPB to understand HPB. Only *after* we have an understanding of HPB gained from her own writings, we are in a position to intelligently read other's interpretations of her. I raise this incident to also bring home another point: It is very easy for people to pass judgement upon others whom we have never met. Knowing so little about them, it becomes easy to project parts of ourselves upon them in order to fill in the gaps of what we don't know. If we like the person, we are inclined to project positive things. If we don't like the person.... These are subtle dynamics that are a part of human nature. For myself, I try to always be aware of the possibility of this dynamic. It is very easy for people to confuse their own feelings for those of others. As long as I'm on the subject of criticizing others, I may as well go a little further and take it into a slightly different context. I think that defending and/or criticizing the leaders of our theosophical past can be done constructively or destructively. An example of a destructive criticism was a comment that reappeared almost monthly at one time on theos-l, that HPB smoked Hashish. Well, perhaps she did, but what is the point of bringing it up? If the point is raised as part of a discussion concerning HPB's attitude about drugs, then it may be a very relevant thing that requires consideration, and may lead into some new insights. On the other hand, to raise the issue purely for its shock value is IMO neither constructive nor instructive. In the context of our discussion, I believe that the historical evidence I have raised concerning TSR is very relevant, and if you chose to give the information serious consideration, it can be both constructive and instructive for our conversation. --------------------- JHE: >>Remember: "Plato is Plato, HPB is HPB, TSR is >>TSR, APS is APS " etc. Kim >Not in the opinion of HPB (and myself). Both of us works from >the assumption of a esoteric inner meaning which is common, and >can be understood and divulged. Again and again she makes >comments that Plato and TSR (and other initiates) is meaning >this and that from the basis of such a system and their >understanding of it. If you wish as an exercise of thought and >from some ideal of scholarship to view such system as differing >in essence you can naturally do so. No method can be imposed on >me, I am satisfied with my own and have seldom formed my opinion >on anything but primary evidence. JHE HPB draws upon scientific, philosophical and religious writings of great individuals in history for the purpose of illustrating a set of doctrines that she is trying to set forth. I hope we can agree at least on this. Yet, she recognizes each of these "initiates" as a unique person who had a unique place in history and a unique way of expressing themselves. Plato may very well have said the same thing as Lao Tse, and HPB may point this out. But to use Lao Tse to interpret Plato or Plato to interpret Lao Tse, HPB does not do--nor do I. Instead, HPB will only point out that here are two very unique individuals from different cultures who are indicating the same great truth. I never said that I view any two systems as "differing in essence" I only said that I will not start with the a priori assumption that they are the same, nor will I begin with the assumption that one writer can speak for another. There is a very big difference here. JHE >>>>Who made these "exact same accusations" against TSR? I'm >>>>afraid I missed them. Kim >>>Never mind. I have a strong dislike for this subject. JHE >>Interesting. Why? Kim >Reasons will be apparent from this letter (see below). I am very >sad that I had to write it. I have a tremendeous longing to get >back to the cool tenets of philosophy. ----------------------------------------- Kim >"It is very clear from p. 607 of CW that her real system "on >strict esoteric lines" is very close to TSR (except in the >terminology in a few of the principles), that previous writings >of her also is labeled semi-exoteric by herself and as a result >that a whole range of accusations against TSR by devout >theosophists can be disregarded." (inserted argument) HPB herself works from the assumption that their respective teachings were treating of the same subject, that they were discussing the same subject. JHE Yes, I recall the first time you stated this opinion. However, I do not see how you can draw from the conclusion that they are teaching the same thing, therefore "a whole range of accusations against TSR by devout theosophists can be disregarded." As I asked you before, which "accusations" can be disregarded as a result that TSR and HPB taught the same thing? As long as we are on this subject, I think I need to restate my own position on this matter, as a point of clarification. I have never specifically denied nor affirmed for this discussion that TSR and HPB taught the same thing. I have only posed the opinion that the point is irrelevant when the subject of examination is HPB and CWL. My point of concern here is that you want to draw TSR into the discussion in the first place. If the Discussion was a comparison of HPB and TSR, then I would of course welcome it, but not for a discussion of HPB and CWL. If you want to switch the discussion to a comparison of HPB and TSR, then that is OK with me. In that case I would have offered mu opinion concerning the relationship of HPB and TSR's writings. But my opinion is a rather complex one. Unlike your apparent positions on the subject, mine is not at all so black and white. At any rate, if I were to pose my opinion, it is likely that we would end up in a very long dialogue on this subject, and not get to the subject at hand. But even assuming that we had this dialogue and came to an agreement, I would still object to using TSR to interpret HPB in either discussion. Regardless of the similarity or even the identity of their teachings. HPB is HPB and TSR is TSR. JHE: >>Now, granting for the sake of argument that the systems are >>close, I'm asking how does that fact lead you to conclude that >>"a whole range of accusations against TSR by devout >>theosophists can be disregarded."? Which accusations are >>these? Who made the accusations? How are these accusations >>connected to p. 607? Are you suggesting by your phrase >>"accusations of left hand influence" that someone stated that >>TSR was under the influence of "black magicians?" Who made >>this statement? Where? I missed it. Kim >Let us just say that the first thing that happened when a >difference (what appeared to be a difference) was mentioned >between HPB and TSR (in this case the issue of 7 principles versus 4+3) I noticed 3 reactions: JHE I recall your 4+3 post, but I was not following that thread at the time, so I never saw the responses. Kim a) List-contributor A makes the deduction that TSR was under the influence of left-hand adepts since he appeared to contradict his heroine. JHE I would be interested in hearing the argument for this. Kim >b) List-contributor B in the same context makes the deduction >that TSR was against the divulging esoteric truths, that his ideas consequently probably was the first in a long line of misinformation and distortions of truth. JHE I would like to see this person's evidence. Kim >c)You eventually ended up with arguments like "It was her >(HPB?s) mission", etc - and this in the face of strong evidence (her own admission). JHE I'm losing your train of thought here. In the first place, I raised the argument that "It was her mission" in context of TSR developing an inimical relationship to HPB. This argument was *not* connected to "a's" or "b's" opinions concerning left hand adepts" or "that his (TSR's) ideas consequently probably was the first in a long line of misinformation and distortions of truth." As I said before, I missed those postings, therefore was unaware of them. So how can I be building upon postings that I never saw? Kim >You used your faith in HPB in an argument where she clearly >admitted that it was her first explanation that was >semi-exoteric (and that TSR was closer to the truth( as an >argument in the discussion! JHE I don't follow you at all here. Obviously you are alluding to the quote on page 607, but this is a quote that *you* raised on several occasions: not I. My only guess as to what you are talking about here, is that you might be assuming that I oppose your contention that TSR was closer to HPB's ES teachings than HPB was to her own ES teachings in her more exoteric explanations. If this is your assumption, then it is incorrect. Rather, I find a lot of merit in this conclusion in terms of the enumeration of the seven principles. Kim >d) During the discussion you also brought up a similar statement >by Zirkoff which was made in another context but which fits in >this group of argumentation of a traditional religious nature >and not belonging in a philosophical discussion. Material out of >context, biases and proclamations of faith are used where I >would have liked to see philosophical argumentation. PLEASE let >us get down to business. JHE Yes, I quoted deZirkoff from the text written by him, which is the *same text* that you used to build your case. I was astounded by the way you had off handedly dismissed Boris deZirkoff's conclusions concerning TSR. It is more understandable that you gave little credence to the evidence and conclusions offered by Nicholas Weeks, Dan Caldwell and myself. After all, you don't know any of us. But you have Boris deZirkoff to thank for being able to read HPB's collected writings in the first place. From the 1920's until his death in 1981, deZirkoff dedicated his life to the gathering of HPB's writings into the twenty volumes that we have. The 50 plus years of research required to do bring together these writings was the result of countless hours of correspondence with people and governments all over the world, in numerous languages. His correspondence alone for this project filled an entire filing cabinet. He gathered information from people who personally knew HPB, her relatives and associates. He worked with the British Museum and with Universities and archives all over the world to search out the references used in HPB's writings, and to check the accuracy of her quotations. The encyclopedic reach of his research was IMO astounding. With one authority he would correspond for the purpose of investigating nineteenth century marriage laws in Russia. With another, at the same time, he would be getting a translation of some portion of some very obscure esoteric Indian text. He had within his files documents that were unknown until he found them. He had copies of material that could only be found in the Adyar Archives (as if anyone was allowed to see them). It is because of Boris' work that it was possible for later researchers to even put together a life of HPB that was not a work of hopeless confusion. It was Boris' research and dedication that has made available what information we have on HPB, as well as TSR, CWL, AB and so many others around her--this is the same information which you selected from to base your arguments. Further, it was Boris' generosity that made all of his research and these documents available to other researches who were doing work along the same lines. You want to so off-handedly dismiss Boris' arguments as being of a "religious" nature? So be it. But I personally knew Boris, and know something of the awesome amount of research he did for over fifty years of his life. I can assure you that he held to a high standard of scholarship (not religious sentimentalism) that would be acceptable in any university. Boris' research into the early days of theosophy is so pioneering and so extensive, that I submit that it would be impossible to do a scholarly paper on the same subject today without citing Boris' previous research. It would also be impossible not to cite source documents without being indebted to Boris for bringing them to light in the first place. I'm sorry Kim, but I know far too much about the depth and extent of Boris' research to dismiss his conclusions so lightly. I also knew him on another level. I knew him as one of the most profound students of Theosophical teachings that I have ever met. Long before I became interested in the historical aspect of the theosophical movement, I used to pose question after question to him concerning theosophical teachings and used to be astounded at his grasp of the teachings and the ease which he was able to come up with numbers, dates, cycles, and to show the inter- relationship of one teaching to another. JHE >> So here, she is giving an answer that is equally valid for any >>or all of the possible interpretations of TSR's statement: >>that it was HPB who was sent to do the work--not TSR. Whether >>or not TSR agrees with HPB's methods, it was still her job and >>her responsibility to do it. Why would TSR think he had the >>right to interfere with someone else's job? Seems to me that >>how HPB carried out her mission is an issue between her and her >>boss--not her and TSR. Kim >- and again, and again. You overrules a piece of evidence on a >subject given to personal students during class by a complaint >written in a hasty letter (on what would could have been a lousy >morning) on another subject. Analyzing the nature of the >material is vital. JHE The speculation that it was a "lousy morning" is yours. You are welcome to it. To me it is immaterial what kind of a morning it was. It could have been a lousy morning and she was suffering from PMS to boot, and it still would have been immaterial. Either she was working for the Masters or she was not. The truth or falsity of her statement here does not change with the weather or with her mood. JHE >>See Dan Caldwell's post concerning HPB's statement to her ES >>members. Kim >Exactly. It forms part of the clear-cut evidence in the case of >the "seven principles controversy" . Thank you Daniel! JHE Once again, the agreement or disagreement of HPB's and TSR's system is not the issue for a discussion concerning HPB and CWL. Why do you keep raising this issue when I don't challenge it? Rather, I keep repeating over and over that it is irrelevant to a discussion of HPB and CWL. My reference to Caldwell's contribution concerns the issue that you keep denying--i.e. the inimical relationship between HPB and TSR. Dan posted two documents which support this contention of mine. Nicholas Weeks posted one, and I posted one or two. How much more documentation do you need before you even consider the possibility that the relationship between them was inimical? Kim >>Then you must have a whole heap of questions arising from the >>lives of historical adepts. How about Shankara - suddenly a >>perfect adept at 17. JHE >Nope. Different cases. To begin with, I see TSR as a chela, >not an adept. Kim >a) You question a source because of the short time of exposure >to theosophy (??!!??).b) I give you another example of instant >access to esoteric information. c) you end up making cloudy >graduations where you aught to have "OK. Such a thing is >possible. Let us drop this line of inquiry. d) I say "let us >drop this line of inquiry". JHE Sorry Kim. We just have very different ways of looking at things. I distinguish an adept from an avatara (which I believe Shankara to be). An Avatara is overshadowed by another entity. An Adept is operating from his own resources. If you are talking about genius that manifests through a short time of exposure, then I would suggest that you bring up Mozart as an example. He composed music at four years old. With a comparison of this nature, then I would say "OK" point well taken. But when you start connecting "adepts" with "instant knowledge", you leave me to wonder where you are going, so I'm cautious about this kind of comparison. Mozart, on the other hand, is a more familiar example--but in my opinion his example makes a different point, since I neither consider him an Avatara nor an Adept in the same sense as TSR and Shankara. JHE >>We do know, however, that it was HPB's job to promulgate the >>teachings to the world. What was TSR's "job?" Did he have >>one? Where is it described? Kim >I honestly do not think such arguments can be used in a >discussion of philosophy. If we want to analyze the role of TSR >we can do it at a later time. JHE Great. I move that we table the whole subject of TSR for a later discussion that would involve him in the first place. JHE >>I gladly "permit" you to believe in the concept of "esoteric >>meaning" and "common truth." I also share these beliefs. But >>for me, corroboration does not necessarily affirm or deny them. Kim >But they certainly strongly supports the very concept of them. >HPB works with such assumptions all the time. HPB works from the >assumption that behind the words of HPB and TSR there is a >esoteric meaning and that any difference need to be explained. >The world of scholarly research would generally in the case of >SIMILARITY make the guess that one copied the other. The two >approaches to study are completely antagonistic. JHE Collaboration strongly supports the very concept of `esoteric meaning' and `common truth'? Yes, I agree, but the support is circular. That is, the conclusion already existed in the assumption. Yes, I agree, a scholarly "guess" would be that HPB and TSR copied from each other. It is a perfectly fine hypothesis to begin with. It appears to me that HPB is working from the assumption that the Ancient Wisdom exists and that she is trying to give this out to the world. It is also evident that she knew that TSR was also conversant with this Ancient Wisdom, and respected his knowledge of it. So, perhaps we have different assumptions as to HPB's assumptions. Kim >I hope you take no offense, these represent my views. Where I >have misunderstood motives I apologize. ;-) JHE No, I take no offense at all. Rather, I hope that this exchange will clear up some mis-communications between us that I'm now becoming aware of. I had initially planned to summarize my understanding of our assumptions for this post, but after reading though your responses, I realized that it was premature to do this as yet. Maybe next time--or the next :-) By the way, I also received your other post today that concerns the teachings. I will respond to it, but I have a paper that rather urgently needs to be completed this week if I expect to pass the class. The paper concerns issues around the teaching of writing to freshmen college students. I find the paper a rather unpleasant ordeal, and I have to write it in the register of post-modern rhetoric--which I find even less pleasant. By the end of the week, I should be finished with the paper and will be able to resume our conversation and answer your other post. Best, Jerry H-E ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun May 12 18:57:00 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 14:57:00 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605122001.QAA17682@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Teachers >All Adepts are Teachers, but not all Teachers >are Adepts. The 3 that I mentioned were/are chelas. So I dodn't know under what category you want to place them. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun May 12 19:05:46 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 15:05:46 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605122010.QAA19795@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: auras >One questions that comes up is, if one is able to put a sheath over the >astral body so that one cannot see what is behind it - an analogy like >some one wearing a easy flowing dress - then it is possible to prevent >anyone looking at the aura. > >Is this possible? > > ....doss Doss, I don't know whether it's possible to make yourself invisible to someone with ESP. To escape notice from someone with ordinary sight you can imagine that your aura is grey, & shrink into yourself so as to not draw attention. So I've been told. It's worked when I've tried it. There's also a technique you can use so another person can't read your thoughts, but I think you have to be pretty powerful to be able to use it. Liesel From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun May 12 21:23:18 1996 Date: 12 May 96 17:23:18 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Dangers of Psychism Message-Id: <960512212318_76400.1474_HHL58-1@CompuServe.COM> The following introductory advice is given to students who would develop any form of psychism or practice spiritual exercises or techniques: "In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them. The advantages to be gained from them are chiefly these: (a) A widening of the horizon of the mind. (b) An improvement of the control of the mind. The student, if he attains any success in the following practices, will find himself confronted by things (ideas or beings) too glorious or too dreadful to be described. It is essential that he remain the master of all that he beholds, hears or conceives; otherwise he will be the slave of illusion, and the prey of madness. Before entering any of these practices, the student should be in good health, and have attained a fair mastery of asana, pranayama, and dharana. There is little danger that any student, however idle or stupid, will fail to get some result; but there is great danger that he will be led astray, obsessed and overwhelmed by his results, even though it be those which it is necessary that he should attain. Too often, moreover, he mistaketh the first resting-place for the goal, and taketh off his armour as if he were a victor ere the fight is well begun. It is desirable that the student should never attach to any result the importance which it at first seems to possess." Although the above quote could have been written by a theosophist, it was taken from Aleister Crowley's Liber O. Even AC recognized the real dangers of psychism, and provided suitable warnings. Jerry S. Member, TI From am455@lafn.org Sun May 12 22:53:49 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 15:53:49 -0700 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Message-Id: <199605122253.AA07680@lafn.org> Subject: Re: Book of Dzyan Research Report >Does Reigle have e-mail? Is the pamphlet available in e-book or some >ascii form? > ....doss Nope, nope, and maybe in ascii. Write to the same address to find out. The pamphlet is only 10 pages of text & a couple more of notes. -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Morality is water that cleanses stains of wrongdoing; it is moonlight cooling hot passions. As a snowy peak in the midst of men, its noble presence peacefully unites all beings." Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) From michelle@zip.com.au Mon May 13 09:18:33 1996 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 09:18:33 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Message-Id: <199605122259.IAA16274@zipper.zip.com.au> Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) Chuck - I agree with you that institutional Ts can get very head orientated, to me it often gets stuck in the form rather than the purpose, I bit like some dicussions around here getting stuck in the personal rather than the subject ;-) I have a couple of question though... > One of the problems I have with the institutional TS is that it seems to be > so head oriented that it forgets that there has to be a practical meaning to > all this. For example, convention and summer school are coming up and we are > probably going to be seminared to death but when it comes to making Theosophy > a living thing, something is going to get seriously lost in the translation. > It's that way every year. What sort of things do you thing would make seminars and conventions more practical? > It is almost as if the idea of action terrifies everyone. Now I can see lots > of ways where it should. Would you care to share those ideas with this list? It would make a good discussion point - for me personally I am at a stage where I am focussed more on the practical application of Tsy in what I do rather than the in depth study of the literature. Thanks in advance.... in fellowship Michelle From michelle@zip.com.au Sat May 11 22:01:33 1996 Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 22:01:33 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Message-Id: <199605122259.IAA16277@zipper.zip.com.au> Subject: Re: Rules of Engagement/Enragement/Enlightenment > Theos-L Readers: > It would be interesting, though, if we could discuss what would > be proper guidelines for posting to this list. We could come up > with some more detailed rules than "respect the views of others". > I'd help with discussing the guidelines, and would follow whatever > we mutually agree to. To help start the ball rolling I will find and repost the netiquette I developed a while ago. watch this space..... in fellowship Michelle From michelle@zip.com.au Mon May 13 09:18:31 1996 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 09:18:31 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Message-Id: <199605122300.JAA16663@zipper.zip.com.au> Subject: Theos-L Netiquette Well as promised this space has a copy of the recent netiquette posting: > From: Self > Subject: Theos-L Netiquette > Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:10:03 Dear all Having read a few responses re postings in this list I would like to add a few more items to the suggested netiquette on this list. While I agree personally with Leisel sentiments about the tone of postings I feel that tone, is up to each individual and it is not appropriate to be part of netiquette guidelines. Please bear in mind that netiquette is about conserving bandwidth and increasing value to participants (the Internet's version of "Brotherhood") by: 1) judicious quoting - not none - making some posts meaningless or completly quoting leaving in unecessary details. 2) that messages are on topic 3) that messages are of value containing more than I agree - this doesnt add to discussion unless a vote is being called. 4)emailing direct rather than to the list, where ones response is to the individual rather than the group participating in the list. 5) Please do not reply in the list to a message posted that is personal or off topic - this only perpetuates the thread. 6) If you start a message with an individual list members name, please think carefully about the value of this message to the list as a whole and how this can result in an elite inner group which can act as a barrier to others within the list. in fellowship From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun May 12 23:31:34 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 19:31:34 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960512193133_397378262@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Election Results Monday? Keith. The counting of the ballots starts monday morning but may not finish monday. With the number of contested elections, it may take a couple of days, particularly if the results are very close and they have to go over them again to be sure of the count. My housemate is going to be observing the count to make sure that everyone trusts the results and when she tells me I will post the results to this list. Chuck From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun May 12 23:42:19 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 19:42:19 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605130047.UAA20539@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To Michelle, Re: News from England >"us vs them" Hi, Michelle, It seems there are a few misguided theosophists who object to theosophy in cyberspace. That's who "them" is. We love it. My day wouldn't be complete without looking in on our mailimg list. Liesel From michelle@zip.com.au Mon May 13 11:47:39 1996 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 11:47:39 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Message-Id: <199605130128.LAA29571@zipper.zip.com.au> Subject: Re: Adyar leadership Hi Alexis > > I should be extremely interested to find out exactly what "rules" the > Russians refused to comply with. I understand it was some of these Adyar > Instituted "Rules" that caused the Canadian Section to be bounced. I have I understand that they didnt comply with the requirements of a section. > always been under the impression that the only qualification required for > membership in The Theosophical society was that one "supported or agreed > with, the Three Objects". This is the rules for an individual member to join. There are a set of rules both Internationally and Nationally that set out the requirements that allow any group or body to call itself the TS. > Russians, if they support the three objects, and we all know that they do, I wonder how we all know this - I know none of these folk myself and cant say that I know what they as individuals think on any matter let alone the three objects. The problem as I understand it isnt with the individuals and their individual commitment but rather with the groups rules and regulations. > and have at great risk for a long time, and if they consider themselves > theosophists, and they do, well then, they are theosophists and nothing > Radha Burnier or Joy Mills or anyone else can do can change that even one iota. I agree, being a Theosophist is a state of being, and does not necessarily have anything to do with whether one is a member or not of the Theosophical Society (which ever branch). BFN OOROO Michelle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - michelle@zip.com.au Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ From michelle@zip.com.au Mon May 13 11:01:13 1996 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 11:01:13 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Message-Id: <199605130128.LAA29588@zipper.zip.com.au> Subject: Re: You Warned Me > >To Michelle and Doss: > > Don't you think you're generating a tempest in a teapot? It takes perhaps a NO I dont. Take note of the number of resignations from this list for a start! When a list is small and the traffic light it doesnt matter too much to most users if the noise ratio is high. But this list is now large and if its purpose is to provide a public forum for the discussion of theosophy and if we want people to lurk, participate and stay then we need to consider what is discussed. Practically speaking this is very much like the death many members of this list talk about happening to lodges - ironic isnt it? > half a second to delete a "one liner", or if you find one person does only > "one liners' you can filter them.There are a number of people on this board When it can be half of the messages at around 90 a day that's 45 messages - which takes more than a second to: a open b read c delete What a waste! Ironically so many things wrong with TS organizations is that they dont get around to doing practical things and here we are wasting each others time on this stuff. > Basically, I fear that what you're actually thinking about is censorship of > content and that is a basic American "NO-NO". Who has the right to decide Firstly this isnt America - its the internet with its own philosphy called netiquette. This is a list to discuss Theosophy, and as I understand it the members of the list have the right to decide what is OK. If a lodge spent half is time talking about things other than Theosophy members could do one of three things: 1 leave the lodge 2 put up with it 3 encourage a return to the focus/ point of the group/lodge I have chosen to take option 3 and I am sure others agree, sadly many have taken option1 :-( AND WE ARE ALL POORER FOR THE LOSS. > what is "on-topic" and what is "off-topic". I know I don't, and I certainly > won't cede the right to anyone else. I strongly doubt if anyone on this Great, you "wont cede the right", what about the rights of the group, the purpose of us gathering together? > board will be broken financially by the cost of the telephone time it takes > to delete a "one-liner". I believe the point ....doss was making, is that many internet users (nothing to do with the board - whatever that is) pay for time on line or for bandwidth used and hence off-topic messages cost that individual money. While that may not be an issue for some is is very real to others. We are part of this global community on this list. I believe that both ....doss and myself are coming from a consideration and compassionate point of view and I hope our comments are taken as such. BFN OOROO Michelle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - michelle@zip.com.au Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ From michelle@zip.com.au Mon May 13 11:47:44 1996 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 11:47:44 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Message-Id: <199605130128.LAA29601@zipper.zip.com.au> Subject: Re: False beliefs > >Second is false, but sincerely-held beliefs, beliefs that > >are wrong regardless of how flexibly they are held. Both > >are cause for our concern, in both ourselves and others > >that we deal with. > > Eldon, > > I was reading along this post & didn't even know it was yours. > I have the same objections as usual. Who is going to judge what beliefs are > wrong, & on what grounds? If you're talking about your own judgement, I > wonder how you can be so sure that what you judge to be wrong is really all > wrong. You're not God. It is so much a matter of perspective isnt it - whether to participate in the duality of right and wrong or to see everything as part of the whole, perfect at any moment a mixture of both apsects of duality. I dont think that any ones beliefs are wrong from that persons point of view, at the time they hold them. They may in retropect change and see the earlier way as no longer appropriate. So sorry Eldon - I dont agree with you, while a belief might not be in agreement with another's (either alive or dead) views that doesnt make it wrong.I dont think any of us can claim to be the holders of the Truth for everyone, rather only for ourselves at that time. BFN OOROO Michelle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - michelle@zip.com.au Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ From michelle@zip.com.au Mon May 13 11:47:36 1996 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 11:47:36 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Message-Id: <199605130128.LAA29613@zipper.zip.com.au> Subject: Re: Adyar leadership > countries in the world. Again, when the connection is set up, we will > have to see what application it will be put to initially. Certainly > unless they are able to get a free connection thru an educational > institution, they cannot afford to get all the traffic generated on > theos-xxxx just from a cost stand point, IMHO. Interesting point, I think many of us forget the technical limits in other parts of the world. Maybe one person at Adyar would be able to bring in the list and then distribute it locally across their internal network or by hard copy. > One of the major problems that is at the root of wrong > information and misperceptions is the lack of information flow from the > top to bottom on some of the important issues that are very vital for > long term growth and survival of TS. I do not know what is happening in > other parts of the world. I can only speak for USA. I agree that this communnication is vital for the health of the orgainzations. I was on the national Executive in New Zealand in the 80's and worked on the same floor as the Australian section for a few years in the 90's and from my experience there isnt a lot of information coming from the International body and I suspect the national body is so busy but that it doesnt "pester" (for the want of a much better word) HQ for more info. I reckon the individuals need to ask more of their sections on this. This might be the only way the National bodies will persist in getting info from HQ. > A very glaring case was the memo that Radha Burnier sent to the > General Council in 1980 and which was posted here some months ago. I do > not know if you have seen it. It raises several policy issues on which no I havent - could you email me it directly? Thank you. BFN OOROO Michelle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - michelle@zip.com.au Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ From ramadoss@eden.com Mon May 13 00:23:00 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 19:23:00 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960513192530.2daf113a@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Election Results Monday? Chuck: Appreciate your housemate taking the trouble to be present at the counting. I send my gratitude for what she is doing for all of us Theosophists. Would look forward to the results whenever they are ready. .....doss From ramadoss@eden.com Mon May 13 00:22:52 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 19:22:52 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960513192523.2e8fb192@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: auras At 04:12 PM 5/12/96 -0400, you wrote: >>One questions that comes up is, if one is able to put a sheath over the >>astral body so that one cannot see what is behind it - an analogy like >>some one wearing a easy flowing dress - then it is possible to prevent >>anyone looking at the aura. >> >>Is this possible? >> >> ....doss > >Doss, >I don't know whether it's possible to make yourself invisible to someone >with ESP. To escape notice from someone with ordinary sight you can imagine >that your aura is grey, & shrink into yourself so as to not draw attention. >So I've been told. It's worked when I've tried it. There's also a technique >you can use so another person can't read your thoughts, but I think you have >to be pretty powerful to be able to use it. >Liesel > > Liesel: I am using the analogy. As above so below and vice versa. If I can purchase a clothing and cover myself so that no one can really see my actual physical form such as whether I am thin or heavy somewhat similar possibility may exist in the superphysical world. I agree it may require the use of energy unless one is very highly evolved and knows some short cut to do it. Take for example in the presence of a powerful aura of an extremely highly evolved person, a sensitive may be "knocked off" even though the sensitive may no know why. In such a situation, the powerful aura person may tune down. Just speculation on my part. ....doss From ramadoss@eden.com Mon May 13 00:22:56 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 19:22:56 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960513192526.2e8fd0f8@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) At 07:00 PM 5/12/96 -0400, you wrote: >Chuck - I agree with you that institutional Ts can get very head >orientated, to me it often gets stuck in the form rather than the >purpose, I bit like some dicussions around here getting stuck in the >personal rather than the subject ;-) > >I have a couple of question though... > >> One of the problems I have with the institutional TS is that it seems to be >> so head oriented that it forgets that there has to be a practical meaning to >> all this. For example, convention and summer school are coming up and we are >> probably going to be seminared to death but when it comes to making Theosophy >> a living thing, something is going to get seriously lost in the translation. >> It's that way every year. > >What sort of things do you thing would make seminars and conventions >more practical? > >> It is almost as if the idea of action terrifies everyone. Now I can see lots >> of ways where it should. > >Would you care to share those ideas with this list? It would make a >good discussion point - for me personally I am at a stage where I >am focussed more on the practical application of Tsy in what I do >rather than the in depth study of the literature. > >Thanks in advance.... > >in fellowship >Michelle > Michelle: Add me to your request. There are many here on theos-l for whom the practical application of TS in what we do is more important than in depth study of the literature. While I do not generally like to dwell much on what I do personally, I think I should share a couple of things I have implemented in my life. First and foremost, I always try to keep in mind that everyone of us - from the dumb to the sharpest - from the illiterate to the most learned scholar - from the poor and humble to the rich and powerful - from the savage to the most spiritually advanced man/woman - is first and foremost a human being. Once this is established, I have found it much easier to communicate and interact with the whole cross section of people I run into. Even when someone introduces me with the appendage of my profession, I clarify that I am an ordinary human being and my professional hat I put on only when I am performing my professional service. With this point of view I have a lot of fun when someone tries to impress me with their title or profession or their educational achievement. There are few other things I have done over the years. I tried to steer clear providing services to any client who is not involved in an activity which helps humans and other living beings and increases the quality of life. I avoid any business which is exploiting human, animals, or nature and avoid military related. For example I do not deal with businesses in cattle raising, slaughterhouse and related processing, selling, liquor and mind altering drugs, prostitution. I even had the good fortune of steering away one of my clients from getting into cattle raising business for which both of us are happy now. Of course I am a practicing vegetarian and is supporting local animal rights activities. All the above are the result of a clearer understanding of Theosophy with the help of Krishnaji's lectures, videos and books. And it took several decades for me to get my thinking on these straight. I do not complain. I hope the above may help some understand where I come from. Cheers .....doss From michelle@zip.com.au Mon May 13 12:29:49 1996 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 12:29:49 +0000 From: "Michelle Donald" Message-Id: <199605130227.MAA03474@zipper.zip.com.au> Subject: Re: The Russian TS Deari Liesel > Dear Michelle, > > I'm expecting a FAX back from the Russian TS in answer to the FAX I sent > them a few days ago. Eventually, we'll find out from them what the story is. It will be good to hear their side - has anyone asked Adyar directly for their side? I have only heard others comments. > If what I heard is correct, then I really wouldn't blame them, if they had > refused to comply with what Adyar demanded of them before they could become > members. I was told that they were to study the theosophical classics for > several years & then pass a test, before they could be admitted. That's not I would find it hard to believe that any TS org would insist on this. But there are stranger things in heaven and earth Horatio. BFN OOROO Michelle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - michelle@zip.com.au Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ From ramadoss@eden.com Mon May 13 02:58:01 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 21:58:01 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: You Warned Me In-Reply-To: <199605130128.LAA29588@zipper.zip.com.au> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Michelle: I am signed up for listening-l which is the mail list for Krishnaji's Teachings and I have seen the traffic issues like we are discussing here. I is on the comeback trail. It is only the marginally interested subscriber who signs off and goes away. The hard core are persistent and stay. I think things are improving and it will all settled down, not perhaps for the full satisfaction of everybody. May be 80-90% satisfaction overall. BTW, this is *the* only game on Theosophy on Internet and hence I am very optimistic. Also most of the heavy posters are quite serious about what Theosophy can do for everybody. Just this will make it survive and grow without any formal rules of etiquette. ...doss On Sun, 12 May 1996, Michelle Donald wrote: > > >To Michelle and Doss: > > > > Don't you think you're generating a tempest in a teapot? It takes perhaps a > > NO I dont. Take note of the number of resignations from this list for > a start! When a list is small and the traffic light it doesnt matter > too much to most users if the noise ratio is high. But this list is > now large and if its purpose is to provide a public forum for the > discussion of theosophy and if we want people to lurk, participate and > stay then we need to consider what is discussed. > > Practically speaking this is very much like the death many members of > this list talk about happening to lodges - ironic isnt it? > > > half a second to delete a "one liner", or if you find one person does only > > "one liners' you can filter them.There are a number of people on this board > > When it can be half of the messages at around 90 a day that's 45 > messages - which takes more than a second to: > a open > b read > c delete > What a waste! Ironically so many things wrong with TS organizations > is that they dont get around to doing practical things and here we > are wasting each others time on this stuff. > > > Basically, I fear that what you're actually thinking about is censorship of > > content and that is a basic American "NO-NO". Who has the right to decide > > Firstly this isnt America - its the internet with its own philosphy > called netiquette. > > This is a list to discuss Theosophy, and as I understand it the > members of the list have the right to decide what is OK. > > If a lodge spent half is time talking about things other than > Theosophy members could do one of three things: > > 1 leave the lodge > 2 put up with it > 3 encourage a return to the focus/ point of the group/lodge > > I have chosen to take option 3 and I am sure others agree, sadly many > have taken option1 :-( > > AND WE ARE ALL POORER FOR THE LOSS. > > > what is "on-topic" and what is "off-topic". I know I don't, and I certainly > > won't cede the right to anyone else. I strongly doubt if anyone on this > > Great, you "wont cede the right", what about the rights of the group, > the purpose of us gathering together? > > > board will be broken financially by the cost of the telephone time it takes > > to delete a "one-liner". > > I believe the point ....doss was making, is that many internet users > (nothing to do with the board - whatever that is) pay for time on > line or for bandwidth used and hence off-topic messages cost that > individual money. While that may not be an issue for some is is very > real to others. We are part of this global community on this list. > > I believe that both ....doss and myself are coming from a > consideration and compassionate point of view and I hope our comments > are taken as such. > > BFN > OOROO > Michelle > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > michelle@zip.com.au > Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services > http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ > From wap@one.net Mon May 13 03:03:15 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 23:03:15 -0400 (EDT) From: William Parrette Message-Id: <199605130303.XAA24639@shell.one.net> Subject: Re: Theos-L Netiquette In-Reply-To: <199605122300.JAA16663@zipper.zip.com.au> from "Michelle Donald" at May 12, 96 07:00:59 pm Content-Type: text Hi all, Michelle Donald recently wrote to the list: > Well as promised this space has a copy of the recent netiquette > posting: > > ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- > From: Self > To: theos-l@elvis.vnet.net > Subject: Theos-L Netiquette > Reply-to: michelle@zip.com.au > Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:10:03 > > Dear all > > Having read a few responses re postings in this list I would like to > add a few more items to the suggested netiquette on this list ... And, if you have a Web browser, take a look at: http://rs6000.adm.fau.edu/rinaldi/netiquette.html/ or http://www.nccn.net/bultnbrd/faq/rfc1855.html/ > ... > Please bear in mind that netiquette is about conserving > bandwidth and increasing value to participants (the Internet's > version of "Brotherhood") ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I agree with the previous point 110%. > ... > 5) Please do not reply in the list to a message posted that is > personal or off topic - this only perpetuates the thread ... On this point I would like to ask our list administrator a "mailing list software" question. Isn't it possible to configure the list server software in such a was as to cause a reply to go to the replyee instead of the entire list by default? It seems to me that other lists I belong to work this way. By doing this the replyer would have to work a little harder ( therefore think a little longer) to get their reply to the list by using their mailer to change the "To:" field before pressing the send key. Just a thought. May you always grok in fullness ... Bill-- ...who heard that minds are like parachutes -- they function only when open. |//// (42?) +--------------------------+----------------------------+-- |o_o| / --+ |William A. (Bill) Parrette|7177 Heritage Drive |ooOO__\ _ /__OOoo-| |wap@one.net |Westchester, OH 45069-4012 |---O---------O----| | *** http://w3.one.net/~wap/ *** || | -| .|. |- | | | +------------------- 513-779-0780 ----------------------+|_| \--|--/ |_| + | | From ramadoss@eden.com Sun May 12 15:39:55 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 10:39:55 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Free PC Mail Program with Filters Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Many times, there were mentions about e-mail programs which can sort incoming messages into several folders so that it is easy to read and respond. Till now, there were commercial programs which can be purchased which had that capability. It is called filtering of messages. Finally a low cost program is hitting the market. It is expected to sell for $29.00 street price. But for a short time, you can get download it for free. The catch is this - the company which is putting out this program is also into a database of persons. They do not sell the database. But make it available for access. If you are in white pages, you may find your name and address and phone number already in their data base. If you are interested, please read further and get the program and try it. You may like it. ....doss PS: I have no axes to grind in this matter!!!! > Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 05:03:50 -0400 > From: Beyond.News@radar.banyan.com > Subject: Beyond News - Vol. 1, #1 Greetings! You received this message because you either - a) Are a registered Switchboard user who clicked on the "Download" BeyondMail Beta button from within Switchboard or - b) Filled out the Beta user registration form to download the BeyondMail Beta from within the Coordinate.com Web site. BeyondMail is a product of Coordinate.Com (the makers of Switchboard.) When you clicked on the "Download" BeyondMail button (you can only do this from within Switchboard or from the Coordinate.com site) you were offered a FREE VERSION OF BEYONDMAIL. We are trying to fulfill our obligation to notify Beta users of the release of the full product. Registered Switchboard users are entitled to access this production version for free! The only way to download the production version of the client is from within your Switchboard account. To download an evaluation version of the product go to the Coordinate.com web site at: http://www.coordinate.com/bmail/ To download your free copy of BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition, follow these steps: 1) Log into Switchboard ( http://www.switchboard.com ) If you aren't a registered user of this free service, here's your chance to become one. 2) Once you are logged in, scroll down the "Update Your Listings" screen until you see the "Promotional Offer" link. Click on this link. 3) From the "Switchboard: Promotional Offer" page you may press the "Download" button to jump to the BeyondMail Download Screen. 4) From the "Download BeyondMail" screen you should be ready to go! Just follow the instructions and you will be on your way to becoming a full BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition user! Note: If you are a user of Webminders, you should definitely upgrade to the latest release of BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition. We have found a few minor problems with the earlier releases of Webminders that could cause disk problems for users with multiple hard disks. You also have the option of downloading the production release of the Macintosh version when it becomes available in June. BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition is leading-edge, easy-to-use e-mail, specifically designed for the Internet. It's the first e-mail software that automatically surfs the Internet and downloads selected web pages to where they are most accessible -- in your mailbox. You can even surf off-line! You can also stay on top of your incoming messages by using MailMinders -- filters that automatically sort all new mail into folders. And, "hot link" to any web site by simply clicking on any URL that is located in a mail message. BeyondMail will launch your web browser and display the web page right from BeyondMail! We hope you enjoy this world-class software. If you have any questions please send e-mail to: bmail-smtp-help@coordinate.com Thanks, The BeyondMail Team From pwalstra@pi.net Sun May 12 15:41:12 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 17:41:26 +0200 From: "Peter I. Walstra" Message-Id: <319606A6.4A34@pi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: MM (FWD) Chickens and Millennium Matters References: <3192C1B5.34ED@whanganui.ac.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That's really great, all these different viewpoints. What about an answer from H.P.B.? Possibly something to do with the inner urge of chickens developing individuality, trying to break out from the groupsoul and attain more freedom? A chicken that is one Round ahead?! (Having just moved, don't have my Blavatsky books at hand for inspiration...) Peter Walstra Member Theosophy International From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun May 12 14:49:42 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 10:49:42 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199605121554.LAA02383@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: MM (FWD) Chickens and Millennium Matters Very fitting,Peter. And you didn't even need your Blavatsky books for that one. Liesel, member TI ........................................................................... >That's really great, all these different viewpoints. > >What about an answer from H.P.B.? Possibly something to do with >the inner urge of chickens developing individuality, trying to >break out from the groupsoul and attain more freedom? A chicken >that is one Round ahead?! >(Having just moved, don't have my Blavatsky books at hand for inspiration...) > > >Peter Walstra >Member Theosophy International > From ramadoss@eden.com Sun May 12 15:39:55 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 10:39:55 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Free PC Mail Program with Filters Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Many times, there were mentions about e-mail programs which can sort incoming messages into several folders so that it is easy to read and respond. Till now, there were commercial programs which can be purchased which had that capability. It is called filtering of messages. Finally a low cost program is hitting the market. It is expected to sell for $29.00 street price. But for a short time, you can get download it for free. The catch is this - the company which is putting out this program is also into a database of persons. They do not sell the database. But make it available for access. If you are in white pages, you may find your name and address and phone number already in their data base. If you are interested, please read further and get the program and try it. You may like it. ....doss PS: I have no axes to grind in this matter!!!! > Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 05:03:50 -0400 > From: Beyond.News@radar.banyan.com > Subject: Beyond News - Vol. 1, #1 Greetings! You received this message because you either - a) Are a registered Switchboard user who clicked on the "Download" BeyondMail Beta button from within Switchboard or - b) Filled out the Beta user registration form to download the BeyondMail Beta from within the Coordinate.com Web site. BeyondMail is a product of Coordinate.Com (the makers of Switchboard.) When you clicked on the "Download" BeyondMail button (you can only do this from within Switchboard or from the Coordinate.com site) you were offered a FREE VERSION OF BEYONDMAIL. We are trying to fulfill our obligation to notify Beta users of the release of the full product. Registered Switchboard users are entitled to access this production version for free! The only way to download the production version of the client is from within your Switchboard account. To download an evaluation version of the product go to the Coordinate.com web site at: http://www.coordinate.com/bmail/ To download your free copy of BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition, follow these steps: 1) Log into Switchboard ( http://www.switchboard.com ) If you aren't a registered user of this free service, here's your chance to become one. 2) Once you are logged in, scroll down the "Update Your Listings" screen until you see the "Promotional Offer" link. Click on this link. 3) From the "Switchboard: Promotional Offer" page you may press the "Download" button to jump to the BeyondMail Download Screen. 4) From the "Download BeyondMail" screen you should be ready to go! Just follow the instructions and you will be on your way to becoming a full BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition user! Note: If you are a user of Webminders, you should definitely upgrade to the latest release of BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition. We have found a few minor problems with the earlier releases of Webminders that could cause disk problems for users with multiple hard disks. You also have the option of downloading the production release of the Macintosh version when it becomes available in June. BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition is leading-edge, easy-to-use e-mail, specifically designed for the Internet. It's the first e-mail software that automatically surfs the Internet and downloads selected web pages to where they are most accessible -- in your mailbox. You can even surf off-line! You can also stay on top of your incoming messages by using MailMinders -- filters that automatically sort all new mail into folders. And, "hot link" to any web site by simply clicking on any URL that is located in a mail message. BeyondMail will launch your web browser and display the web page right from BeyondMail! We hope you enjoy this world-class software. If you have any questions please send e-mail to: bmail-smtp-help@coordinate.com Thanks, The BeyondMail Team From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 10:39:55 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Free PC Mail Program with Filters Message-ID: Many times, there were mentions about e-mail programs which can sort incoming messages into several folders so that it is easy to read and respond. Till now, there were commercial programs which can be purchased which had that capability. It is called filtering of messages. Finally a low cost program is hitting the market. It is expected to sell for $29.00 street price. But for a short time, you can get download it for free. The catch is this - the company which is putting out this program is also into a database of persons. They do not sell the database. But make it available for access. If you are in white pages, you may find your name and address and phone number already in their data base. If you are interested, please read further and get the program and try it. You may like it. ....doss PS: I have no axes to grind in this matter!!!! > Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 05:03:50 -0400 > From: Beyond.News@radar.banyan.com > Subject: Beyond News - Vol. 1, #1 Greetings! You received this message because you either - a) Are a registered Switchboard user who clicked on the "Download" BeyondMail Beta button from within Switchboard or - b) Filled out the Beta user registration form to download the BeyondMail Beta from within the Coordinate.com Web site. BeyondMail is a product of Coordinate.Com (the makers of Switchboard.) When you clicked on the "Download" BeyondMail button (you can only do this from within Switchboard or from the Coordinate.com site) you were offered a FREE VERSION OF BEYONDMAIL. We are trying to fulfill our obligation to notify Beta users of the release of the full product. Registered Switchboard users are entitled to access this production version for free! The only way to download the production version of the client is from within your Switchboard account. To download an evaluation version of the product go to the Coordinate.com web site at: http://www.coordinate.com/bmail/ To download your free copy of BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition, follow these steps: 1) Log into Switchboard ( http://www.switchboard.com ) If you aren't a registered user of this free service, here's your chance to become one. 2) Once you are logged in, scroll down the "Update Your Listings" screen until you see the "Promotional Offer" link. Click on this link. 3) From the "Switchboard: Promotional Offer" page you may press the "Download" button to jump to the BeyondMail Download Screen. 4) From the "Download BeyondMail" screen you should be ready to go! Just follow the instructions and you will be on your way to becoming a full BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition user! Note: If you are a user of Webminders, you should definitely upgrade to the latest release of BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition. We have found a few minor problems with the earlier releases of Webminders that could cause disk problems for users with multiple hard disks. You also have the option of downloading the production release of the Macintosh version when it becomes available in June. BeyondMail Personal Internet Edition is leading-edge, easy-to-use e-mail, specifically designed for the Internet. It's the first e-mail software that automatically surfs the Internet and downloads selected web pages to where they are most accessible -- in your mailbox. You can even surf off-line! You can also stay on top of your incoming messages by using MailMinders -- filters that automatically sort all new mail into folders. And, "hot link" to any web site by simply clicking on any URL that is located in a mail message. BeyondMail will launch your web browser and display the web page right from BeyondMail! We hope you enjoy this world-class software. If you have any questions please send e-mail to: bmail-smtp-help@coordinate.com Thanks, The BeyondMail Team From alexei@slip.net Mon May 13 05:41:32 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 22:41:32 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960513054132.006bd29c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: News from England At 08:04 PM 5/12/96 -0400, you wrote: >Hi all > >> The write up of internet activity in the UK's Theosophical Journal, and the >> description of the Reading Lodge ... applause, applause. At least we have >> some people on our side! > >I am curous as to why there are sides in this? It is great that what >is happening is being printed but what does "us vs them" have to do >with it? > >Am I missing something? >BFN >OOROO >Michelle > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - >michelle@zip.com.au >Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services >http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/ > > First let me say that your netiquette posting represents good policy. It doesn't silence anyone and it does permit people to have short personal relationship threads. As to 'Us vs.Them" I doubt highly if anyone of us likes it or desired it, but that is the situation that has arisen. There are two fairly easily identifiable "interest groups" one represents the kind of thing Chuck was complaining about..the "head centered THEOSOPHIST" and the other the "action cenetered theosophist". There are fairly strong disagreements in two areas, the first is psychic research-activity, and the second is what I have to call "Orthodox Institutional Theosophy" which seems to resent and reject those of us who are not so orthodox, some call us "revisionists". It had gotten rather too acrimonious, but I think almost everyone has drawn back from that now and things are getting more diplomatic, but the division is clearly there. This division is nothing new, it extends all the way back to the founding of the soicety. As to the "News From England" well I rather think it represents a victory (of sorts) for the revisionists. alexis From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon May 13 16:43:26 1996 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 17:43:26 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: News from England In-Reply-To: <199605130001.KAA21898@zipper.zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199605130001.KAA21898@zipper.zip.com.au>, Michelle Donald writes >I am curous as to why there are sides in this? It is great that what >is happening is being printed but what does "us vs them" have to do >with it? > >Am I missing something? >BFN >OOROO >Michelle You certainly are! I was expelled from the exec. cttee. of my own Lodge fot *promoting the inernet and Theosophy International!* I went to unattached membership before they kicked me out of the lodge altogether. I was also accused in the letter of dismissal of not holding to theosophical teachings, which is not a requirement of membership, and which was in any case untrue. My theosophical beliefs and opinions *vary* from the norm (if there is one) but I am a theosophist just the same. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon May 13 05:01:49 1996 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 01:01:49 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960513010147_112327644@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Comparing Auras Alex, The experiment, if I remember the details correctly, utilized both remote viewers who had a high degree of accuracy in aura reading as well as viewers in the same room. In addition, aura viewing equipment was tested. The opposition, so to speak, used a visualization technique to blank the aura. The result was that in over 70% of the trials, the viewers were not able to see an aura and in 25% the viewing equipment left a blank screen. In all cases, once any noise, and it did not have to be a loud one like a bell or hand clap, occurred, the viewer was able to again detect the aura. No psionic equipment was used in these tests and for some reason they ended before it could be brought in. One of these days I am going to have to replicate the study and see what effect my equipment has on both ends. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon May 13 05:02:04 1996 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 01:02:04 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960513010203_112327769@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Comparing Auras Alex, Chaos Magician refers only to the school of magick founded by A. O. Spare. It is merely a label and not to be taken too seriously. I mention them because they tend to be as cynical about such things as I am. As you know, I have a different idea of responsibility than you do. I believe that the more power is available, the less the responsibility because the more powerful one is the less accountable, in practical terms one, is because there is less available to hold one accountable. A traffic cop is not going to do much good against an invading armored division. Now, about this Sangreal business, is that anything like Sangria? (hic) :-) Seriously, one can make a very good case that the old families lost their position when they became too concerned about responsibility and not enough about power. The principle I operate under is that in nature (not society, that's a different matter) either something works or it doesn't and if it works, it's right. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon May 13 05:02:09 1996 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 01:02:09 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960513010207_112327797@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Nobody Knows? (Reply to Chuck) Alex, Michelles (sorry about the mistype) was an Italian political theorist at the turn of the 20th century who posited that any organization, no matter how democratic it claimed to be, would have a ruling oligarchy in fact running it. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon May 13 05:02:11 1996 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 01:02:11 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960513010210_112327819@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Comparing Auras Alex, STOP THAT!!!! You're going to ruin my image! If people start thinking of me as being ethical they'll come up with all sorts of rules they expect me to follow and then get mad at me if I don't. Right now, no one expects me to follow any rules and they accept me as I am. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon May 13 05:02:14 1996 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 01:02:14 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960513010214_112327836@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: summer school (reply to michelle) Michelle, I don't think there is any way to make those damned seminars practical. If it were up to me I'd get rid of the blasted summer school and call it what it is, a family reunion for TSA members who basically come to see friends they only get to see one week out of the year, maybe have one or two talks a day and then just socializing. I am hesitant to go into details about the practical application of theosophy. It is different for everyone and what is right and proper and laudable to one may be absolutely yeechy for another. I view it as something that cannot be taught in a class or preached about, but something that comes naturally with experience. In the US we have a situation where the TS is spread out all over the landscape and except for the summer gathering of the clan we do not get to know each other very well. It is very difficult to create a nucleus when the protons and neutrons, to say nothing of a few of us charming and strange quarks, do not get time to visit because we are being bored to death by the ten thousandth repetition of the Proem to the SD. The ones who are interested in it have already memorized it and do not need a seminar on it. The ones who are less concerned are not going to be made more interested by being put to sleep and when you are a night person like me, nine in the morning is the time one is just waking up, not listening to lectures. Even so, there are those who like that sort of thing, and I would not deny them their pleasures. I would hope that room could be made for both. For while there is nothing to prevent attendees from playing hooky (and I do, a lot) it seems that the bulk of the people there feel an obligation to attend every session and guilty if they do not. That's why I would like to see room built into the schedule, so no one should feel that they are not fulfilling their theosophical duty but missing a talk to visit with friends. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From alexei@slip.net Mon May 13 05:29:20 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 22:29:20 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960513052920.006a1714@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Dangers of Psychism At 05:27 PM 5/12/96 -0400, you wrote: > > Although the above quote could have been written >by a theosophist, it was taken from Aleister Crowley's Liber O. >Even AC recognized the real dangers of psychism, and provided >suitable warnings. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Jerry: Yes the above could have been written by a theosophist, but Aleister Crowley, while not a Theosophist that I know of, was certainly the next best thing. Growing our of his relationship with MacGregor Mathers (who had been a theosophist) and his experience in The Golden Dawn which has to be accepted as an outgrowth of the Esoteric Section, as it was when Blavatsky lived, Crowley and all the other Golden Dawn Folk were kind of Theosophists by default. Crowley himself fell victim to all the dangers he spoke of, which I feel are far more prevalent in ceremonial Magic than in plain psych ism, but then he had two problems, he was extremely neurotic as a response to his persecution by the sexual majority, and he indulged far too much in Heroin and cocaine which will cause anyone to "fall victim" to the negative side of (in his case) Magick. His persecution, first a Oxford and then by the Golden Dawn cost the world a major adept. alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon May 13 05:50:35 1996 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 22:50:35 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960513055035.00699e18@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Adyar leadership At 09:30 PM 5/12/96 -0400, you wrote: >Hi Alexis >> >> I should be extremely interested to find out exactly what "rules" the >> Russians refused to comply with. I understand it was some of these Adyar >> Instituted "Rules" that caused the Canadian Section to be bounced. I have > >I understand that they didnt comply with the requirements of a >section. I want to know specifically which "requirements" they didn't comply with. I know the Canadians got in trouble for complying with Canadian Government Regulations. > >> always been under the impression that the only qualification required for >> membership in The Theosophical society was that one "supported or agreed >> with, the Three Objects". > >This is the rules for an individual member to join. There are a set >of rules both Internationally and Nationally that set out the >requirements that allow any group or body to call itself the TS. When, and by whom, were these "rules" and "regulations" established. > > >> Russians, if they support the three objects, and we all know that they do, > >I wonder how we all know this - I know none of these folk myself and >cant say that I know what they as individuals think on any matter let >alone the three objects. The problem as I understand it isnt with the >individuals and their individual commitment but rather with the >groups rules and regulations. Well, in the first place they've risked life and limb to remain what they call theosophists, that would